On 11^th March, the European Commission published a new draft law to step up and speed up deportations of undocumented people across Europe. 

This proposal has been rushed through under political pressure, with no meaningful consultation of civil society or impact assessments. This approach is guided by the imperative of increasing deportation rates, mostly by derogating from fundamental rights guarantees. 

This proposal: 

• Opens the door for member states to set up deportation centres outside the EU, leading to automatic arbitrary detention, accountability and human rights monitoring challenges, risks of chain deportations towards unsafe countries and numerous other violations of human rights and international law; 
• Turns forced returns (deportations) into the default option for people found in an irregular situation, despite the Commission’s longstanding position that more humane solutions such as voluntary departure should be the preferred option; 
• Massively expands the use and duration of immigration detention (from 18 to 24 months, with restrictive measures possible after the 24 months, including electronic monitoring and reporting obligations), including for children – despite a global commitment from governments to eradicate locking up children for immigration reasons; 
• Despite creating the conditions for overcrowded detention centres, it introduces “emergency” possibilities for member states to disregard safeguards during detention and to limit access to judicial review of detention decisions, including for families and children, when there are many people awaiting their deportation;
• Requires member states to impose geographical restrictions or reporting obligations for all people in the return procedure; 
• Introduces severe punitive measures, such as entry bans of up to 10 years (up from 5 years), extendable for 5 more years or 10 years in cases where security risks are invoked, financial penalties and reduction of financial assistance to rebuild a life after their deportation, for people who do not cooperate towards their deportation; 
• Introduces specific derogations from fundamental rights for migrants who are considered a risk for national security and public policy, further blurring the lines between criminal law and migration while reinforcing dangerous stereotypes; 
• Reinforces the false assumption that all people who are not eligible for asylum should be immediately deported, making it harder for people to access permits on other grounds, including humanitarian, family and work permits. 

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said, “This new proposal is a lucid attempt to escalate the EU’s obsession with deportations, by applying a discriminatory and punitive approach to any person in an irregular situation. There is no consideration of measures that could truly foster social inclusion and regularisation. Instead, we can likely expect more people being locked up in immigration detention centres across Europe, families separated, and people sent to countries they don’t even know.” 

1. How many undocumented migrants are there in Europe?
2. How does one become undocumented?
3. How many people are being detained across Europe?

How many undocumented migrants are there in Europe?

There is no reliable updated estimate of the number of undocumented migrants in Europe; the most robust source was made more than a decade ago. In 2008, between 1.9 and 3.8 million irregular migrants were estimated to reside in the EU. The majority arrived through regular pathways – with a permit to study or work, to seek family reunification or to seek asylum – and later lost that status*. Irregular border crossings are a very small proportion of the overall migration towards the EU: in 2019, EU countries issued a total of 15 million Schengen Visas, while the number of detected irregular border crossings was 141,846. 20.9 million third country nationals were regularly residing in the EU in 2019.

Sources: Frontex, Risk Analysis for 2020, p. 9; European Commission, Visa statistics for consulates, 2019

*Data, reports and available updates can be found at http://irregular-migration.net/. A recent attempt in 2019 by the Pew Research Center to update these figures is based on flawed data and methodology since the estimates include people with various different statuses, including asylum seekers, who are regularly residing in Europe.

How does one become undocumented?

The most common ways of becoming undocumented are to lose a job or other grounds for a residence permit or to be born to undocumented parents. Some people are also undocumented if they enter the EU without a visa.

Entering in the EU regularly can be particularly difficult depending on one’s country of origin. Under EU law, individuals from all but two African countries (Mauritius and the Seychelles) and most Asian countries need a visa to enter in the Schengen area, even if they come for periods below 90 days.

In addition, one’s country of origin strongly affects the likelihood of being issued a permit for remunerated activities (including work permits and researchers): in 2018, 51 % of the permits issued for remunerated activities were issued to nationals of ten countries from Central and Eastern Europe (non-EU), while only 5 % were granted to nationals of 55 countries in Africa.

*An Airport Transit Schengen Visa enables travellers to change flights at a Schengen airport, but does not allow them to leave the international transit area.

How many people are being detained across Europe?

Data collected by the Global Detention Project shows that more than 100,000 people are detained for immigration reasons each year in the European Union. However, it is difficult to identify trends as most countries only publish data every two to three years, and some countries never publish them. Based on the available data, 149,406 people were detained for immigration reasons in 2016 in 23 EU countries. In 2017, 20 countries detained 151,664 people, suggesting that the number of immigration detainees may be increasing.

