Over 250 Organisations: Inhumane Deportation Rules Should be Rejected 

On 11 March 2025, the European Commission presented a new proposal for a Return Regulation to replace the current Return Directive. Behind the euphemistic name, the proposal outlines coercive, traumatising, and rights-violating measures premised on an imperative of increasing deportation rates. Instead of focusing on protection, housing, healthcare and education, the Regulation is premised on punitive policies, detention centres, deportation and enforcement.  

The “Deportation Regulation,” as it would be more aptly called, is part of a broader shift in EU migration policy to characterise human movement as a threat to justify derogations from fundamental rights guarantees. EU institutions and Member States have increasingly made criminalisation, surveillance, and discrimination the default tools of migration governance – as opposed to protection, safety, social inclusion measures, the expansion of safe and regular routes and rights based residence permits. 

Our organisations are unequivocal: this Regulation must be rejected. It is driven by detention, deportation, externalisation, and punishment, particularly of racialised people, and will result in more people being pushed into legal limbo and dangerous conditions. We call on the European Commission to withdraw the proposal and urge the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to reject it in its current form.  

The Regulation must be rejected for the following reasons:   

1. DEPORTATIONS TO COUNTRIES WITH NO PRIOR TIES AND OFFSHORE DEPORTATION CENTRES (Arts. 4, 17)  

This proposal – together with proposed changes to the Asylum Procedures Regulation – would make it possible, for the first time, to deport a person against their will to a non-EU country to which they have no personal connection, either through which they have only briefly transited, or in which they have never set foot.  

Sending someone against their will to a country to which they have no link can in no way be considered reasonable, just, or sustainable. Such measures would tear apart families and communities across Europe, undermining the fabric of solidarity that people rely on to live with dignity. Expanding the options for “return” raises serious concerns about fundamental rights, including the risk of people being stranded in third countries, the safety and dignity of removal, the sustainability of inclusion and reintegration, and access to support, rights, and services. Such measures also apply to families and children, with limited exceptions. 

The proposed Regulation also enables the establishment of so-called “return hubs”; highly likely to become prison-like detention centres hosting those awaiting deportations, outside of EU territory. This is an egregious departure from international law and human rights standards. These are likely to result in a range of rights violations, including automatic arbitrary detention, direct and indirect refoulement (in return hubs or through onward deportations), and denial of access to legal and procedural safeguards. At the same time, they would reinforce discriminatory practices as well as raising substantial challenges in monitoring human rights conditions and determining legal responsibility and jurisdiction. The current provisions in the Regulation are, moreover, alarmingly vague and set no binding standards, exacerbating these concerns. In line with past attempts to offshore or externalise asylum responsibilities, such as those by Australia, the UK, or Italy, such proposals are likely to be exorbitant in cost, carry significant diplomatic and reputational risks, and widen the gaps and divergences between EU countries’ asylum and migration policies. They would divert resources to punitive modes of migration governance instead of policies prioritising protection, care and safety.  

2. NEW OBLIGATIONS ON STATES TO ‘DETECT’ AND SURVEIL (Art. 6)   

The proposal requires States to put in place measures to detect people staying irregularly in their territory. Over 80 organisations warned that similar provisions in the 2024 Screening Regulation would result in increased racial profiling and discriminatory treatment. Such provisions pave the way for the expansion of racist policing practices and immigration raids that foster fear in racialised and migrant communities. Moreover, detection measures tied to immigration enforcement create serious human rights risks, including those related to the right to health, labour rights, and human dignity, as fear of authorities discourages undocumented people from seeking healthcare, reporting abuse, or accessing protection. Such measures could raise ethical conflicts for professionals and undermine trust in public services. Finally, they risk threatening privacy rights through the unsafe sharing of sensitive personal data, including health data, breaching EU data protection standards and eroding the freedoms of society as a whole. 

3. MORE PEOPLE PUSHED INTO IRREGULARITY AND LEGAL LIMBO (Arts. 7, 14)  

The proposal requires states to issue deportation orders alongside any decision ending regular stay, without prior consideration of other national-level status options (such as permits for humanitarian, best interests of the child, medical or family reasons, as well as during statelessness determination procedures or in other cases where deportation is not possible). Combined with similar rules in the Pact on Migration and Asylum that link negative asylum and deportation decisions, this would raise further barriers to accessing national residence permits. Alarmingly, it even foresees issuing deportation orders listing multiple potential countries of return when a country of return cannot be identified. 

