On 26^th November 2024, the Swedish government presented the findings of a public inquiry outlining how a potential new law could oblige some public sector workers to denounce undocumented people they come in contact with to the immigration authorities.

According to the inquiry, the Swedish government should oblige the following governmental agencies in Sweden to automatically report undocumented people to the Police Authority as they come in contact with them: the Public Employment Service, Social Insurance Agency, Prison and Probation Service, Enforcement Agency, Pensions Agency and Tax Agency. The Swedish police may then pass on the information to the Migration Agency or the Security Service. It also proposes that the Swedish Economic Crime Authority and the Prosecution Authority should be obliged to provide information upon request from an enforcement agency.

The inquiry proposes exemptions for health services, schools and social services.

The government’s initiative to launch this public inquiry (included in the government’s coalition programme) had been heavily and widely criticised by several actors, including university teachers, welfare professionals, health care workers, teachers, municipal workers and library staff.

All denounce that mandatory reporting would lead to discrimination and stigmatisation, and fuel growing racism. Public workers would have to act as border guards and compromise their professional independence and integrity.

The public inquiry may form the basis of a new law proposal by the Swedish government in the next months.

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said: “Contrary to the inquiry’s claims, reporting obligations always have significant and harmful consequences for both individuals and society. At a minimum, they foster a climate of fear and hostility, undermining trust in public institutions, while violating Sweden’s human rights commitments. Exemptions will not mitigate these harms. We stand with national partners in urging the Swedish government to reject this reporting obligation and protect the principles of human rights.”

John Stauffer, acting Executive Director at Civil Rights Defenders, said, “Despite exemptions, this proposal risks fueling the fear of being reported, which is already today prevents undocumented migrants from accessing their rights. Rights must be accessible in practice. Realising the right to health, education, housing, protection, and an adequate standard of living requires that people feel able to claim their rights without fear.”

Hannah Laustiola, Executive Director of Doctors of the World Sweden, said, “While we are relieved that there is no proposal of a reporting obligation for health care personnel, the risk for negative consequences of a reporting obligation remains as long as there are institutions bound by the obligation. On the one hand, there is a risk that undocumented migrants, who already live in fear of deportation, will not be reached by the information that their right to health care is unchanged, and on the other hand, we see that the mere proposal of such a law has rendered public servants prone to act in violation of existing laws of classified information and the right to health.”

Ulrika Modéer, Secretary General of the Swedish Red Cross, said, “We welcome that schools, healthcare, and social services are not included in the obligation to provide information in the presented proposal, but some damage has already been done. But we must analyse further what it means that the Swedish Tax Agency will be obliged to provide information to the Police Authority, and what the Agency’s relationship to local social services will mean for victims of domestic violence. The government’s earlier lack of clarity in specifying the directives of the investigation has created fear among undocumented individuals, undermining trust in public institutions and civil society. Many avoid seeking help, which particularly impacts already vulnerable women and children.”

Jacob Lind, Postdoctoral researcher in international migration at Malmö University, said, “Much harm has already been done as the proposal has impacted the trust undocumented migrants have in society. A handful of public authorities, such as the tax and pension authorities, will now have a duty to report and this can still have implications for migrants’ access to their human rights. The main problem is that this new proposed legislation makes it easier to extend the list of authorities at a later stage with less work. The most positive takeaway from this is that collective mobilisation works. The politicians were telling the unions, civil society and other critics to wait for the investigation and then come with their criticism. But if the critics had listened to this and not resisted already before the investigation was published, it could have had a very different outcome.”

In a final vote on 19 November 2024, the EU Council passed a new EU Regulation banning products made from forced labour, which largely neglects the realities and needs of migrant workers.

While this new law is often referred to as the ‘Forced Labour Ban regulation’, the ban actually targets products, not forced labour itself. The new regulation bans products that are proven to be made with forced labour (either inside the EU or imported from outside the EU).

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “While the intention to fight forced labour is certainly positive, banning products alone is not enough to help workers affected by forced labour and may even put them in situations of heightened vulnerability. This Regulation does little to address their situation, especially for those with precarious residence status and those undocumented.”

The Regulation adopted does not foresee consultation or engagement with workers involved, nor does it foresee remediation or access to better conditions for victims of forced labour who made the products. The risk is that workers experiencing forced labour will simply lose a (however precarious and inadequate) source of income without having the chance to get justice and remedy.

Workers whose residence status is dependent on the employer or undocumented workers would risk immigration enforcement if they engage with the authorities during the investigations around cases of forced labour.

The Regulation does allow all interested parties to file complaints, but without strong confidentiality provisions, protection from retaliation and the prospect to obtain redress, it is difficult to imagine how workers could use it.

