Reporting obligations and ‘firewalls’

Learn more about terms like ‘irregular residence status’ and ‘undocumented migrants’ on this page.

What are reporting obligations?

Reporting obligations are laws or policies that require public authorities and service providers, such as healthcare workers, teachers, and social service employees, to report undocumented migrants to the public authority responsible for migration control, which might include police, border guards, immigration offices. Thus, ‘reporting’ refers to the act of sharing a person’s personal data, particularly their residence status, with the authorities responsible for migration control.

In some countries like the United Kingdom, there are also specific situations in which private service providers (e.g. banks) might be requested to share personal data about non-nationals with authorities, in a way that can also lead to immigration enforcement. There are sometimes clear exceptions to such duties, for example, for teachers, or medical professionals. However, the exception might not apply to the non-medical/administrative staff working in health care facilities (such as in Germany).

Do reporting obligations violate human rights standards?

Yes. Requiring public authorities, public or private service providers to report undocumented people to the migration authorities violates international and European human rights law, including the following rights:

• Right to equality and non-discrimination: Reporting obligations constitute direct discrimination based on residence status.
  • In 2016, the Council of Europe European Commission against Racism and Intolerance called on state parties to ensure “no public or private bodies providing services in the fields of education, health care, housing, social security and assistance, labour protection and justice are under reporting duties for immigration control and enforcement purposes.”
  • Reporting obligations can also lead to increased discrimination against migrants who have valid residence permits, and racialised people, including citizens.
• Right to privacy and data protection – Reporting obligations also constitute a violation of the right to privacy and data protection enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (article 8) and the EUGeneral Data Protection Regulation.
• Right to health: Under international human rights law, states have a duty to ensure the right to health by taking concrete steps towards realizing universal health care, as well as the preconditions for health.
  • Article 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights further states that everyone has the right to access preventive health care and medical treatment under the conditions established by national laws and practices.
• Right to education: Children’s right to education, enshrined in several international and EU conventions, isalso harmed when administrations or teachers are required to report pupils’ residence status.

What are the consequences of reporting obligations?

Reporting obligations have a wide range of negative consequences:

• Fear and marginalisation: Undocumented people often avoid seeking help from public services or reporting crimes due to fear of immigration enforcement – being issued with an order to leave the country and lose everything they have worked for, and potentially be separated from family members, locked up and/or made to leave the country by force (deportation). This leads to further marginalisation and isolation from essential services like healthcare, education, and housing.
• Health risks: Lack of access to health care results in untreated health conditions, which can worsen over time, and develop to pose life-threatening risks to the person. It is costlier both for the individual and for society when health conditions are not dealt with at an early stage. Ensuring access to healthcare for everyone, regardless of residence status, is crucial for promoting both individual and public health overall.
• Violence, abuse and exploitation: Fear of immigration enforcement often prevents undocumented people from reporting abuse in personal relationships or in the workplace to the relevant authorities. Reporting is often a pre-requisite to access certain services, protections and remedy. Denying access to protection and remedy violates the person’s rights, and traps them in situations of violence and exploitation. In fact, this denial can even trigger violence and exploitation, as people take advantage of undocumented people knowing that they cannot turn to authorities for help.
• Ethical dilemmas for professionals: Employees in sectors like healthcare, education and labour inspection face conflicts between their primary duty to care for patients, students or workers, and their obligation to report undocumented migrants. This can undermine their professional integrity and the trust of service users. Associations of health professionals have taken a strong position in favour of preserving their independence and resisting efforts to involve them in immigration enforcement, such as the UK Royal College of Midwives (2019) and the Standing Committee of European Doctors (2024).
• Erosion of trust: Reporting obligations erode trust between communities and public institutions. When undocumented migrants fear interaction with public services, it hampers efforts to build cohesive, trusting communities, which is vital for public safety, and to provide effective services to the local population.

Racial profiling: Implementing rules targeting undocumented people often results in racial or ethnic profiling, perpetuating prejudice and discrimination. Racialised people, including citizens, are more likely to be questioned about their residence status and even denied access to certain services, support or remedies. Already in 2012, research by EU Fundamental Rights Agency highlighted that migrants are more likely to be victims of hate crime and other forms of abuse and violence.

Which countries have reporting obligations in place?

There is currently no comprehensive mapping of reporting obligations in Europe.

We know that, in Germany, the 1990 Act on Foreigners obliges all public sector workers and offices to report undocumented people to immigration authorities (para 76). This law was replaced by the Residence Act in 2004, which is the current legislation where this provision is included (section 87). While undocumented migrants have the same legal entitlements as asylum seekers to health services, Section 87 of the German Residence Act requires all civil servants, including social welfare offices, to notify the immigration authorities or police when they obtain information about someone without a valid residence permit. The only exception is for schools and other educational and care establishments. Social welfare offices – who manage cost coverage and reimbursement of health services – must report undocumented people who approach them to obtain coverage for health care expenses. Although undocumented migrants are entitled to limited medical services (Section 1 Paragraph 1 Nos. 5, 4 and 6 of the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act), reporting obligations hinder access in practice. Due to these various legal contradictions undocumented migrants are in effect only entitled to emergency health care services.

While there is currently no comprehensive mapping, a 2023 Swedish Parliament report found that various EU countries have national provisions requiring some civil servants to report undocumented people to immigration authorities. (The report “Rapport från utredningstjänsten informationsskyldighet beträffande personer utan tillstånd” is not available online but can be sent upon request).

Moreover, a 2021 report by the Fundamental Rights Agency on severe labour exploitation mapped out the duty of labour inspectorates to report to police or immigration law enforcement authorities in 25 EU Member States and found that in 20 Member States, labour inspectorates report irregular migrants to police or immigration authorities either by law, internal documents, or practice.