The proposal also weakens protections for those who cannot be deported – often through no fault of their own. Although it allows for postponement of “removal” in cases where there is a risk of refoulement, it removes the current requirement to identify and assess other individual circumstances, ignoring that in many cases “return” may not be appropriate or even possible, such as if a person is stateless, or for other human rights reasons. 

This highlights the inconsistency of a proposal developed with the flawed objective of “increasing return rates”, but which at the same time artificially inflates the number of people issued a deportation order. As a result, many more people will be pushed into irregularity and legal limbo, denied basic rights like healthcare, and exposed to destitution, homelessness, exploitation, or prolonged detention. These policies do not only harm individuals: they destabilise and create further fear and insecurity, particularly for migrant and racialised people, as well as the wider communities they are part of. 

4. SEVERE EXPANSION OF DETENTION (Arts. 29-35)  

The proposal promotes the systematic use of detention by states. It significantly extends the maximum length of detention, from 18 to 24 months. This extension is disproportionate and ineffective, and would only deepen harm to people’s rights, dignity and health. It also expands the grounds for detention, including criteria that, in effect, cover most people who have entered Europe irregularly or who are in an undocumented situation, against the principle of proportionality and necessity. For instance, a lack of documents or experiencing homelessness would be sufficient grounds for detention. The proposal allows for the detention of children, despite international human rights law and standards indicating that it is always a child rights violation and never in a child’s best interests, and global commitment by governments to work to end the practice. Other vulnerable groups, as well as people who cannot be deported, would also be subject to detention. The proposal appears to allow for indefinite detention of individuals deemed to pose “security risks”, by judicial decision. It also allows Member States to deviate from basic guarantees around detention if systems face a vaguely defined “unforeseen heavy burden.” The expansion of detention capacity will create lucrative opportunities for private contractors running detention centres, incentivising the growth of a detention industry at the expense of people’s rights and dignity. 

The “alternatives to detention”, or non-custodial measures, as proposed by the Commission would not serve their purpose as genuine alternatives, and would not need to be considered before applying detention. Rather, they could now be used in addition to detention and after its time limits have been exceeded. Together, these developments amount to a significant expansion of immigration detention, whereby it would no longer even be treated as a measure of last resort or imposed for the shortest possible time, in clear tension with international law requirements. 

5. PUNITIVE AND COERCIVE MEASURES (Arts. 10, 12, 13, 16, 22, 29)  

The proposal introduces extensive, disproportionate and unrealistic cooperation requirements on people issued a deportation order, such as having to provide identity documents they may not possess, having their bodies and belongings searched, or cooperating with third countries to obtain travel documents. These are coupled with punitive and heavy sanctions in cases of ‘non-compliance’, including financial penalties, entry bans, restrictions on voluntary departure, as well as refusal of benefits, allowances or work permits. With no effective way to challenge the determination that they are not cooperating sufficiently or to ensure that people are not penalised for circumstances beyond their control – such as statelessness, digital or literacy barriers, age, health or trauma – these measures risk being applied arbitrarily and disproportionately punishing people in vulnerable socio-economic situations.  

The proposal introduces a further shift from “voluntary departure” to “removals”, making deportation the default option. Even though the notion of voluntariness in such circumstances remains questionable, the proposal restricts people’s options and agency further. It does so by introducing broad grounds on which forced “returns” would be mandatory and by removing even the current minimum period of seven days for voluntary departure, or compliance with a deportation order.   

Specific derogations are foreseen for people who “pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security” – grounds that are vaguely defined and may be applied abusively. Any cases posing a security risk or concerning a criminal conviction should be dealt with in the context of criminal justice proceedings with the fair trial safeguards required. 

6. EROSION OF APPEAL RIGHTS (Art. 28)  

In continuity with the erosion of these rights under the Pact, the proposal removes the automatic suspensive effect of appeals against the enforcement of a deportation decision. The suspensive effect will have to be requested together with the appeal, or granted ex-officio. This creates an additional layer of complexity for people at risk of being deported as well as judicial authorities, and removes an essential safeguard to the right to an effective remedy. With no mandatory minimum time for appeals (the proposal specifies only that the deadline shall not exceed 14 days), Member States could make it impossible for people to effectively challenge deportation orders in practice, against the established jurisprudence of European courts.  