The EU anti-trafficking framework is not enough to protect these workers and cannot be used as a stopgap for the shortcomings in this new Regulation. Even when undocumented workers are victims of trafficking or forced labour, they are often treated as offenders due to their immigration status and required to leave the country or are deported as a result of interacting with law enforcement and labour inspectorates. In some cases, they may obtain a temporary residence permit as long as there are criminal proceedings they are able to cooperate with. But access to remedy, including secure residence permits and compensation, remains sorely lacking.

Suzanne Hoff, International Coordinator of La Strada International, said: “While the adoption of the EU Forced Labour Regulation is a positive step forward, the level of proof required to initiate an investigation is high, putting much burden on exploited workers and NGOs to trace all evidence, while there is little obligation to remedy workers in cases of serious misconduct”.  

When implementing this Regulation, EU member states must:

• Clearly separate investigations from immigration enforcement, so that investigative authorities do not report undocumented people to immigration enforcement;
• Foresee systematic consultation with involved workers and their representatives throughout the investigation and banning process, and ensure it is safe for them to do so;
• Decriminalise victims of forced labour and provide those with precarious residence status or undocumented with the opportunity to regularise their status and find new employment, as well as other supports to access remedy and rights such as payment of back wages and compensation.

The Finnish right-wing government is set to table a draft law that restricts access to public health care for undocumented people in Finland.

According to this proposal, undocumented people would be barred from accessing non-emergency health care, with few exceptions.

Should this become law, conditions like diabetes or asthma could be left untreated, with serious risks for the person and higher chances that they will end up in emergency care in the future.

The proposal, tabled by the right-wing Orpo government, seeks to overturn a 2023 law that had allowed undocumented people to access necessary care beyond emergency situations. Necessary care was defined as any care deemed necessary by a health professional.

The limited exceptions foreseen in the new proposal fail to provide meaningful protections.

While children would retain full access to health care, their undocumented parents or other caretakers would not, which in turn would strongly impact on children’s health.

People who are in an “extremely vulnerable position regarding their health” would still get access to health care, but no clarity is given as to who this concerns and how this would be evaluated.

Other limited exceptions would be made for pregnant women, people with disabilities, and for vaccinations and treatments against certain infectious diseases that are deemed to pose a risk to public health.

Outside these limited exceptions, people would risk finding themselves with untreated conditions and ultimately in life-threatening situations.

Quotes

Aino Tuomi-Nikula, Advisor, Physicians for Social Responsibility, said, “Those who tabled this proposal pretend that we don’t have enough money for everyone and that full access to health care would invite more people to Finland. We know this is not true, and that it’s actually cheaper to treat conditions in advance by primary health care than leaving them to emergency care. This measure is a political stunt to crack down on marginalised people and bank on public fears of migrants.”

Louise Bonneau, Advocacy Officer, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said, “Healthcare is a basic human right, not a privilege reserved for some. This law, if passed, would lead to suffering and betray Finland’s commitment to equality and justice. It must be rejected.”

Dr Christiaan Keijzer, President of the Standing Committee of European Doctors (CPME), said “A discriminatory healthcare policy can only further endanger public health. We stand by the position of the Finnish Medical Association that adoption of this law would contradict fundamental medical ethical principles and would only serve to increase the overall cost to health services by limiting access to necessary care.”

Kirsi Marttinen, Senior Adviser, SOSTE Finnish Federation for Social Affairs and Health, said, “The bill would weaken the constitutionally guaranteed right to necessary care and adequate health services. It would undermine the right to health without discrimination, as secured by international treaties, and goes against other government initiatives to combat racism and promote equality. The proposal itself is based on the wrong assumption that healthcare rights act as a pull or retention factor—there is evidence of precisely the contrary, and it’s concerning when flawed economic arguments become a reason to curb fundamental rights.”

Michelle Gripenberg-Wik, Refugee Advice Centre (Pakolaisneuvonta ry), said, “The right to health is a fundamental and human right that belongs to everyone despite their residence status. Providing only urgent care is not enough to secure this right which Finland has agreed to respect through international agreements. International human rights treaty bodies have even previously criticized Finland for only providing urgent health care for undocumented migrants. The suggested law is very problematic and breaches international human rights obligations.”

