Between January and December 2023, at least 117 people faced judicial proceedings in the EU for acting in solidarity with migrants. The majority were charged with facilitation of entry, stay or transit or migrant smuggling (depending on how the crime is defined in the national legislation). The figures stem from media monitoring of different national news outlets conducted by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) throughout 2023.

This is most likely an undercount, as statistical and official data concerning those who are being accused, charged, or convicted for smuggling and related offences is often lacking. Many cases go unreported by the media or because people fear retaliation, especially migrants themselves. In addition, some cases reported by the media might not have been detected by our alert system.

Nonetheless, this data confirm a concerning, ongoing trend observed in previous reports. At least 102 people were criminalised in the EU in 2022. At least 89 people were criminalised between January 2021 and March 2022, and at least 158 were accused of smuggling between 2015 and 2019.

Michele LeVoy, Director of PICUM, said: “These numbers are only the tip of the iceberg of what is actually happening in the European Union. Current trends are likely to worsen as EU proposals to fight migrant smuggling fail to include a binding exemption of humanitarian acts from potential criminalisation.”

Our media monitoring found that the majority of people criminalized were in southern Europe: 74 people were criminalised in Italy and 31 people in Greece. People were also reported criminalized in other countries: six in Poland, three in Malta; two in Latvia and one in Cyprus (there may also be cases in other countries that went undetected in our alert system).  Nearly 60% of people were criminalized for solidarity with migrants on land, and roughly 40% at sea.

Among those criminalised, forty-six people were criminalised for rescuing or helping migrants in distress at sea. Nineteen were criminalised for providing shelter to migrants; 18 for promoting inclusive policies at local level; 17 for trying to stop a deportation, and eight people were criminalized for providing migrants with food, water, and clothes. For example, In one case from Latvia, two citizens were charged with facilitating irregular entry simply because they gave food and water to migrants stranded at the border with Belarus.

The average length of the proceedings is 3.5 years, but many last even longer. In one case from Italy, former Riace mayor Mimmo Lucano, with international renown for the projects on the inclusion of migrants in his village, spent five years in house arrest and under investigation. In another case from Greece, 24 human rights activists, including volunteer lifeguards Sean Binder and Sarah Mardini, have been undergoing legal proceedings for more than four years for charges brought against them for rescuing asylum-seekers at sea. While part of the charges were finally dropped in 2023, the felony charges are still unresolved.   

Among the 42 individuals whose trials were closed in 2023, 40 people received an acquittal. Even if they end in an acquittal, trials still have heavy consequences on people’s finances, personal life, and psychological wellbeing.

People criminalised for crossing borders irregularly

Not only solidarity with migrants is being criminalised under counter-smuggling legislation, but also the very act of migrating. According to our monitoring, between January 2023 and December 2023, at least 76 migrants in Italy, Greece and Spain were criminalised for the sole act of crossing borders irregularly.

At least seven of the people criminalised in 2023 were children at the time of the facts.

LeVoy said: “The criminalisation of solidarity with migrants is deeply tied with the criminalisation of migration itself. These are not two separate issues but are in fact a continuum of restrictive migration policies that make border crossing unsafe and create a hostile environment against those who are considered to have entered in an irregular manner.”

Fifty-three migrants were charged with facilitation of irregular entry for actions including driving a boat, being on boat (12 people charged), and resisting a pushback at sea (9 people charged). The accusations fail to capture the underlying motivations behind these actions, which often include reuniting with family members, covering the cost of the passage, seeking livelihoods, and supporting others. In one case from Greece, a 45-year-old Egyptian man was sentenced to 280 years in prison under the accusation of human trafficking, smuggling, and belonging to a criminal organisation simply because he helped steer the vessel he was in with other 476 migrants, including his son.

Administrative sanctions and non-judicial harassment of NGOs

Our media monitoring also recorded at least 15 cases of non-judicial harassment, concerning 17 individuals and 12 NGOs. These cases are in addition to the 117 described above.

In one third of the cases, the person or the organisation concerned was issued an administrative fine for their actions in support to migrants. Other non-judicial forms of harassment included confiscation of material, police harassment or detention, threats by private groups, restrictions of access to certain locations and to people of concern, and defamation.

In one case from France, three members of the NGO Bidasoa Etorkinekin were taken into police custody in the city of Urrugne for one day after sheltering migrants in a local reception centre. In Italy, search and rescue ships Geo Barents, Humanity 1, Sea Watch Aurora, and Open Arms were all impounded and their crews fined several thousand euros for violating the Italian Legislative Decree 15/2023 that prohibits multiple rescues at sea in one trip. In Cyprus, equality NGO KISA has been facing harassment and attacks for years, including a bombing attack in their offices in January 2024.

MEPs in the European Parliament’s LIBE and FEMM committees voted today on their joint report revising the EU’s rules on victims’ rights (the EU Victims’ Rights Directive).

The committees’ vote improves the European Commission’s original proposal in several ways. The European Parliament LIBE and FEMM committees voted to:

• Allow third parties to report abuse to police (instead of undocumented people having to report a crime themselves). This helps address the need for victims to report crimes without direct involvement with law enforcement.
• Ensure people held in (de facto) immigration detention can report abuse from any place of detention or restricted liberty. This expands the more restrictive scope of what the European Commission’s proposal intended with “detention facilities” and brings it in line with the expected rise in (de facto) immigration detention due to the EU Migration Pact.
• Establish mechanisms for reporting potential crimes committed by public officials while on duty. The Commission’s proposal however did not address abuse perpetrated by public authorities such as police, border guards, and staff in immigration detention centres.
• Ensure access to legal aid free of charge for particularly vulnerable victims, including trafficked persons and victims of violence against women.
• Consider residence status in the individual needs assessment, both in the personal characteristics and the dependence to the offender. This will ensure that the specific needs of undocumented victims linked to their residence status are taken into account.
• Ensure victims can not only obtain a decision on compensation, as the Commission proposed, but also to claim compensation. This will strengthen their right to remedies. 