7. EXPANDED DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE AND DATA PROTECTION VIOLATIONS (Arts. 6-9, 23, 38-41)  

The proposal expands the digital surveillance of people in deportation procedures, denounced by digital rights experts and the European Data Protection Supervisor. This includes the broad collection and sharing of personal data, including sensitive health and criminal records, between EU Member States and with third countries which may be lacking adequate data protection. It also enables the use of intrusive surveillance technologies in detention centres, and the use of digital “alternatives to detention”, such as GPS tracking and mobile phone surveillance, which, while supposedly considered an alternative to detention, remain highly intrusive and can amount to de facto detention. Such technologies also create profitable new markets for surveillance companies. 

The creation of a ‘European Return Order’, stored in the Schengen Information System (SIS), further conflates migration management and policing, with foreseen data sharing with law enforcement. There are documented patterns of data abuse and non-compliance with legal standards on privacy and protection of personal data by authorities under SIS, increasing the likelihood of data breaches and misuse.   

8. LACK OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATIONS  

Like other recent legislative proposals on migration, this European Commission proposal was issued without a human rights impact assessment or formal consultations, including social partners, in an area in which evidence-based policymaking is especially crucial. This is contrary to the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and the Commission’s own Better Regulation Guidelines when a legislative proposal has significant social impacts and where a choice of policy options exists. A prior fundamental rights impact assessment is essential to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, non-refoulement, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, personal liberty, the rights of the child, effective remedy, private and family life, privacy and data protection, and non-discrimination.  

9. OVERLOOKING ALTERNATIVES TO PUNITIVE MIGRATION CONTROL   

The proposal reflects a false assumption that deportation should be the only option for people whose asylum application has been rejected or whose residence permits have expired or been revoked. To reduce the number of people trapped in irregularity, EU states should uphold access to existing human-rights-related permits, and expand avenues to a broad range of residence permits that allow people to plan their lives, engage in regular work, study, and fully participate in all the economic, social, and cultural facets of the societies in which they live.  

—  

We call on the EU to stop catering to racist and xenophobic sentiments and corporate interests and reverse the punitive and discriminatory shift in its migration policy, and instead direct resources towards policies rooted in safety, protection and inclusion, that strengthen communities, uphold dignity, and ensure that all people can live safely regardless of status. 

EU institutions and Member States should reject deportation measures that are based on a punitive and coercive approach, lower human rights standards, and disproportionately affect racialised people. In light of the concerns outlined above, we call on the European Commission to withdraw this proposal and urge the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to reject this proposal. 

Organisations signing on:

EU/International

1. #DiasporaVote! 
2. 11.11.11 
3. Abolish Frontex 
4. Acli – Associazioni cristiane lavoratori italiani 
5. Academics for Peace-Germany 
6. Access Now 
7. ActionAid International 
8. Africa Advocacy Foundation 
9. AlgoRace 
10. All Included 
11. Alternatif Bilisim 
12. Amnesty International 
13. Apna Haq 
14. ASAM Greece 
15. Aspiration 
16. Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF) 
17. Border Violence Monitoring Network 
18. borderline-europe – Menschenrechte ohne Grenzen e.V. 
19. Bridge EU 
20. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) 
21. CCFD-Terre Solidaire 
22. Changemakers Lab 
23. Civil Rights Defenders 
24. Collective Aid 
25. COFACE Families Europe 
26. Correlation-European Harm Reduction Network 
27. COSPE 
28. CPT – Aegean Migrant Solidarity 
29. de:border // migration justice collective 
30. DeZIM, German Centre for Migration and Integration Research 
31. EAPN European Anti-Poverty Network 
32. ECCHR European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights 
33. ELC – Eurocentralasian Lesbian Community 
34. EmpowerVan 
35. EPSU 
36. Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice 
37. EuroMed Rights 
38. European Alternatives 
39. European Movement 
40. European Network Against Racism (ENAR) 
41. European Network on Religion & Belief 
42. European Network on Religion and Belief 
43. European Network on Statelessness 
44. Famiglie Accoglienti 
45. FEANTSA 
46. Fenix Humanitarian Legal Aid 
47. Forum per Cambiare l’Ordine delle Cose 
48. Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW) 
49. Global Asylum Seeker Human Rights Defenders Committee (GASHDC) 
50. Hoffnung leben e.V. 
51. Human Rights Watch 
52. Humanity Diaspo 
53. I Have Rights. 
54. Inter Alia 
55. InterEuropean Human Aid Association Germany e.V. 
56. International Planned Parenthood Federation – European Network (IPPF EN) 
57. International Women* Space e.V 
58. iuventa 
59. Kerk in Actie 
60. La Strada International 
61. Lifelong Learning Platform – European Civil Society for Education 
62. Liga Española de la Educación y la Cultura Popular 
63. Madera Creation 
64. Médecins du Monde International Network 
65. Médecins Sans Frontières 
66. Mediterranea Bruxelles 
67. Mediterranea Saving Humans 
68. Migreurop 
69. Migration Policy Group (MPG) 
70. Missing Voices (REER) 
71. Mission Lifeline International eV 
72. Movimiento por la Paz (MPDL) 
73. Mujeres Supervivientes 
74. Mundo en Movimiento 
75. Network Against Migrant Detention 
76. New Horizons Project 
77. New Women Connectors 
78. No Name Kitchen 
79. Northern Ireland Council for Racial Equality 
80. Oxfam 
81. Oxfam Italia 
82. Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants – PICUM 
83. Protestantse Kerk Nederland 
84. Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) 
85. Recosol 
86. Rete delle Comunità Solidali (Re.co.sol.) 
87. Roma Feminist Collective 
88. Romnja Feminist Library 
89. SCI Catalunya 
90. Sea-Watch e.V. 
91. Service Civil Internation Austria 
92. Service Civil International 
93. SOLIDAR 
94. SOS Humanity 
95. SOS Racism Denmark 
96. Spectrum 
97. Statewatch 
98. Symbiosis-Council of Europe School of Political Studies in Greece 
99. Syrian Justice and Accountability Centre 
100. Transnational Institute 
101. UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab – People of African Descent & SDGs E-Team 
102. Validity Foundation – Mental Disability Advocacy Centre 
103. VOICIFY – The European Forum for Youth with Lived Migration Experience 
104. WeMove Europe 
105. Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE) Network 
106. Yoga and Sport with Refugees 