Notes to the editors

• This draft law was to be presented to the Finnish Parliament in the week starting on 23rd  September 2024 but this was later delayed. It was first published on 12 June 2024 and subjected to a public consultation until 24 July 2024. Physicians for Social Responsibility submitted their statement (in Finnish) here.
• After its presentation to the Finnish Parliament, the draft law will be sent to the competent parliamentary committees (the Finnish Parliament has only one chamber).
• The cost of necessary care for undocumented people in Finland has been estimated to be approximately 300,000 euros (the reference is the draft law published on the Finnish Official Journal), a drop in the wellbeing service counties’ 24 billion euro budget (data from the government).
• More information about the current 2023 law can be found in this blog.

This press release is based on an article written by PICUM and published on Statewatch’s website.

A draft text proposed by the Belgian Council presidency, just published by Statewatch, furthers the criminalisation of irregular entry in the EU and threatens people helping migrants.

The text, which was presented to other EU member states on 31st May, is a redraft of proposed changes to the law criminalising the facilitation of irregular migration (2002 Facilitation Directive), which has also been used to criminalise migrants and people acting in solidarity with them.

The Belgian redraft will serve as the basis for further discussions within the Council, with Hungary now in the presidency role until the end of this year, in view of adopting a common position on the revised Facilitation Directive.

Marta Gionco, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “This text goes in the direction of more, not less, criminalisation of migrants and those who help them. Sadly, we can expect that the final Council position will follow this trend”

Financial benefit

The Belgian Council presidency’s redraft of the proposed Directive confirms that most member states are against the inclusion of a “financial or material benefit” element in the definition of the criminal offence of facilitation, as already indicated by a previous “non-paper”.

The presidency proposes dividing the offence into two parts. Firstly, for the facilitation of irregular entry into or transit through an EU member state, criminal sanctions would apply even if the facilitator did not receive any financial or material benefit. If there is financial or material benefit, this would be considered as an aggravating circumstance and be sanctioned with maximum sentences of at least three years of imprisonment.

Secondly, for the facilitation of irregular stay, criminal sanctions would apply only if there is financial or material benefit, as is currently the case under the 2002 Directive.

Humanitarian exemption

The presidency proposes two options for exempting humanitarian activity from criminal prosecution, in article 3, both of which are inspired by the Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs.

The first would clarify that the facilitation of irregular entry and transit does not include humanitarian actors or other assistance “aimed at meeting their basic human needs, in order to preserve their human dignity or physical and metal integrity.”

The second would require states to take “the necessary measures to ensure that humanitarian assistance, or any other assistance aimed at meeting their basic human needs, in order to preserve their human dignity or physical and metal integrity” are not criminalised.

As both options focus on “basic human needs”, acts of solidarity considered to go beyond such needs would still risk to be criminalised.

Limiting “basic human needs” and family members

The redraft further limits the scope of humanitarian exemptions in relation to “basic human needs” and “family members”, by defining both concepts in restrictive ways.

On “basic human needs”, the amended recital 7 would clarify that these only include food, personal hygiene and a place to stay, and ensuring that people are not put “in a state of degradation incompatible with human dignity.”

On “family members”, the text introduces a further limitation to recital 7, narrowing down the definition of family members (who would be exempt from criminalisation) only to spouses or unmarried partners in a stable relationship, parents, children and siblings.

Removal of public instigation offence

The Commission’s proposal includes the offence of “publicly instigating” irregular entry, transit, or stay, a move that was sharply criticised by UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders, amongst others.

The Special Rapporteur highlighted the serious risk that this provision would be used against civil society organisations and have a chilling effect on the much-needed provision of information and services to migrants.

The presidency redraft deletes this offence. Member states had previously raised concerns about the proposal, with the German delegation commenting that “this affects freedom of expression and possibly also freedom of the press. This should be avoided.”

New joint study by European refugee and migrant rights’ networks ECRE and PICUM finds that EU funds for border management are being used to build harmful infrastructure to control external borders, leading to human rights violations. Crucial information on the assessment of such programmes and how the Commission addressed risks of rights violations was only accessible for this research through freedom of information requests.

The study focuses on the Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI), which boasts a 6.2 billion euros budget for 2021 – 2027 to fund equipment, personnel capacity, infrastructures, and technology to be used at the EU’s external borders. Overall, member states have so far received 4 billion euros, an increase of 45% compared to the resources received under the Internal Security Fund – Borders & Visa for 2014 – 2020.

Despite the European Commission ruling out the possibility to use these funds to build fences and walls, we find that the BMVI can already support measures that may disproportionately impact the rights of migrants and refugees. For example, some countries are using BMVI funding for border surveillance technology to either complement or replace physical surveillance.