These numbers include children, families, and individuals with pre-existing situations of vulnerability, such as physical or mental health diseases, disabilities, and psychological traumas. Detention is imposed, often for repeated or prolonged periods, with the more or less explicit purpose of deterring irregular migration and in order to increase returns – despite broad evidence on both its harmfulness and ineffectiveness.

The Regulation on Community statistics on migration and international protection (as amended in June 2020) invites EU Member States to establish pilot studies collecting data on the number of people in return procedures in immigration detention or subject to alternative measures (art. 9(3)(g)).

How many children are detained for immigration reasons?

In the 2019 Global study on children deprived of liberty, Independent Expert Manfred Nowak found that at least 330,000 children are detained throughout the world for migration-related purposes per year.

In Europe, 6,555 children were detained in 2016 in the 14 EU countries that provided data. In one case, a child was detained for 195 days. The EU Fundamental Rights Agency has found that EU member States which tend to detain children more often (France, Greece, Malta, Poland and Slovenia) witnessed an increase in child detention between 2018 and 2019.

However, countries often do not collect adequate data, and even when they do, the methodologies adopted differ greatly, making any comparison very hard. For instance, in some countries, children who are detained with their parents are not counted separately.

What does the EU say about the detention of undocumented migrants?

The EU Returns Directive (2008) – currently under review – states that alternatives to detention should always be applied whenever possible- In addition, the European Commission clarified that EU member states should develop and use alternatives to detention, including providing individual coaching (case management).

The Court of Justice of the European Union further clarified that detention can only be applied based on the analysis of individual circumstances and is only legitimate as long as there is a reasonable prospect of removal. Entering or staying in Europe irregularly, or the lack of identity documents, is not a sufficient ground for detention.

What does the law say about the detention of children?

Children should never be detained. UN experts agree that detaining children based on the children’s or their parents’ migration status is a human rights violation and is never in the best interests of a child. Moreover, well-established evidence shows that even short periods of detention have a long-lasting impact on children’s physical and mental health and their development.

The EU is still far from implementing these recommendations in its law, and a number of existing and proposed instruments, including the new EU Pact on Migration, still allow child detention, including potentially for prolonged periods of time.

Are there any alternatives to detention? Do they work?

Alternatives to detention which allow people to remain in the community while working on their migration procedures are more effective, humane and cheaper than detention. Individuals are more likely to comply with migration decisions if they are treated fairly, they can meet their basic needs and all available options have been considered. Case management allows migrants to receive holistic support and receive the information they need to take active steps towards case resolution. The evaluation of three pilot projects applying casemanagement-based alternatives in Bulgaria, Cyprus and Poland has showed positive results in terms of compliance, with 86% of individuals remaining engaged with immigration procedures and 99 % reporting improved ability to participate in informed decision making.

How many people have been returned to their countries of origin?

In 2019, 162,278 people were returned from EU member states to third countries (EU28).*

The European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex), assisted EU member states in the deportation of over 50,000 people between 2007 and 2019, including to conflict-ridden countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq. There are plans for Frontex to coordinate the deportation of 50,000 people per year from 2024 onwards. To make it possible, Frontex’s budget has been constantly increasing over the past years, from 6 million Euro in 2005 to 460 million in 2020. In 2027, it is expected that Frontex will have received 5,6 billion Euro by European taxpayers.

See Eurostat datasets on Asylum and Managed Migration. Please note that the dataset on voluntary returns (migr_eirt_vol) does not include the people who leave on their own accord/outside of assisted voluntary return programmes.

What does the EU say about the returns of undocumented migrants?

Over the past years, the EU has been consistently focusing on increasing returns. To give an example, the term “return” appears more than 100 times in the Commission Communication on the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum – while the term “rights” appears only 14 times.

This approach fails to recognise that for many undocumented people, return is not the only option – in fact, in some cases it cannot be an option at all. According to European Commission estimates, every year 300,000 people cannot be returned. This can be for a number of reasons, including because of:

• Prohibition in international law to return people to countries where they risk irreparableharm (principle of non-refoulement),
• Family reasons (the right to private and family life),
• Children’s rights,Health reasons,People not being recognised as a citizen by any state (statelessness), and
• Practical reasons (including lack of travel documents, when the third country doesn’t accept returns).