At the same time, to our regret, the MEPs failed to introduce comprehensive protections from immigration enforcement.

The original revision proposed by the European Commission prohibits police from sharing data related to the victim’s migration status with immigration enforcement from when they report the crime until the completion of the first individual needs assessment. The LIBE-FEMM committees vote lengthens this time limitation until the completion of the criminal proceeding.

But this partial shield is not enough. In line with the right to privacy and data protection enshrined in Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, at no stage should a victim’s residence status be shared with migration authorities. Faced with the risk of detention and deportation, many victims would not report abuse to the police. This means they won’t be identified as victims of crime and won’t receive the support and protection they need and are entitled to.

Michele LeVoy, Director of PICUM, said: “Today’s vote is a welcome step forward in helping undocumented people report abuse safely. But undocumented people must be able to trust that they will not face immigration consequences, including detention and deportation when reporting a crime. We regret that the European Parliament did not take a bolder position to ensure people don’t get punished to get the support they need.”

Suzanne Hoff, Coordinator of La Strada International, said: “We regret that safe reporting protection stops after the completion of criminal proceedings. Especially, we see in practice that victims, including trafficked persons, have no access to support if there are no investigations, and if they do not lead to a successful prosecution. We hope that the Council will use its opportunity to strengthen the text further and ensure equal access to all victims of crime, regardless their residence”.

Over 50 human rights organisations had released a joint statement calling on EU lawmakers to shield undocumented migrants from immigration enforcement when they report abuse to the police, as the EU is discussing new rules to protect victims of crime. Signatories include Amnesty International, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), La Strada International, and Victim Support Europe.

Charities on both sides of the English Channel have hit out at the new cooperation agreement between EU border agency Frontex and UK authorities signed in London today between UK officials and EU Home Affairs Commissioner Ylva Johansson; citing human rights scandals surrounding both organisations and an enforcement approach that is “flawed from conception.” 

• The “integrated border management” between countries described in today’s deal has had serious consequences. Frontex was recently found to be systematically sharing the coordinates of Mediterranean boats in distress with militias and pirates that return people crossing to conditions of abuse and violence. 
• This news came over a year on from the forced resignation of its former director (now a European Parliament candidate for the French far-right National Rally) over the agency’s complicity and cover-ups in Greece’s deadly border campaign, which was supposed to herald a culture change. 
• The number of UK border drownings has doubled in the past year, which rescue NGO Alarmphone says is linked to Anglo-French border policy. UK and French authorities have faced allegations of serious shortcomings in responding to Channel shipwrecks. 
• Meanwhile the UK continues to attempt to undermine its own courts and international refugee law with its plans to outsource its asylum processes to Rwanda, and its abuse-ridden detention estate is widely documented.

Quotes from organisations responding to the move can be found below. 

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Brussels-based Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said:

“Frontex is signing this new agreement with the UK border forces after countless reports of complicity by the EU agency in serious violence.”

“The plan is flawed from conception. Tougher enforcement does not reduce irregular crossings; it only makes people’s journeys more dangerous. These resources should instead be used to provide safe routes and proper support for people seeking safety.”

Mary Atkinson, Campaigns and Networks Manager at the London-based Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, said:

“People move – they always have and always will. It’s something we should welcome, not something which needs to be ‘tackled’ or ‘cracked down’ upon. We urgently need change so that people can move without risking – and too often losing – their lives.

“This latest development is just more of the same tired old thinking. Making our borders more violent has never stopped those in need from coming here and all these measures will do is make it more dangerous. The government needs to wake up and accept that ‘deterrents’ never have – and never will – work. Instead, we need to listen to the evidence and develop policies that prioritise people’s safety and human rights.”

A spokesperson for Calais-based Human Rights Observers said: 

“Frontex, the EU’s biggest agency, which squanders European taxpayers’ money by massively violating human rights, is preparing to land on the French-British border. With at least 28 people killed by the murderous border policies of France and the UK in 2023, the presence of Frontex would only increase the insecurity of people seeking protection.” 

Josephine Valeske at Europe-wide campaign Abolish Frontex said:

“UK border policy has seen deaths by drowning double in the last year, and its government continues to insist on violating both UK and international law by deporting people seeking asylum to Rwanda.” 

“Frontex claims to have made progress on rights – but joining the UK for its new so-called “crackdown” on migration shows that nothing has changed. The EU cannot claim to defend human rights while Frontex continues to exist, and expand a European axis of abuse, at our expense.” 

Over 40 human rights organisations have released a joint statement calling on EU lawmakers to shield undocumented migrants from immigration enforcement when they report abuse to the police, as the EU is discussing new rules to protect victims of crime. Signatories include Amnesty International, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), La Strada International, and Victim Support Europe.

The EU Victims’ Rights Directive, which sets out minimum rights for victims of abuse across the EU, is currently being revised and the Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and Women’s Rights and Gender Equality (FEMM) committees of the European Parliament should vote on their position in April.

The revision proposed by the European Commission includes a prohibition for law enforcement to share personal data related to the victim’s migration status with immigration enforcement only while the first needs assessment is completed. This partial shield is not enough. Undocumented people must be able to trust that they will not face immigration consequences, including detention and deportation, throughout the reporting process.

We urge the European Parliament and the Council to take a clear stance for safety and protection for all victims, and ensure that no data transfer occurs between police and immigration enforcement as a result of undocumented victims reporting abuse.

Michele LeVoy, Director of PICUM, said: “Undocumented people too often fear approaching the police to report abuse because they might risk detention and deportation instead of getting support and protection. The revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive must address this and make sure that everyone can safely report abuse, whatever their migration status.”

“EU lawmakers already failed to protect undocumented women from immigration enforcement should they report abuse to the police in the Directive on Violence Against Women. The revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive – which applies to women as well – must fill this gap and ensure that anyone who reports abuse gets the support they need and is not punished with detention and deportation for coming forward”.