Key examples:

• Estonia will spend 2 million euros on mobile remote sensing systems to increase border surveillance in areas “where it is not economically feasible to build a permanent infrastructure”.
• Poland aims to “reduce the physical surveillance of the border” by investing in light-detecting systems on watch towers, alarm systems, portable thermal and night vision devices, and motion-activated security cameras at the borders with Russia, Belarus and Ukraine.
• Croatia, Lithuania, Poland and Spain have acquired or are planning to acquire sniffer dogs to help border guards in patrolling borders and chasing and apprehending people who have crossed the border. In Croatia, dogs have already been used to threaten and bite migrants to push them back to the border.
• Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Romania and Slovakia will invest in new vehicles equipped with integrated thermal imaging cameras, satellite communication, and x-ray identification systems, with off-road capabilities. In Lithuania, EU resources will allow the purchase of a stationary search detector for persons hidden in vehicles.
• Croatia, Lithuania, Slovenia, and Spain are planning to purchase vehicles for transporting migrants apprehended at the borders to police outposts and facilitate their expulsion to neighbouring countries. This practice constitutes “internal pushbacks” to other member states in informal procedures which have been found illegal by courts in Italy, Slovenia and Austria.
• Hungary’s strategy includes integrating artificial intelligence into vehicles for ground and air reconnaissance operations, potentially involving the employment of drones and other unpiloted vehicles. Greece and Estonia will also use drones and other unpiloted aircraft to expand their aerial surveillance capacity.
• Despite continuously documented challenging conditions of reception centres, Greece is using BMVI resources to run the hotspots on the islands and Cyprus is using BMVI funding to operate the first reception centre in Pournara (just outside Nicosia). Greece is also the country receiving the largest proportion of BMVI resources in absolute terms, with more than 1 billion euros, despite multiple European Court of Human Rights condemnations and continuous reports of persisting degrading conditions, prison-like conditions and restriction of movements in the state-managed centres. Some of these concerns were confirmed by the European Commission’s decision to launch an infringement procedure against the reception conditions in the hotspots in January 2023.
• The BMVI can also finance measures targeting support for people with vulnerabilities and international applicants. This may include procedures for the identification of vulnerable persons and unaccompanied children, information provision to and referral of people in need of international protection and victims of human trafficking, as well as the development of integrated child protection systems. However, the research found that 0.04% of the national programmes (around 1.3 million euros) is devoted to assistance and protection priorities (Croatia and Finland).

Monitoring and evaluation

Member states monitor the implementation of the BMVI programme through dedicated national monitoring committees, which should include experts in fundamental rights like civil society organisations, national human rights institutions, and potentially the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. But our research finds that civil society organisations are often underrepresented in monitoring committees and are not given the means to contribute meaningfully.

The Commission plays a key role in assessing the programmes’ compliance with fundamental rights. However, only thanks to requests for access to documents were we able to see that the Commission had questioned several national programmes during the programming phase, including on lack of access to asylum procedures in Greece, reception and detention conditions in Cyprus and Greece, allegations of pushbacks and discrimination issues in Poland, and deficiencies in judicial independence in Hungary.

What remains unclear is how the Commission came to eventually approve all programmes following murky exchanges with the member states in question. The European Parliament criticised this lack of transparency in the assessment process and initiated a lawsuit against the Commission concerning its decision to disburse over 10 billion euros of EU funds to Hungary, including BMVI funding.

Chiara Catelli, Policy Officer at ECRE and PICUM, said: “The European Commission’s refusal to allow financing of walls and fences is a fig leaf to cover other harmful measures that border funds can already support in member states. Our research finds that BMVI funding is used for an increasingly complex and digitalised system of border surveillance, forming an interconnected web of controls which harms people who come to the EU’s borders.”

“The EU and its member states must ensure that they respect the fundamental rights of people at the borders, including their protection from refoulement, inhuman or degrading treatment and right to life, as well as their often neglected right to access legal support and legal remedy.”

As the EU Council decided on 13 June to prolong temporary protection for people displaced by the war in Ukraine until March 2026, over 130 civil society organisations call on the EU to go beyond temporary renewals and adopt a common, future-proof approach that would lead to long-term residence and that would prevent millions of people in the EU from becoming undocumented.

Temporary protection (as foreseen in the EU Temporary Protection Directive) allows millions of displaced people to reside, work, study and access health care and social protection in the EU. But one-year renewals (which are dependent on decisions taken by the EU Council), leave people in uncertainty about future prospects.

By focusing specifically on one-year renewals of temporary protection, little attention is paid to future scenarios where temporary protection might end, for instance if there is no longer a majority of member states supporting such renewals.