The EU focus on returns is not a realistic response to the complexities of migration, and will likely only lead to an increase in irregularity.* On the contrary, ensuring access to alternative ways to solve their migration status is key to address a complex reality, allow people to integrate in the community and avoid situations of legal limbo and exclusion from basic rights.

Providing individualised support and counselling (case management) can help people assess the different options and solve their migration status, be it through return, moving to a third country or regularising their position. A programme in Utrecht, The Netherlands, that supports undocumented people to solve their migration case, has shown that 91 % of participants have resolved their status: 59 % were regularised and integrated in the local community, and 19% were returned.**

*This has already happened in Italy, where the abrogation of the humanitarian permits by the Salvini Decrees in 2019 pushed 120.000 to 140.000 people into irregularity.

**Jan Braat (2019), Presentation at the International Conference organised jointly by the Council of Europe, the European Commission and the European Migration Network, 4 April 2019, in Agora, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France. Available here.

What happens after forced returns?

Forced return (or deportation) is an extreme and often harmful measure that breaks economic, social and family ties. Civil society organisations and researchers have noted a major gap in understanding of what happens to people after they are deported*.

What we do know is that the experience of deportation has an impact on the lives of parents and children, on future choices and opportunities. PICUM has collected testimonies of people who have been returned from the EU to African countries. This collection includes stories of children deported alone to countries they have no memory of, people sent to countries where they had never been in their life, and parents left unable to provide for their children.

*Existing research almost exclusively focuses on voluntary returns. See, for instance: World Bank Group (2019) “Supporting the Effective Reintegration of Roma Returnees in the Western Balkans”, available here.

Campaigners in Italy are fighting immigration detention by asking doctors to stop declaring anyone fit for detention. We spoke to Nicola Cocco of the Italian Society for Migrations’ Medicine to know more.

In Italy, sending a person to an immigration detention centre requires a doctor’s certificate proving that they are “fit for detention” (conditions are regulated by a 2022 ministerial directive). Often, this certification is done at the emergencies by overworked doctors, with little time and no serious medical check-up. The exam typically lacks the person’s consent and is not accompanied by a cultural mediator. The result is that doctors often merely certificate that the person does not have communicable diseases.

Most times, police are present for the whole duration of the exam. In some cases, the doctors performing the “fit for detention” exam are hired by the immigration detention centres themselves.

At the start of 2024, civil society organisations led by the Italian Society for Migrations’ Medicine (Società Italiana di Medicina delle Migrazioni, SIMM), the network “No More Lager” (Mai più lager – No ai CPR), and the Italian Association for Legal Studies on Immigration (Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione) launched a campaign to stop doctors from declaring people “fit for detention”. In this campaign, the associations link the health risks of immigration detention with the ethical risks faced by doctors when sending someone to a place of harm.

The immigration detention centres are often unhealthy places, where broken windows, lack of hot water and dirt are commonplace. Besides the negative effects on the physical health of the people detained, the confinement and lack of activities weigh on their mental health too. For many, the harms of immigration detention add to those experienced during the migration journey.

Immigration detention centres are closed institutions, where every aspect of the life of detained people is controlled by others, and where no perspective of release is known to the person in detention.

“The only possible reaction to this environment is violence” said Cocco, “Violence from detention guards. Violence from health care personnel, which often overly prescribes psychotropic drugs. Violence from people in detention against themselves, from self-harm to suicide”.

Deportations are also violent practices. Typically, they would happen without notice, during the night, at 4 am. Police would enter the cell in riot gear and give the person 10 minutes to throw their few possessions into a garbage bag, less than 10 minutes to call a loved one. The person undergoes a quick “fit to fly” visit and are brought to the airplane.

“The point is, is it ok for a doctor to approve that a person be sent to a torturing environment?” said Cocco.  

So far, 40 to 50 doctors have adhered to the campaign, which have collectively avoided that about 100 people be sent to immigration detention. Regional medical associations have not yet responded to the campaign, leaving the ethical burden on individual doctors.

However, the national committee currently reforming the medical code of ethics has proposed to include a clause whereby doctors cannot be requested to declare a person “fit for detention”.

Stopping the “fit for detention” certificates would mean that thousands of people would be spared the suffering of immigration detention. It would save the professional dignity and ethics of doctors. And it would send a strong message to the institutions against the legitimacy of immigration detention.