Suzanne Hoff, Director of La Strada International, said: “In the revised EU Anti-Trafficking Directive, EU policy makers were only willing to include safe reporting mechanisms for children victims of trafficking, but not for adults. It is all the more important that this right to safe reporting will be strongly embedded in the new Victims’ Rights Directive. This will do justice to all victims of crime.”

The full statement and policy recommendations can be read here.

Amidst warnings from over 50 Civil Society Organisations, EU lawmakers reached a political agreement on the EU’s New Pact on Migration and Asylum in December. The agreement is a continuation of a decade of policy that has led to the proliferation of rights violations in Europe. Moreover, it will have devastating implications for the right to international protection in the bloc and greenlights abuses across Europe including racial profiling, default de facto detention and pushbacks. Next week, MEPs will be presented with a final chance to reject the files in a Plenary vote, and to give a political signal against the adoption of a Pact that would undermine fundamental rights.

Taken together, the Regulations will usher in a new system for ‘managing migration’ in the EU that is characterised by:

• De facto detention at borders with no exemption for families with children of all ages, accelerated, substandard procedures to assess asylum claims rather than full and fair assessments, and an emphasis on return procedures with lowered safeguards.
• Far more asylum applicants will end up in border procedures and, through the ‘legal fiction of non-entry’, will not be considered as on EU territory, which would lead to lower safeguards and heightens the risk of human rights violations and pushbacks at borders. Even unaccompanied children can be subjected to border procedures and held in de facto detention when state authorities consider them a ‘danger to national security or public order’. Moreover, experience has shown that confining large numbers of people in border areas for prolonged periods leads to chronic overcrowding and inhumane conditions, as witnessed on the Aegean islands.
• Through the broadening of the ‘safe third country’ principle, people asking for asylum will be declared inadmissible and increasingly deported to countries outside of the EU on the basis of a widely-defined connection with those countries, heightening the risk of refoulement.  In the past, this has manifested in failed agreements like the EU-Turkey deal, externalising the processing of asylum claims to third countries.
• In the absence of safe and regular pathways, people seeking safety or livelihoods are forced to take ever more dangerous routes, resulting in 2023 being the deadliest year on record since 2015. In the Mediterranean alone, more than 2,500 individuals were reported as dead or disappeared last year, a figure that is only the tip of the iceberg. The Pact fails to address this, and instead continues to reinforce Fortress Europe.
• An increase in the use of surveillance technologies at all stages of migration and asylum procedures. The Pact represents a step further into the mass surveillance of migrants and racialised people, as more intrusive technology will be deployed at borders and in detention centres, people’s personal data will be collected in bulk and exchanged between police forces across the EU, or biometric identification systems will be used to track people’s movements and increase policing of undocumented migrants. 

Civil society and human rights watchdogs have consistently reported on systematic violations of the fundamental rights of people seeking safety or livelihood, particularly racialised communities by denying them access to shelter, services, and asylum and resorting to pushbacks en masse. All this, whilst pursuing policies that seek to criminalise efforts to help refugees and migrants, and even movement at large, which contributes to a shrinking civic space. The Commission put forth the New Pact as a ‘solution’ for uneven standards in the implementation of a Common European Asylum System across Member States. Yet, the Pact does nothing to remedy this nor support Member States receiving large numbers of arrivals at the external borders. The ‘first country of entry’ principle remains and there will be no mandatory relocation of people saved through Search and Rescue missions – an initiative that could have provided humane and sustainable solutions through the proportionate distribution of asylum applicants throughout Europe. Instead, Member States without external EU borders can avoid responsibility-sharing by financing border fortification and immigration detention facilities in border Member States or by funding dubious ‘projects’ in non-EU countries.

The negotiations were rushed towards closure by the European Commission and the Spanish and Belgian Presidencies of the Council, leading to more than 48 hours of marathon trilogue negotiations and the abandonment of the last minimal safeguards that had been upheld by the Parliament. What remains is an extremely complex legislative framework that does not provide any effective solution to the migration management issues raised over the past years, and fails to keep people safe. The agreement, at its core, replicates every principle of the Council’s negotiating mandate.

We, the undersigned, call on MEPs to reject the Pact in the Plenary vote. It creates a system whereby the right to seek asylum in the EU is severely threatened and will engender a proliferation of human rights violations against people across Europe due to their migration status.

Signing Organisations:

• A World of Neighbours
• A.S.G.I. (Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione)
• Abolish FronteX
• Access Now
• ActionAid International
• aditus foundation
• African Children and Youth Development Network (ACYDN)
• AiA-Alternative Informatics Association
• Alboan
• AMERA International
• Amnesty International
• Andalucía Acoge
• ARCI
• Association for Legal Information (SIP)
• Association promotion droits humains (Migration et droit)
• Associazione ricreativa e culturale italiana (ARCI)
• Avocats Sans Frontières
• Be Aware And Share (BAAS)
• Better Days Greece
• Birlikte Yaşamak İstiyoruz İnisiyatifi (We Want to Live Together İnitiative) / Türkiye (Turkey)
• Bits of Freedom
• Boat Refugee Foundation
• Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN)
• Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)
• Center for Legal Aid – Voice in Bulgaria
• Centre for Peace Studies
• Changemakers Lab
• Churches´Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)
• CILD
• CIRÉ asbl
• CNCD-11.11.11
• Colectivo Indignado
• Colectivos en lucha Extremadura
• Collective Aid
• Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR)
• Community Peacemaker Solidarity – Aegean Migrant Solidarity
• CONVIVE – Fundación Cepaim
• Coordinadora Obrim Fronteres
• Diotima – Centre for Gender Rights and Equality
• Dråpen i Havet / Stagona
• Draseis sti Geitonia
• E.L. Foundation
• ECCHR – European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights
• ECHO100PLUS
• EmpowerVan
• Entreculturas
• Epicenter.Works
• Equal Legal Aid
• Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice
• Equipo Decenio Afrodescendiente- Spain
• EuroMed Rights
• European Alternatives
• European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)
• European Civic Forum
• European Digital Rights (EDRi)
• European Network Against Racism
• European Sex Workers’ Rights Alliance
• Extinction rebellion Málaga
• Federation of protestant churches in Italy (FCEI)
• Fédérations des tunisiens citoyens des deux rives (FTCR)
• Fenix Humanitarian Legal Aid
• Flucht, interkulturelle Arbeit, Migration, Diakonie Hessen,
• forRefugees
• From the Sea to the City
• Fundación para la Innovación, Investigación, Formación y el Desarrollo Comunitario (FÜNDEC)
• Geloof & Samenleving
• Global Peace and Development Organization
• Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)
• Greek Forum of Migrants
• Grenzenlose Wärme – Refugee Relief Work e.V.
• Groupe d’information et de soutien des immigré⋅es (GISTI)
• Grupa Granica
• Hermes Center
• HIAS Europe
• Homo Digitalis
• Hope Cafe Athens
• Human Rights Legal Project
• Human Rights Watch
• HumanRights360
• Humans in the Loop Foundation
• I Have Rights
• Infokolpa
• Instance Nationale de Protection des Biens Publics et de la Transparence au Maroc “INPBPTM”
• Institute Circle
• Inter Alia
• International Rescue Committee
• Irídia-Center for the defense of human rights
• Italy Must Act
• Jesuit Refugee Service Greece (JRS)
• JRS Europe
• JRS Malta (Jesuit Refugee Service)
• Kerk in Actie
• KISA Cyprus
• Klikaktiv
• La Cimade
• LDH (Ligue des droits de l’Homme)
• Legal Centre Lesvos
• Legis
• Lesvos Solidarity (LESOL)
• Lighthouse Relief
• Ligue des droits humains
• Maldusa project
• Médecins sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders
• medico international
• Migrant Voice
• Migration Consortium
• Migration Policy group (MPG)
• Migreurop
• Mobile Info Team
• Movimiento por la Paz (MPDL)
• Mugak Zabalduz
• Mv Louise Michel
• Network for Children’s Rights (Greece)
• No Name Kitchen
• No One is Illegal
• Northern Lights Aid
• Novact
• Ongi Etorri Errefuxiatuak
• Oxfam
• Pan African Alliance on Climate Change
• Peace Institute (Mirovni inštitut)
• Plataforma Ciudadana Caudete se Mueve
• Politiscope
• Privacy International
• PRO ASYL
• Project Armonia
• Project ELPIDA e.V.
• Quaker Council for European Affairs
• r42 – Sail And Rescue
• Reachout Foundation
• Red Acoge
• Red SOS Refugiados Europa
• Red Umbrella Sweden
• ReFOCUS Media Labs
• Refugee Legal Support (RLS)
• Refugees Welcome Italia
• RESQSHIP e.V.
• Salud por Derecho
• Salvamento Marítimo Humanitario
• Samos Volunteers
• Save the Children
• Sea-Eye e.V
• Sea-Watch
• Second Tree
• Seebrücke
• Servicio Jesuita a Migrantes – SJM
• Sienos Grupė (Lithuania)
• SOLIDAR
• SOS Balkanroute
• SOS Humanity
• Statewatch
• Stichting LOS
• Still I Rise
• Stop Border Violence
• The European region of the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA-Europe)
• United Hands for Refugees e.V.
• United4Rescue – Gemeinsam retten e.V.
• Velos youth
• Walk of Shame
• Watch the Med Alarm-phone
• We Gaan Ze Halen (Let’s Bring Them Here)
• WissenschaftlerInnen für den Frieden Deutscland (Academics for Peace in Germany)
• Yoga and Sport with Refugees

This statement was first circulated in February 2024, when it gathered 81 signatures. It was then re-circulated in April 2024, gathering a total of 163 signatures.

EU lawmakers have reached a political agreement on the revision of the Schengen Borders Code that would de facto legitimise racial profiling in border checks.

The reform of the Schengen Borders Code aims at reducing the amount of temporary generalised internal EU border checks. However, it would escalate checks on specific groups of people. In particular, the deal would allow police authorities in joint patrols to carry out “random” document checks near internal EU borders with the aim of apprehending people without valid travel or residence documents. Research has already shown that police tend to stop people for checks based on racial, ethnic, or religious characteristics. It is clear that these checks will depend on police’s decisions about who “looks like” a person without valid papers.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “This agreement embraces a very harmful narrative which assumes that people crossing borders without valid documents are a threat to the EU and proposes to address it by increasing policing, while de facto encouraging racial profiling”.

The deal would also legalise the violent practice of ‘internal pushbacks’, which consists in apprehending and detaining people caught without a valid document near an internal border, and transferring them to the member state the police think the person came from without conducting an individual assessment. It is still unclear which ‘safeguards’ have been introduced to protect children, who are not explicitly excluded from such transfer procedures.

The deal would most likely escalate the use of monitoring and surveillance technologies that do not apply relevant safeguards and would be at odds with existing EU data protection legislation and fundamental rights.

Lastly, the deal would also allow internal checks and increased policing in situations of so-called “instrumentalisation of migration”, that is when a member state claims that a non-EU country or ‘hostile non state actor’ is pushing migrants towards external EU borders for political reasons. This is an extremely problematic concept, whose codification into EU law would introduce broad derogations to fundamental rights, including the right to asylum and freedom of movement.

EU lawmakers have reached a political agreement on a new EU Directive on violence against women that prioritises migration control over women’s rights and needs, according to leaked documents seen by the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM).

The draft Directive, whose final text will need to be voted by the European Parliament and the EU Council in the coming weeks, fails to protect undocumented women from immigration enforcement should they report violence and abuse to police.

In particular, the deal would delete Article 16(5), which was central to the European Commission’s initial proposal and strengthened by the Parliament to ensure that no personal data about victims of abuse, including residence status, would be shared by police with immigration authorities. This would have shielded undocumented women from risks of being detained and deported as a result of reporting abuse.