The Temporary Protection Directive foresees that once its protection regime ends, people are channelled into national asylum or migration procedures. But this comes with risks for both displaced people and national administrations. National administrations would risk being overwhelmed by a sudden surge in requests for permits on other grounds, including asylum. Beneficiaries of temporary protection would risk spending months in uncertainty, with less rights than those granted by temporary protection. For instance, a person seeking asylum is often not able to work in the first six months as they wait for the result of their asylum claim.

Because requirements for asylum, work and other residence permits are more stringent than those for temporary protection, and because of lengthy procedures and understaffed administrations, many would risk becoming undocumented.

The signatories urge the EU to propose timely, coordinated, collective and future-proof options for the transition out of temporary protection. This future-proof solution must grant the same level of rights as temporary protection but should last longer and give access to long-term residence permits.

Quotes

Laetitia Van der Vennet, Senior Advocacy Officer, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said: “Failing to think about scenarios once temporary protection officially ends means that millions of people might fall through the cracks of bureaucracy and become undocumented. We need the EU to adopt a common permit that grants at least the same rights as temporary protection, lasts for at least two years and gives people access to longer-term residence in the EU”.

Katharine Woolrych, Advocacy Specialist, HIAS Europe, said: “A one-year extension of the TPD is a welcome move to ensure displaced people have continued access to status and rights. In parallel however we urgently need EU leadership to avoid an uncoordinated transition out of temporary protection. Perpetual renewals of “temporary” protection simply kick the can down the road.”

Ganna Dudinska, Senior Policy Advisor, International Rescue Committee, said: “While we welcome the decision to extend the temporary protection regime for one year to offer some predictability to displaced people, it does not provide a longer-term solution. The policymakers at the EU and national level should use this momentum to develop and offer displaced persons clear pathways to durability taking into consideration the specific needs of the most vulnerable individuals.”

As EU election results come in, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), and others have warned politicians against conceding ground to an extreme right bloc seeking to further erode human rights and the rule of law.

In a linked briefing, PICUM has highlighted how right and far-right parties have pledged to increase human rights violations across Europe, with migrants and racialised people bearing the brunt. This includes: 

• Extending a foreign policy that funds regimes outside Europe in return for violent border control on the EU’s behalf. This threatens migrant and refugee lives, whilst risking putting Europe at the mercy of violent authoritarians and eroding its moral leadership on the rule of law. 
• Increasing both EU and member state overreach in mass surveillance and policing; including through tripling the size of EU border agency Frontex, whose disgraced former director Fabrice Leggeri  is now an MEP for France’s far-right National Rally. 
• Increasing deals with countries outside the EU to process claims for protection in breach of international law.

Most Europeans did not support the far-right. But further concessions to the far-right, as signalled by Austria’s Chancellor, risks further electoral costs to mainstream parties. Tougher migration legislation (like that adopted in France and Germany), proposals by some Scandinavian governments (Sweden and Finland) to report undocumented migrants, as well as the EU Migration Pact, have all failed to stop the rise of the far-right, and may even fuel it. Research published earlier this year has also demonstrated the costs of concession for social democrats. 

Quotes

Michele Levoy, Director of PICUM: 

“Werefuse to accept a cynical EU that undermines its own values and interests by funding regimes that harm people seeking safety and opportunity and takes resources away from social investment and pours them into border management.”

“Together we must join forces for a compassionate Europe that addresses the many genuine emergencies we face collectively, from deepening inequalities to a looming climate disaster. It is time for all of us across the continent to direct our energies towards building a society we all can live and thrive in.”

Giulia Messmer, spokesperson for Sea-Watch (search and rescue NGO):

“European migration politics is already more right-wing than it has ever been. The individual right to asylum is effectively abolished and human rights violations at the external borders are a legalized system.” 

“The new EU Parliament will capitalize on this and have unseen opportunities to deprive people on the move of their rights. If liberal parties such as the Social Democrats do not want to be mere stooges for the new European fascism, right now is the time for a change of course.”

Isabelle Chopin, Director of the Migration Policy Group:

“The new reality of a stronger presence of far-right forces in the EP means noticeable threats towards advancing policies of inclusion and respect for human rights.”

“The new European Parliament must reiterate its commitment to the fundamental values and principles of equality and non-discrimination and ensure they are given a central place in the work programme of the new European Commission.”

Tineke Strik, MEP:

“The rise of the far-right in Europe means the democratic majority in the European Parliament must come together even stronger in defence of our Union’s fundamental values. The far-right’s playbook of scapegoating minorities, portraying asylum seekers as threats, and cracking down on institutions meant to uphold the Rule of Law is an existential threat to everything the EU stands for. This election outcome requires extra vigilance from all EU institutions. It is key to keep the pressure on the centre right parties not to open the door to the far right, and to give true meaning to the European values. The Parliament must at the same time increase the pressure on a new Commission to prioritise upholding the Rule of Law and fundamental rights and hold Member States accountable. Simultaneously, the Council must form a united front against these rising anti-EU tendencies and the European Parliament’s function of scrutinizing the Commission and defending the democratic voice of EU citizens will become ever-more important. I am personally more determined than ever to continue the fight back against this tide; to do everything in my power to ensure that Europe is a safe, dignified, fundamental-rights-compliant and inclusive home to us all.”