National

107. AMUINCA-Asociación de mujeres migrantes 
108. Anafé (association nationale d’assistance aux frontières pour les personnes étrangères) 
109. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Migrationsrecht des Deutschen Anwaltvereins 
110. Ariadni AMKE 
111. ARSIS Association for the Social Support of Youth 
112. ASGI 
113. ASKV 
114. Asociación Por Ti Mujer 
115. Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de Andalucía 
116. Asociación SDEOAC 
117. Association for Integration and Migration (SIMI) 
118. Associazione Amici di Glocandia OdV – progetto “Fratelli oltre il mare” 
119. Associazione Arturo 
120. Associazione Progetto Accoglienza 
121. AWO Bundesverband 
122. Ban Ying e.V. coordination and counseling center against trafficking in human beings 
123. Boat Refugee Foundation 
124. Brot für die Welt 
125. Casa di Amadou odv 
126. CEAR – Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado 
127. Center for legal aid – Voice in Bulgaria 
128. Centre Avec 
129. Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD) 
130. Centre for Labour Rights, CLR 
131. Channel Monitoring Project 
132. CIEs NO MADRID 
133. CIRÉ 
134. CNCA – Coordinamento Nazionale Comunità di Accoglienza 
135. CNCD-11.11.11 
136. Community Rights in Greece 
137. Congolese Anti-Poverty Network 
138. CONVIVE Fundación Cepaim 
139. coop. soc. APE06 – AlterProjectEmpowerment2006 
140. Coordinadora CIE No Cádiz 
141. Coordinadora Obrim Fronteres 
142. Council of Churches Amsterdam 
143. Danes je nov dan, Inštitut za druga vprašanja 
144. Diaconaal Centrum De Bakkerij 
145. Diakonie Flüchtlingsdienst 
146. Diakonie Österreich 
147. Diakonie Deutschland 
148. DIKUNTU ODV 
149. Diásporas Association 
150. ECHO100PLUS 
151. Equal Legal Aid 
152. Europasilo 
153. FairWork 
154. Famiglie accoglienti Bologna e Torino 
155. FEDERACIÓN ANDALUCIA ACOGE 
156. Federación SOS Racismo 
157. Feministas en Holanda 
158. Finnish Refugee Advice Centre 
159. FLUCHTpunkt – Innsbruck 
160. Flüchtlingsrat NRW e.V. 
161. Flüchtlingsrat Schleswig-Holstein e.V. 
162. ForRefugees 
163. Fórum Refúgio Portugal 
164. GAT – Grupo de Ativistas em Tratamentos 
165. Greek Council for Refugees (GCR) 
166. Greek Forum of Migrants 
167. Greek Forum of Refugees 
168. Greek Housing Network 
169. Hermes Center 
170. HOTM 
171. Huize Agnes 
172. Human Rights Initiatives 
173. ICS (Italian Consortium of Solidarity) 
174. IHA – Intereuropean Human Aid Association 
175. INTERSOS HELLAS 
176. Irídia – Centre per la Defensa dels Drets Humans 
177. Italy Must Act 
178. Jesuit Refugee Service Belgium 
179. Jesuit Refugee Service Greece 
180. JRS Malta 
181. KISA – Action for Equality, Support, Antiracism 
182. KOK – German NGO Network against Trafficking in Human Beings 
183. Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX) 
184. La Cimade 
185. LDH (Ligue des droits de l’Homme) 
186. Legal Centre Lesvos 
187. MAlen Etxea mujeres inmigrantes 
188. M.oV.I Caltanissetta 
189. Mediterranea Berlin eV 
190. Meldpunt Vreemdelingendetentie 
191. Migrant Rights Centre Ireland 
192. Migrant Tales 
193. Migrant Voice UK 
194. Mobile Info Team 
195. MOC 
196. Move Coalition 
197. Movimento Italiani Senza Cittadinanza 
198. Mujeres Pa’lante 
199. Naga Odv 
200. Nazione Umana 
201. Network for Children’s Rights (Greece) 
202. NOF 
203. Nomada Association 
204. ONE PEOPLE 
205. Pauluskerk Rotterdam 
206. POUR LA SOLIDARITE 
207. PRO ASYL, National Working Group for Refugees 
208. Project Armonia 
209. Racism and Technology Center 
210. RADIO BULLETS APS 
211. Red Acoge 
212. RED AMINVI, SPAIN 
213. RED ESPAÑOLA DE INMIGRACION Y AYUDA AL REFUGIADO 
214. Red Interlavapies 
215. RED de Mujeres Latinoamericanas y del Caribe 
216. RECIPROCA ODV 
217. Refugee Council of Lower Saxony 
218. Refugee Legal Support (RLS) 
219. Refugees Platform In Egypt-RPE 
220. Refugees Welcome Italia 
221. Rete femminista No muri No recinti 
222. Rotterdams Ongedocumenteerden Steunpunt 
223. S.P.E.A.K (moslim woman collectif) 
224. SAAMO Antwerpen 
225. Salud por Derecho 
226. SCI Italia 
227. SCI Switzerland 
228. SNDVU Seguro 
229. Siempre 
230. Sienos Grupe 
231. SolidarityNow 
232. Solidary Wheels 
233. Stap Verder 
234. Stem in de Stad 
235. Steunpunt Ongedocumenteerden Pauluskerk 
236. Stichting Jeannette Noëlhuis 
237. Stichting LOS (NL) 
238. Stichting ShivA 
239. Stichting Vluchteling Kansen 
240. Stichting Vluchtelingen in de Knel 
241. STIL Utrecht 
242. Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej (Association for Legal Intervention) 
243. The Norwegian Centre Against Racism 
244. The Swedish Network of Refugee Support Groups 
245. Tierramatria mujeres migrantes y Refugiadas en Andalucía 
246. Toevlucht Utrecht 
247. Turun Valkonauha ry, Finland 
248. União de Refugiados em Portugal – UREP 
249. URGG 
250. Villa Vrede 
251. Vluchteling Onder Dak 
252. Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland (Dutch Council for Refugees) 
253. VTU Amsterdam 
254. Waterford Integration Services, Ireland 
255. Wereldhuis – World House (STEK) 
256. Wereldvrouwenhuis Mariam van Nijmegen