Instead, that article would be replaced with a non-binding recital 26(a) that invites member states to ensure that non-EU victims “are not discouraged from reporting and are treated in a non-discriminatory manner”.

Such exclusion of a whole group of women from protection and justice is in clear contradiction with the Istanbul Convention, which the EU is bound by since October 2023 and mandates its signatories to ensure all women are treated equally, regardless of their residence status.

This deal would also contradict the EU’s very own rules on victims’ rights (Victims’ Rights Directive) and on data protection (General Data Protection Regulation), both of which provide for rights and safeguards that apply to everyone without discrimination.

Louise Bonneau, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “Who would report violence and abuse if they risked being locked up and deported instead of getting support and protection? This deal exemplifies the EU’s fixation on migration control, at the cost of leaving out a whole group of women who are undocumented or have precarious residence status, and who are more likely to experience violence and abuse precisely because their status puts them in a situation of vulnerability.”

An open letter to negotiators in the European Commission, the Spanish Presidency of the Council of the European Union, and the European Parliament ahead of the final negotiations on the EU Pact on Migration

We are writing as concerned human rights defenders, and as people who see and work with the stark consequences of political choices.

The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum will mirror the failed approaches of the past and worsen their consequences. There is currently a major risk that the Pact results in an ill-functioning, costly, and cruel system that falls apart on implementation and leaves critical issues unaddressed. 

If adopted in its current format, it will normalise the arbitrary use of immigration detention, including for children and families, increase racial profiling, use “crisis” procedures to enable pushbacks, and return individuals to so called “safe third countries” where they  are at risk of violence, torture, and arbitrary imprisonment.

It also betrays the spirit of existing EU work, such as the EU Action Plan on Integration and the EU Action Plan Against Racism which recognises the intersectional impacts of racism and the specific vulnerability of migrants and refugees. The Pact, as it stands, risks perpetuating discriminatory practices within the very structures meant to uphold justice and protection for all. 

We are acutely aware that politics is often about compromise. But there are exceptions, and human rights cannot be compromised. When they are weakened, there are consequences for all of us.  

Rather than channelling funding towards more camps, walls, and surveillance, resources should go towards providing effective solutions, based on protection and assistance, of the kind offered to people fleeing Ukraine. Europe’s solidarity and commitment to human rights cannot be defined by place of origin, race, ethnicity, or immigration status.

We should strengthen, not weaken, our reception and asylum systems and provide mechanisms to fairly share responsibility between European states. We need support for – not restrictions on – rescuing people at sea. We need more, not less, access to legal aid, asylum, medical and social support for people in need. We need real accountability for  border forces that violate our laws. And we need more safe routes for people to move, work and settle in safety and dignity. 

We have recently witnessed a dignified and compassionate response to displacement with the activation of the Temporary Protection Directive. This stands as a testament to the principles of human rights and protection that should guide our collective approach to these reforms. The New Pact must reflect and build upon this dignified response rather than leading Europe in the opposite direction.

There are times when political choices can make a profound difference, for better or for worse, to people’s lives. Today is one such time. We’re asking you to show leadership for the just and compassionate Europe we all want to live in.

Sincerely,

• ActionAid International
• Amnesty International
• Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI)
• Balkanbrücke
• Be Aware And Share (BAAS)
• Birlikte Yaşamak İstiyoruz İnisiyatifi / We Want to Live Together Initiative
• The Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN)
• Caritas Europa
• Centre for Legal Aid “Voice in Bulgaria“
• Civil initiative Infokolpa
• CNCD – 11.11.11.
• Collective Aid
• Churches´ Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)
• Divest Borders
• Dokustelle
• Equal Legal Aid
• Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice
• EuroMed Rights
• Europe Cares
• European Anti-Poverty Network (EAPN)
• European Lawyers for Democracy and Human Rights (ELDH)
• European Network Against Racism (ENAR)
• European Network on Religion and Belief (ENORB)
• Generation for Change CY
• Greek Forum of Migrants (GFM)
• Grenzenlose Wärme – Refugee Relief Work e.V.
• Habibi.Works (Soup and Socks, e.V.)
• I Have Rights
• Intereuropean Human Aid Association Germany e.V.
• International Rescue Committee
• Ivorian Community of Greece
• JRS Europe
• KISA – Action for Equality, Support, Antiracism
• La Cimade
• Legal Centre Lesvos
• Ligue des Droits de l’Homme (LDH)
• Love Without Borders
• Media and Migration Association (MMA)
• Mobile Info Team
• NLA (Northern Lights Aid)
• Oxfam
• Pikett Asyl
• Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM)
• ReFOCUS Media Labs
• Refugee Legal Support (RLS)
• Refugees in Libya
• Revibra Europe
• Samos Volunteers
• Save the Children
• SIEMPRE Belgium
• SOLIDAR
• S.P.E.A.K (Muslim Women Collective NL)
• Voices of International Students (VOIS Cyprus)
• Women’s Healthcare on the Move
• Yoga and Sport with Refugees

European legislators are considering new policies that could see children as young as six subjected to immigration detention and accelerated border procedures, multiple sources close to negotiations have said. Human rights organisations including Save the Children, PICUM, EuroMed Rights and Border Violence Monitoring Network have strongly criticised the proposals. The revelations were made by negotiators representing the Spanish Presidency of the EU Council during trilogues on Tuesday 5 December. 

This would mark a dramatic break with current proposals, which already allowed for children from the age of twelve to be placed in border procedures, and follow linked plans to fingerprint children aged six and over through Eurodac. The original proposal already failed to comply with the internationally recognised definition of children, which does not allow any discrimination between persons under eighteen in the enjoyment of their fundamental rights and procedural guarantees.

It comes as a paper leaked on Wednesday night revealed a no-compromises mood from the Spanish Presidency as it revealed its position on the controversial New Pact on Migration and Asylum. The Presidency hopes to seal political deals on the Pact by Christmas. 