Ysé El Bouhali Bouchet, International Migration Officer at CCFD-Terre Solidaire:

“In 2023 alone, over 110 persons died or went missing in the desert between Tunisia and Libya as a result of the externalisation policies conducted by the EU and its member States. These policies, increasingly adopted with various third countries, pose a direct threat to the human rights of people on the move.
More than ever, it is essential that the new European Parliament fulfill its role in safeguarding the fundamental freedoms and human rights, in particular in the field of international migration cooperation.”

Electoral gains for European far-right parties risk leading to even more human rights violations at the EU’s borders and across Europe, against migrants and racialised people.

The leading European People’s Party look set to continue an approach which has undermined human rights and international law, cost lives, and repeatedly failed in its stated aims. Meanwhile, an increased presence in the European Parliament from far-right groups like the European Conservatives and Reformists and Identity and Democracy will create a powerful lobbying presence for the even more hostile migration policies presented in their manifestos. The main risks include:

A foreign policy that threatens refugee and migrant lives while undermining European security

• The EU looks set to strike more deals with third countries to prevent people from reaching Europe; increasingly also tied to development aid and resource access, thereby distorting European foreign policy aims.
• The EU already struck such deals with Turkey in 2015, with Libya in 2017, with Tunisia in 2023, and with Egypt and Lebanon this very year. 
• This model of pouring millions into third countries, including authoritarian regimes, so they keep people out of Europe, has been proven harmful and lethal time and again – most notably through EU assistance to the Libyan “Coast Guard.” 
• A recent media investigation has revealed how EU funds channelled through these deals are being used by third countries to round up Black migrants across North Africa and dump them in the desert with no aid. The investigation reveals that such operations had been known in Brussels for years.

A border policy that undermines human rights in Europe and paves the way for surveillance and overreach in policing. 

• The EPP promised to triple Frontex staff and increase the agency’s budget and powers (it is already the EU’s largest.) This is despite little evidence of institutional change since the agency was accused of serious rights violations by the EU anti-corruption watchdog OLAF, and found complicit in human rights violations in the Mediterranean by international NGO Human Rights Watch. 
• Former Frontex Director Fabrice Leggeri, who resigned after allegations of misconduct from EU anti-fraud agency OLAF, has been elected as an MEP for French far-right party National Rally.
• This follows the sweeping package of rights infringements contained within the New Pact on Migration and Asylum agreed earlier this year.

Increasing deportations to danger

• Right-wing parties across Europe are looking at ramping up deportations of people seeking asylum to supposedly “safe” third countries for the processing of their asylum claim, and for hosting those who would be granted asylum. This would mean more agreements like the UK-Rwanda deal, which has been much criticised by the UN and national institutions and civil society for violating international law and exposing people to abuse and human rights violations. And it would validate and generalise agreements like the one between Italy and Albania, which would see Italy transfer people rescued at sea to the Balkan country with no guarantees against abuses in the new detention centres.

A full overview of what EU parties’ manifestos say about migration can be found here.

On 29 May, international and Swedish NGOs, trade unions, academics and faith-based organisations will be heard in the Swedish Parliament about the government’s proposal to oblige public sector workers to report undocumented people they come in contact with to immigration enforcement and/or police.

The proposal was included in the coalition programme of the government in 2022, (the Tidö Agreement, p.33) and is currently being studied in a public inquiry before concrete legislation is tabled.

The proposal has been heavily and widely criticised by a number of actors, including university teachers, welfare professionals, health care workers, teachers, municipal workers and library staff.

All denounce that mandatory reporting would lead to discrimination and stigmatisation, and fuel growing racism. Many undocumented children would no longer be able to attend school, while undocumented patients would find it difficult to access health care. Teachers, doctors and other public workers would have to act as border guards and compromise their professional independence and integrity.

The proposal would also have a detrimental effect on access to justice and protection for undocumented victims of crime and is likely to further prevent such victims and witnesses from reporting abuse to the police or agreeing to give evidence in criminal proceedings.

The Swedish government also instructed (p.16) the public investigator to consider “consequences” for those who do not comply with the obligation to report.