Are some countries introducing new reporting obligations?

Some countries are considering introducing measures to increase data sharing obligations, notably:

• Sweden: The government is exploring a widely contested proposal to oblige all public sector workers to report undocumented people they come in contact with to immigration enforcement and/or police. In November 2024, the government presented the outcomes 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 (see also PICUM’s press release).
• Finland: In its 2023 programme, the Finnish government is also considering the expansion of the obligation to denounce undocumented people.

How common is reporting in practice?

Across Europe, the nature, extent and method of personal data sharing depends on the public authorities and sector. In countries with such obligations, it is quite common that data shared is used by immigration authorities for immigration enforcement (i.e., issuing orders to leave the territory, detaining the person, launching deportation proceedings) or for notifying authorities about outstanding medical bills (for example in the United Kingdom). Even if there is no formal requirement to report immigration status, data sharing can still happen informally or in an ad hoc manner. Furthermore, reporting obligations create a climate of fear which leads to people with an irregular migration status not to seek out access to services such as healthcare.

How have reporting obligations been received?

There is often widespread resistance among professionals and civil society to reporting obligations. Even when the measures are put in place, some professionals practice civil disobedience and refuse to abide by the rules, as they deem them contrary to their values, roles and professional ethics and obligations. For example, in Sweden, in 2022, over 4,000 health care workers pledged to commit civil disobedience and refuse to report their patients should a reporting obligation be implemented in the healthcare sector. When reporting obligations exist, professionals and civil society are often working hard to have them repealed or at least introduce specific safeguards (also known as ‘firewalls’, see below).

Where have reporting obligations been successfully challenged?

In some countries, reporting obligations have successfully been challenged following efforts by wide segments of society (often times involving professionals, institutions as well as elected officials):

• Italy: In 2009, during discussions on the Security Package, the government proposed to require healthcare professionals to report undocumented migrants. In response, civil society and medical organisations launched the campaign ‘Forbidden to report: We are doctors and nurses, not spies!’ (Divieto di segnalzione. Siamo medici ed infermieri, non siamo spie!). The reporting obligation on health professionals was excluded from the final bill.
• United Kingdom: In 2012, the government introduced set of policies aimed at creating a hostile environment for undocumented people. The government also pushed several data-sharing arrangements within the National Health Service (NHS) and externally with other public services, that enable patient data from the NHS to be used for immigration enforcement purposes. In 2018, the government suspended the sharing duty of the National Health Service with the immigration authorities (Home Office) after warnings from MPs, doctors’ groups, and health charities that the policy deterred patients from seeking NHS care and had led to people dying.
• France: Labour inspectors are responsible for checking work permits during inspections but resist sharing information for immigration enforcement. There has been significant pushback from inspectors and criticism from the International Labour Organisation (ILO) regarding joint operations with immigration authorities. A 2006 circular promoting such cooperation, reinforced by later policies, led the ILO to issue recommendations, arguing these joint operations violate the Labour Inspection Convention by undermining inspectors’ independence. In response, the government established “specialised labour inspection sections” to handle cases of irregular work, leaving most inspectors to focus on upholding workers’ rights without involving immigration enforcement.

What are ‘firewalls’?

A ‘firewall’ separates immigration enforcement activities from public service provision and systems, such as healthcare, education, social welfare, labour inspection, or justice. Firewalls ensure that individuals can access these services and interact with competent authorities without fear of migration-related repercussions, such as arrest, detention, or deportation.

Firewalls also safeguard people who have a precarious or uncertain residence status that might avoid interacting with authorities or accessing certain services, in case they would face questioning, denial or even revocation of their status as a result. For example, many migrant workers become undocumented because their residence permits are often linked to their employer. If they complain against their employer, they can lose their job and therefore lose their permission to live and work in the country. As such, firewalls protect all migrant workers from immigration enforcement, whether they have dependent status or are undocumented.

Firewalls are crucial because they allow undocumented migrants to seek assistance, access services and exercise their rights, without fear that it will result in immigration enforcement. This helps in upholding fundamental rights obligations, promoting public health and safety, employment regulations, and other public social objectives.

To be effective, ‘firewall’ safeguards need to be set out in law, policy and practical measures.

For example, in Germany (also see section above “Which countries have reporting obligations?”), civil society organisations have strongly advocated for a firewall in healthcare. Among different actions, Doctors of the World Germany led a campaign supported by over 80 organisations (“GleichBeHandeln”) to have this obligation repealed. In 2021, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V., together with over 30 civil society organisations in Germany, submitted a complaint to the European Commission alleging a breach of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and EU data protection law. The complaint was renewed in 2024. Despite a 2021 government pledge to remove the reporting duty, and high expectations for reform, there has been little progress. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women expressed concern in 2023 that Germany has no real intention of changing the law on reporting obligations.

Where do firewall policies exist?

In most countries, people can access public education and health services without their personal data being shared for immigration enforcement purposes. However, even if reporting is not required or systematic, it can still happen in practice. To avoid this, there need to be clear safeguards in law and policy. These should prohibit data sharing between public services and immigration enforcement (“firewalls”) and/or use of personal data collected through public service provision for immigration enforcement purposes.

Examples of explicit firewall policies include:

• Belgium: The Flemish administration for education sent round a circular in 2003 clarifying that undocumented children should not be reported to the police or immigration office while enrolling in and attending primary or secondary school.
• Netherlands: The national ‘free in, free out’ policy, introduced in 2015, allows undocumented people to safely report abuse to the police.
• Spain: Undocumented people can report gender-based violence to police without risking migration enforcement. They can also register at the town hall (‘empadronamiento’) to access healthcare and education, with a strict firewall ensuring their personal data is not shared with migration authorities.