The new document: 

• Resolves to ignore parliamentary and human rights monitors’ concerns about widespread racial profiling and screening across the EU (not just at borders). The leaked paper states: “Despite the Parliament’s strong opposition, mainly due to concerns on potential discrimination based on race, the Presidency remains firm on maintaining this provision that is a strong priority for the Council.”
• Resolves to preserve a principle called the “legal fiction of non-entry”, whereby individuals who set foot in a processing facility– which can be anywhere in the EU – aren’t automatically regarded as being on EU soil, even though they technically are, because their presence has not been authorised. This allows the lowering of standards, such as more swift border procedures. 
• Preserved the principle of accepting relocated refugees and providing funding to third countries for border externalisation as measures “of equal value.”

Legislators and civil society organisations say that the effects of these policies, combined with proposals being discussed on the immigration detention of children, would give a green light to six-year olds being detained and deported into danger, and continue to call for an unconditional exclusion of children from border procedures.

Willy Bergogné, Europe Director at Save the Children, said: 

“European leaders are debating the age at which children should be locked up at EU borders. Their alleged crime: seeking protection in a region that prides itself on exporting human rights to the world. Europe should stand as a haven, protecting and welcoming children instead of detaining and deporting them.”

“Our asylum system must work to safeguard children with a Migration Pact that ensures, not threatens, children’s rights. This means no child detention or deportation, swift family reunions, and all migration decisions made in children’s best interests.”

Michele LeVoy, Director of the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said:

“The new move to detain and deport children as young as six is the product of a series of rushed last-minute deals. This is a low blow to internationally-recognised child rights which stipulate that no child should be put in immigration detention. Countries around the world have made a commitment to work towards ending immigration detention of children. This cannot be how Europe is governed.”

Hope Barker, Senior Policy Analyst at Border Violence Monitoring Network, said: 

“This new dystopian proposal to lock up six year olds, announced at the eleventh hour, is the iceberg tip of a humanitarian disaster.”

“The New Pact strips down rights and liberties for people across Europe regardless of their migration status. It’s ill-considered, won’t work, and flies in the face of Europe’s professed values. Negotiators should take it back to the drawing board.”

Nineteen human rights organisations across Europe, alongside aid workers and survivors of human rights abuses, say that a crunch summit in Brussels on December 7th risks “opening the door to abuses across Europe” including racial profiling and pushbacks, in a “potentially irreversible attack” on the international system of refugee protection and the rule of law.

The organisations, which include Amnesty International, Border Violence Monitoring Network, EuroMed Rights, Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants,  and Save the Children, have sounded the alarm on wide-ranging issues in the EU Migration and Asylum Pact. This comes following the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 4-5 December and ahead of a “Jumbo Trilogue” on the key legislative files of the Pact on 7 December.

Campaigners’ principal concerns relate to: 

• The further entrenchment of “pushbacks” at borders, which have been linked to hundreds of people’s deaths, injuries, and rights violations at the hands of EU Member State border forces. 
• The increase in the use of detention across Europe, including of children and families, in a model which has led to people remaining incarcerated, in legal limbo and in dire physical conditions. 
• The risk of racial profiling of people who live in and come to Europe, whatever their citizenship or residence status, as surveillance-backed screening procedures are rolled out across the bloc. 
• The deepening of “externalisation” policies where European migration control is outsourced to third countries without scope for accountability, which has in turn been linked to deaths at sea, widespread torture and inhuman conditions.
• The focus on deportations while lowering procedural safeguards, despite the risk of serious harm if people are returned to a third country.  This combined with the use of a dangerous “safe third country” enables Member States to evade their responsibility to provide reception and protection. 
• The mandatory use of asylum border procedures, which forces people into de facto detention with limited access to legal assistance, representing a severe blow to the right to asylum in international law. These standards could be lowered even further in an unacceptably broad and vague range of so-called ‘crisis’ situations.
• The failure of the Pact to address the substantive issues it claims to, such as the distribution of asylum claims across member states. 

The Spanish Presidency of the Council of the EU aims to close all political deals on the Pact on 7th December. Rights defenders are warning that “complex decisions with huge consequences are being rushed through.” 

The organisations involved in this release, besides PICUM, are: AMERA International, Amnesty International, Associazione Ricreativa e Culturale Italiana, Border Violence Monitoring Network, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Centre for Peace Studies Croatia, CNCD-11.11.11, Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado, European Network Against Racism, EuroMed Rights, Greek Refugee Council, Irídia, Jesuit Refugee Service Europe, KISA Cyprus, La Cimade, Ligue Algérienne pour la Défense des Droits Humains, Ligue des Droits Humains, and Save the Children.

Quote pack 

Michele LeVoy, director at PICUM, said: 

“The Migration Pact in its current form opens the door to human rights abuses, providing implicit and explicit EU backing for the arbitrary deprivation of liberty and severe human rights violations that have become commonplace at or near EU borders.” 

“This Pact reflects Europe’s obsession with deportations, based on the assumption that if you don’t qualify for international protection, then you have no right to stay in the EU. What this approach blatantly overlooks is that people move for many different reasons and may have a right to access residence permits other than those linked to asylum.”

Parvin A, a woman who was severely beaten, detained and pushed back from Greece six times and later filed a complaint at the UN Human Rights Committee, said: 

“It is unbelievable that they want to use ‘safe third countries’ even more. Turkey is not a safe third country in my experience – I am a person who had status from UNHCR, that was then taken away by the Turkish authorities.” 

“If they really pursue this New Pact, it will be against any kind of human or refugee rights. They are playing with the lives of people who are vulnerable and in danger.” 

Willy Bergogné, Europe Director at Save the Children, said: 

“Our asylum system must work to keep children safe with a Migration Pact that safeguards, not threatens, children’s rights. This means no child detention or deportation, swift family reunions, and migration decisions made in children’s best interests.” 

“One in every four people arriving in Europe is a child – and those people arriving should be protected and supported, not face chaos and abuse.”