Over 4000 health care workers already pledged to commit civil disobedience and refuse to report their patients should the measure be implemented in the healthcare sector. Several directors of Swedish regional health care authorities voiced criticism towards the proposal.

The Swedish Teachers’ Council on Professional Ethics also strongly criticised the proposal and encouraged teachers to commit civil disobedience should the proposal become law. Nine out of ten librarians contest the proposal.

The Tidö agreement foresees to investigate the possibility of introducing limited exemptions from the obligation to denounce undocumented people, without promising that such exemptions would later be applied. But no exemption, whatever its extent, can mitigate the harm of this proposal: any reporting obligation is harmful and discriminatory, and should be rejected.

The results of the public inquiry should be made public by 30 September 2024.

QUOTES:

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants:

“This proposal is utterly inhumane. This is part of a growing trend that criminalises solidarity with undocumented people across Europe, which exacerbates their marginalisation and segregation. Everywhere where obligations to denounce undocumented people have been applied, the result has been more discrimination, suffering and fear. Clear safeguards are urgently needed against data sharing between public services and immigration authorities. The Swedish government should withdraw this proposal and ensure all people can access public services safely, without risking detention and deportation”.

Jacob Lind, Postdoctoral researcher in international migration at Malmö University:

“This proposal is a paradigm shift in the position of human rights in Sweden, a country that for a long time has been perceived by others as a role model on the international stage when it comes to promoting human rights.”

Hannah Laustiola, Executive Director of Doctors of the World Sweden:

“The proposal of a duty to report irregular migrants in Sweden is not only counter-productive, but also seriously harmful for individuals, the professionals bound by such a duty, as well as for society at large. With over 30 years of experience in working with irregular migrants, Doctors of the World Sweden can safely conclude that such a law would lead to even more people refraining from seeking health care, resulting in worsened health conditions at best, and premature death at worst.”

Anna Troberg, Chair of cultural sector trade union DIK:

“A vast majority — more than nine out of ten — of Swedish librarians are strongly opposed to reporting undocumented migrants to the police, and rightly so. They are librarians, not border patrol. Many say they would rather lose their jobs than report those in need. If the Swedish government advances this law, the librarians will come out on the right side of history. Ultimately, this is a question of trust, humanity and democracy.”

Heike Erkers, Chair of the Union for Social Sciences, ASSR:

“This measure would be disastrous not least for social services. We need to ensure that social services continue to be a safe space for all in our country to ensure that people in need will get help and support.”

It’s also about the potential breach of confidentiality and erosion of trust to society that our members are working so hard to ensure. This potential law would result in a growing number of people hiding and being exploited in appalling conditions.”

Bishop Andreas Holmberg, Church of Sweden, Stockholm diocese:

“I share a concern with many within the Church of Sweden, not least among my deacon sisters and brothers, about how a reporting obligation can affect the vulnerable people we meet. We are really concerned that our close cooperation with the public sector and civil society may be obstructed if a reporting obligation becomes a reality. I am particularly concerned about how such a law will affect children who are already living in great vulnerability.”

MEP Malin Björk, Swedish Left Party:

“Forcing public servants to denounce undocumented migrants to the police would be a breach of the Convention of the Human Rights, the Convention of the Rights of Children and the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. The current Swedish government depends on extreme right wing party Sweden Democrats, which would like to make it mandatory for all citizens to denounce undocumented persons. This kind of law has no place in modern, democratic societies”.

The EU Council has adopted changes to the EU Anti-Trafficking Directive which fail to address root causes of trafficking and fail to protect and empower trafficked people. 

Lilana Keith, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “The revision of the Anti-trafficking Directive is a wasted opportunity to make a difference for trafficked people. The changes don’t address the barriers to safe reporting, remedy and compensation, they don’t improve access to residence permits. The focus was narrowly on doubling down on a criminalisation approach that’s ineffective and actually raises concerns for victims and those at risk.” 

One of the main changes is that the revised Directive obliges member states to criminalise the knowing use of services of trafficked people, when this was previously optional. This is despite the lack of evidence that this measure is effective in tackling trafficking or strengthening the rights of victims. Currently two-thirds of EU member states already have such a provision, and prosecutions and convictions are rare. On the contrary, further criminalisation will likely harm the rights of sex workers and those who are trafficked and exploited in the sector.  

Sex workers already face a multitude of harms when their clients are criminalised and when targeted by anti-trafficking actions. These risk being exacerbated by criminalising the knowing use of services of trafficked people, due to lack of understanding, fear among clients and discriminatory policing.  