In June, the network “No More Lager” (Mai più lager – No ai CPR) launched a petition targeted at health care professionals calling for the closure of immigration detention centres across Italy.

But Europe is going in the opposite direction. The EU Migration Pact is thought to lead to the detention of 70-80,000 people every year, especially at the borders, where it is harder to check abuse and respect for safeguards. The Italy-Albania deal (which would see Albania hosting people rescued at sea by Italian authorities for the examination of their asylum claims) poses serious doubts as to how people with vulnerabilities will be treated and makes rights’ monitoring extremely difficult.

In Germany, a 1990 law obliges most public sector workers to report undocumented people to migration authorities. We spoke to Sarah Lincoln from Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte (Civil Liberties Association) to know more about this law and what civil society is doing to have it repealed.

Paragraph 87 of the German Residence Act forces any public authority, including social welfare offices, police, and courts, to report undocumented people they come in contact with to immigration enforcement.

The only exception to this rule was carved out in 2011 for schools and kindergartens.

What this obligation means in practice is that undocumented people avoid any contact with public authorities. They do not go to the police to report abuse or seek justice in courts. Many do not even go to the doctor or end up seeking care only in life-threatening situations.

When it comes to health care, the picture is complex: while undocumented people have a right to limited health care on paper, reporting obligations prevent them from accessing it.

According to the Asylum Seekers Benefits Act, undocumented migrants are entitled to limited medical services in the event of acute illnesses or painful conditions as well as during pregnancy and childbirth. Doctors are not obliged to report undocumented patients because they are not public workers (the German health care system is based on private insurances) and are therefore not covered by the Residence Act.

In fact, doctors are not permitted to report undocumented patients because of a legal duty to confidentiality.

But there have been instances where hospital staff reported undocumented patients nonetheless.

And going to the doctor without an insurance, as is the case for undocumented people, often means paying high medical fees and long-term debt. While emergency life-saving care would be provided, the hospital would still claim medical fees in the absence of insurance.

Getting treatment covered by the state requires a person asking for a permission from the social welfare offices, which are obliged to report undocumented people to the police or the migration office.

“The person would probably not even be able to leave the office. Police would come and arrest them and then put them in immigration detention”, said Lincoln.

As a result, undocumented people do not apply for official health care. Some seek treatment through charities and medical students who provide limited health care for free, in many cases severe Illnesses remain untreated.

In one case, a person who came to Germany from the Balkans in the early 90s and later lost his status, was unable to get a heart operation to avoid a (second) heart attack. In another case, a woman from Northern Africa who had been living in Germany for years was diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer by volunteering doctors and found herself with no option to get treatment.

Official data about health outcomes for undocumented people not accessing health care is lacking. But reports from organisations providing free health care and testimonies show that stories like the ones above are commonplace.

Campaigners and advocates have been fighting this law for years. In 2011, they managed to carve out an exception for schools and kindergartens. Since 2021, a coalition led by Doctors of the World and the Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte has been campaigning against paragraph 87 of the Residence Act to allow undocumented people to access health care without risking immigration enforcement. The campaign is being supported by over 80 civil society organisations, with the German doctors’ association and German Churches also repeatedly criticising reporting obligations.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women noted in its 2023 concluding observations that Germany has no intention of repealing or amending section 87 of the Resident Act and called on Germany to reconsider its position.

In August 2021, Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte filed a complaint to the European Commission against paragraph 87 of the Residence Act, denouncing violations of the EU data protection rules (the General Data Protection Regulation) and the right to health care as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

While the German government assured that they were considering the complaint (the proposal was in fact taken up by the German government in their coalition programme), they eventually backtracked and on the contrary passed new cuts to social benefits for asylum-seekers, bowing to a political climate ever more hostile to immigration.

Advocates also pursued strategic litigation in German courts, not without challenges. For undocumented complainants, access to courts remains difficult given the court also has an obligation to report to the immigration authorities. And procedures often last too long compared to their urgent medical needs.

Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte is currently awaiting to hear about the outcomes of a second complaint filed to the Commission in April 2024.

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

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

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

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

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

Financial benefit

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

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

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

Humanitarian exemption

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

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

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

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

Limiting “basic human needs” and family members

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

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

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

Removal of public instigation offence

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key examples:

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

Monitoring and evaluation

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

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

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

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

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