Hope Barker, Senior Policy Analyst at BVMN, said: 

“The Migration Pact in its current form opens the way for a new archipelago of detention camps where people – including children – are arbitrarily locked up, held in legal limbo, mistreated, and denied access to their basic rights.”

“And through a system of racial profiling and surveillance across the bloc, it widens the net of who could find themselves detained.” 

“We need to look no further than the Greek islands where this process is already underway. EU legislators must break with a failed model which benefits only those who profit from spending our resources on harmful and costly prisons and surveillance systems – and put people first instead.”

Sara Prestianni, Advocacy Director at EuroMed Rights, said: 

“The Migration Pact was supposed to reach a common European position on how people who need protection are cared for across the bloc.”

“It has done nothing of the sort. Instead, states can simply dodge their responsibilities by paying for weapons, walls, and detention camps in border states or non-EU countries with grim human rights records. It doesn’t achieve what it sets out to, raises dangerous risks, and should be urgently reformed or scrapped.” 

“European legislators must instead find a vision for genuine solidarity, for safe migration routes for people who need them, and for a system with the care and investment to ensure that both people on the move and host communities experience the benefits of migration.” 

Alberto Ares SJ, Regional Director, Jesuit Refugee Service Europe: 

“We fear that the Migration Pact in its current form will compromise human rights and EU values under pressure to reach an agreement before the end of this legislature. The EU should abandon this plan that would not only fall short in providing any real operational solutions for the shortcomings of the existing system but would also be harmful for migrants and refugees.”

“The Jesuit Refugee Service has a long tradition of visiting and accompanying people in Migration Detention in Europe going back decades. We see first hand how limited the access to legal assistance and justice in this context is at the moment. The current proposal will only make it worse”.

“We call on legislators to make a U-Turn and abandon this pact. There is still time to put energy and efforts into strengthening reception and asylum systems on the territory and mechanisms for meaningful responsibility sharing among Member States.”

Fanélie Carrey-Conte, Secretary General at La Cimade, said: 

“The proposed measures represent a straight continuation of strategies that has already been tried and tested. They are based on a repressive, security-based approach that aims to curb migration and encourage deportations, solutions that have proved ineffective and, above all, cost human lives. Instead of calming fears and providing solutions, they legitimise xenophobic ideologies and lead to humanitarian disasters. It’s time for a genuine paradigm shift, for a Europe based on respect for human rights and international solidarity, to ensure that people are protected and not excluded”.

Eve Geddie, Director of Amnesty International’s EU Office, said:

“For years the EU has been trying to agree on a new system to respond to people moving or fleeing to Europe. The agreement now on the table would in many ways worsen existing legislation, and risks increasing suffering at European borders. It could increase de facto detention across the EU, reduce safeguards for asylum seekers, and normalise exceptions to the right to asylum at European borders.”

“European policymakers have a responsibility to ensure a future-proof, evidence based, human rights compliant final agreement in these last days of political negotiations.”

Tendayi Achiume, former UN Special Representative on Contemporary Forms of Racism

“Across Europe, police and border forces already disproportionately stop and search racialised communities. Enabling border forces to surveil, stop and detain anyone anywhere in the bloc who they believe looks like a migrant opens the way to systemic racial profiling across Europe.”

“European legislators must act to safeguard human rights and civil liberties in the new Migration Pact.”

In new transnational research on the living and working conditions of non-EU workers in the EU, the Université Libre de Bruxelles documents exploitation of migrant workers working in the EU under a combined residence and work permit (“single permit”).

Workers interviewed in Belgium, Czech Republic and Spain reported wage theft, illicit wage deductions, long working hours, and discrimination at the workplace and in accessing private housing.

In one case, a Brazilian dental assistant in Belgium paid around 40,000€ over three years to their employer, for taxes the employer should have paid themselves. In another case from the Czech Republic, a Filipino massage therapist reported that their employer retained the income support provided by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic and had the gall to offer loans to meet basic subsistence needs, that would have to be paid back, even though salaries were still owed.

The study shows how migrant workers are often made dependent on their employers by the application process and conditions of their permits. The short duration of the permit, complex procedures, and reliance on employers for applications, renewals and information were key issues in all countries.

Where the three countries differed – with different outcomes for workers – was on possibilities to change employer on the same permit. Where this is not possible, in Belgium, some workers endured exploitation and abuse for fear of losing their right to work in the EU.

In one case from Belgium, a medical secretary from Madagascar did not report the harassment she endured by her employer as she knew that it would affect the validity of her permit.

In Spain, on the other hand, permits are issued to workers on the basis of a particular job offer or contract, but the permit itself is not tied to any particular employer. Workers just have to show a minimum level of employment or income when they renew their permits. The research found some dependence on employers remained, but overall, the system enabled labour market mobility.

Lilana Keith, Senior Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “This research is part of a growing body of evidence that shows how the very design of work permit policies is contributing to appalling exploitation and dependency on employers of migrant workers. The revision of the EU Single Permit Directive is a crucial opportunity to address this across the whole region. EU policy makers are currently discussing this issue, and must grant a meaningful right for these workers to change employer on their existing permit : this is one of the most important tools we have to break the chain of dependency”. 

The author of the study makes several recommendations to address the exploitation and abuse of non-EU workers. Those most at stake in the current political negotiations on the EU’s Single Permit directive include: 

• Improve application and renewal procedures, in particular, reduce processing times and administrative requirements and costs;
• Reduce dependence on employers by allowing workers to make applications and renewals directly, and establishing direct communication channels between authorities and migrant workers;
• Facilitate the ability to change employer or seek alternative employment by:
  • granting a realistic period of time to be unemployed and look for a new job. Three months was found to be greatly insufficient;
  • providing an unimpeded right to change employer on the existing permit;
• Improve monitoring, inspection and complaints mechanisms, and guarantee that migrant workers can maintain their permit, or access a transitional permit, when their employer violates their rights.