Such measures will likely weaken efforts to enhance identification of trafficked people and their referral to support services, including by clients. Rather than focusing on identifying victims of trafficking, resources will be directed to identifying people who have “knowingly used” the services. Victims can be worse off too, being treated primarily as “witnesses” to an offence and having to testify against the users of their services, rather than victims of trafficking entitled to protection and support. 

The new Directive does introduce the requirement to let trafficked children report abuse in a safe and confidential way, but it fails to extend this crucial provision to adults. Fear of immigration enforcement is one of the major reasons preventing people experiencing abuse from contacting authorities and receiving the protection and services they are due. 

The final text also no longer requires member states to establish independent national Rapporteurs, which are important institutions to monitor human trafficking trends and policy responses.  

The only really positive improvement is that the revised Directive says it must be possible for member states not to punish trafficked people for administrative offences (in addition to criminal offences) they might have committed while trafficked. This should be implemented so that undocumented trafficked people do not face immigration enforcement or any sanction related to their undocumented residence or work. 

Suzanne Hoff, International Coordinator of La Strada International, said: “If there are indications of trafficking, the law already grants the person access to unconditional support, regardless of their status or engagement with authorities or legal proceedings. However, this hardly happens in practice, and also prevents access to remedies. The revision should have addressed this, and incorporated more binding provisions to strengthen rights for trafficked people. This includes the possibility to access a residence permit on personal grounds, the erasure of any criminal record and sanctions linked to their trafficking, and the prefinancing by States of compensation awarded”. 

In a final vote on 12 April 2024, the Council of the EU approved work permit rules for migrant workers that would improve application processes, labour market mobility and possibilities to escape exploitation (the revised Single Permit Directive).

Most notably, the revised Directive seeks to ease procedures for non-EU workers to change employer. Work permits are often issued linked to a specific job, tying the migrant worker to their employer. Changing employer often entails lengthy and costly procedures, keeps workers in great uncertainty and ultimately prevents many from changing employer even when they endure abuse and exploitation. While governments will still be able to require certain conditions to be met, workers will now have a right to change employer and the process should be simpler, faster and more predictable.

In the same vein, the revised Directive also ensures migrant workers can be out of work for a certain period of time without automatically losing their permit. This is a crucial aspect for workers needing or choosing to change employer, as they can use this time to seek alternative work without becoming undocumented. Workers on a single permit will now be able to be out of work for least three months, or six months if they have been on a single permit for more than two years, within the validity of the permit. If there are reasonable grounds that the worker has experienced particularly exploitative working conditions, they can be out of work for an additional three months without their permit becoming invalid. The new law also requires governments to facilitate complaints and access to legal redress for migrant workers.

Some other changes aim to make it easier to apply for and obtain a single permit, in particular: in-country applications must now be accepted if the worker has a valid residence permit in the country and processing times are now capped at 90 days (previously they were 120 days).

Lilana Keith, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said:  “Too often work permits tie migrant workers to their employers, disempower them and enable exploitation. Though far from perfect, this revision of the Single Permit Directive is an important step forward in recognising the right of all workers to change employer and potentially escape situations of abuse.”

This revision is a promising step forward in enforcing the rights of migrant workers and improving their working conditions. Much more though still needs to be done to really break the chain of dependency of workers on their employers – and much will also depend on how national governments implement these new rules.

Following the adoption of this directive by the European Parliament plenary session in mid-March, the Council’s vote is the final step of the legislative process on the revision of the Single Permit Directive. Governments will now have two years to make sure these revised rules are applied on national level.

In a final plenary vote on April 10, the European Parliament sealed a Migration Pact that will likely lead to widespread human rights violations across Europe and at its borders.

Among potential harms, this would mean that:

• Any person coming to Europe without valid travel documents will likely be detained in border facilities, without exceptions regarding age, including families with babies.
• People who are considered not eligible for asylum will risk being directly channelled into deportation procedures, disregarding other existing national avenues for people to stay in Europe, from medical permits to family reunification.
• People will not have any effective legal representation while they undergo administrative procedures at borders. People who appeal their deportation order can be deported while waiting for a decision on their case.
• Racialised communities living in the EU (including EU citizens) will be increasingly profiled as screening procedures are rolled out to identify people who have, at a certain point, entered irregularly across the bloc.
• Member states will be able to derogate from key safeguards when they claim a third country is pushing people to their borders (which the Pact calls “instrumentalisation of migration”).

Our concerns are echoed by international and national human rights organisations across Europe in previous joint statements calling on EU lawmakers to vote down this Pact.

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said: “People move. They always have and always will. We need routes for people to move and settle in safety and dignity. But under the EU Migration Pact people will undoubtedly experience even more violence and pushbacks in their migration journey and at borders.”