Today’s vote by the European Parliament’s civil liberties and internal market committees on the AI Act overwhelmingly endorsed important protections against harmful uses of AI in migration. PICUM and the Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN) – representing close to 180 organisations across Europe – welcome the Parliament’s strong stand on these issues but are concerned about gaps that remain in the legislation.

The AI Act will be the world’s first binding legislation to regulate the use of artificial intelligence, including in the migration field. The text voted for on 11 May bans harmful uses of AI and subjects “high-risk” uses to enhanced safeguards.

Bans on harmful uses of AI

Among the bans that were voted, we welcome the prohibition, under Article 5, of:

• emotion recognition technologies, which explicitly extends to the EU’s borders. Emotion recognition technologies claim to detect people’s emotions based on assumptions about how someone acts when feeling a certain way, including to assess their credibility. Immigration authorities in some Member States already tested the use of these types of systems to inform decisions about who qualifies for protection, and does not.
• biometric categorisation systems that use personal characteristics to classify people and to inform inferences based on those characteristics. This kind of software is used to determine whether someone’s dialect matched the region they say they are from.
• predictive policing systems, which use preconceived notions about who is risky to make decisions about the policing of certain groups and spaces.

All these technologies are based on unscientific and often biassed, discriminatory assumptions, which then inform real-world decision-making that has a real and detrimental impact on people’s lives. While we welcome the predictive policing ban, which encompassess some forms of algorithmic profiling used in the migration context, it does not fully capture the several uses and implications that automated risk assessment and profiling systems have in that context. The Committees also missed the chance to prohibit predictive analytics systems used to curtail migration movements and that can lead to push-backs.

Hope Barker, Senior Policy Analyst for BVMN says, “We call for all algorithmic profiling systems used in migration to be regulated separately, with a migration specific ban to address the many uses and practices that have been found to cause direct or indirect discrimination.”

“We are Black and border guards hate us. Their computers hate us too.” – Adissu

(Taken from the Technological Testing Grounds Report)

Enhanced safeguards on “high-risk” uses of AI

The text voted by the Parliament categorises certain uses of AI as “high-risk” and subjects them to enhanced safeguards. For instance the requirement of both manufacturers and deployers to assess impact on and risks of violation of fundamental rights prior to putting systems into use.

We welcome the categorisation as “high-risk” of:

• forecasting tools that claim to predict people’s movements at borders. Alyna Smith, Deputy Director of PICUM, said: “Forecasting tools are often based on unreliable data, and – even if it is not the original intention – often used to enable operations to push people back from the border, preventing them from reaching safety and putting them in harm’s way. It’s good news that these tools have been categorised as “high-risk”. But forecasting tools that could be used to facilitate pushbacks must be subject to bans without exceptions.”
• surveillance technologies such as drones, thermal imaging cameras, radar sensors, and others that are used to detect and locate transit groups for the sole purpose of subjecting them to violence and pushing them back.

Since 2018, the BVMN and its members have collected 38 testimonies, impacting 1,076 people, that recount the presence of a drone prior to their illegal pushback. (see this testimony collected by Collective Aid)

“Drones are not inherently harmful, they can and should be used to identify vulnerable groups and organise search and rescue operations. However, they are currently used to locate groups and illegally push them back, often after subjecting them to high levels of violence” said Barker. “We welcome the obligations introduced to users of border surveillance technologies and hope that this will result in further safeguards around how they are used to target people on the move”.

• non-remote biometric identification systems that include hand-held devices that scan faces, fingerprints or palms, and voice or iris identification technology used by police to identify a person and check their residence status. Smith said “It’s incredibly important that these uses are included among high-risk under the Act. Police in a growing number of member states are being equipped with high-tech handheld devices that can scan faces and fingerprints to identify on the spot a person’s migration status. There’s already evidence these tools drive more discriminatory profiling by police against anyone who looks like they might be undocumented – citizens and non-citizens alike.”

The EU’s large-scale migration databases

The EU has been collecting millions of records, including biographic and biometric data, about third-country nationals in large-scale databases that are being interconnected for immigration enforcement purposes. This interconnectedness not only refers to EU Member States but also to third countries which the Commission is seeking to entrench and strengthen security-related information sharing mechanisms with. Without sufficient fundamental rights impact assessments, safeguards and guarantees, this practice throws up considerable data and privacy rights concerns.

We welcome the European Parliament’s decision to ensure that the AI Act’s protections and safeguards apply to these databases. However, the Parliament position should have gone much further: the Parliament is proposing a 4 year period for EU migration databases to comply with the AI Act.

Smith said: “The EU’s migration databases already present risks in terms of data protection and increased discrimination, since they’re built on the assumption that all non-citizens are potential threats. Explicitly including these systems within the scope of the AI Act is certainly positive, but we’re concerned that legislators might use the four-year grace period to dampen safeguards.”

NOTES TO THE EDITORS

• PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants) is a network of NGOs primarily based in Europe that work to advance the rights of undocumented people. The Border Violence Monitoring Network is an independent network of NGOs, associations, and collectives that monitor human rights violations at and within Europe’s borders and advocates to stop structural and actual violence against people on the move.
• Links to resources on:

• 1. the AI Act and AI uses in migration: www.protectnotsurveil.eu
  2. digital technologies used in policing and immigration enforcement in PICUM’s briefing “Digital technology, policing and migration: what does it mean for undocumented migrants?”
  3. the EU’s migration databases, their interconnections and impact on people’s lives in PICUM and Statewatch’s report “Data Protection, Immigration Enforcement and Fundamental Rights: What the EU’s Regulations on Interoperability Mean for People with Irregular Status”
  4. the use of border surveillance technology to facilitate fundamental rights violations in BVMN’s submission to the OHCHR on the role of technology in illegal pushbacks from Croatia to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia and to the Committee on Enforced Disappearances.
  5. For media enquiries, please contact PICUM’s Communications Officer Gianluca Cesaro on gianluca@picum.org or BVMN on advocacy@borderviolence.eu

Cover image: ryzhi – Adobe Stock