On 26 March, the European Parliament’s plenary endorsed a compromise text on the EU’s controversial new deportations bill (draft EU Return Regulation) that sealed a toxic alliance between centre-right and far-right forces.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), said, “This vote marks a dangerous turning point, as centre-right forces break the cordon sanitaire to align with the far right and push through a deeply repressive agenda. This toxic alliance is paving the way for mass detention, family separation, and deportations – normalising abuse we’ve seen with ICE in the United States, and putting countless lives at risk.”

The vote followed the collapse of negotiations with liberals (Renew) and socialists (S&D) in the civil liberties committee (LIBE), as conservatives struck backroom deals with far-right MEPS to jointly vote for a more repressive compromise text, as revealed by German press agency dpa. 

With this vote, publicly elected MEPs are choosing to put hundreds of thousands of people, including children, at risk of irreparable harm. The text allows member states to detain children and adults, tear families apart, and send people to deportation centres in countries they have never set foot in. Five EU countries – Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Denmark and Greece – are already collaborating on plans to set up such centres, although no information is yet available about destination countries.

The proposals also grant sweeping powers to restrict people’s movements, search belongings, impose disproportionate “security” measures, and share personal data with countries that lack safeguards.

The Parliament’s position adds to an already harmful text, that is set to normalise and escalate ICE-style immigration enforcement across the Union. The Commission’s proposal would require member states to deploy broad and undefined detection measures to catch undocumented people, which could result in invasive surveillance, racial profiling and obligations for public workers to denounce undocumented people. The Council’s position on the draft Return Regulation endorses police raids of public spaces and private homes, with very little safeguards.

The three EU institutions – Commission, Council and Parliament – will now enter trilogue negotiations to hammer out a final text.

On 9th March, Members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) voted on the EU’s controversial new deportations bill (draft EU Return Regulation).

The vote followed the collapse of negotiations between Renew (liberals) rapporteur Malik Azmani and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D). In response, the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) tabled an alternative version of the bill, backed by far-right groups including Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN), European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and Patriots for Europe (PfE).

Critics had already warned that Azmani’s compromise text differed little in substance from the harder-line proposal and contained few meaningful safeguards to prevent fundamental rights violations in the law’s implementation.

In this vote, both texts were put to MEPs. The S&D ultimately rejected both versions, as did The Left and the Greens/EFA groups. The EPP’s proposal therefore secured a majority with the backing of far-right groups.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, said: “This vote seals a toxic alliance between centre-right and far-right forces, after weeks of backroom deals to kill the last remaining safeguards. It puts hundreds of thousands of people, including children, at risk of detention across Europe and allows member states to tear families apart, sending them to deportation centres in countries they have never set foot in. The proposals grant sweeping powers to restrict people’s movements, search belongings, impose disproportionate “security” measures, and share personal data with countries that lack safeguards. After the outrage over ICE operations in the United States, this text opens the door to similarly violent immigration enforcement across Europe. Human dignity, freedom, equality: this vote betrays the very values the EU claims to uphold.”

The text that was voted:

• Opens the door for member states to set up deportation centres outside the EU – including for families with children – 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 higher risk of violence and fundamental rights violations, further restricting people’s agency and options.
• 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;
• Requires member states to impose geographical restrictions or reporting obligations for all people in the return procedure, or any other restrictive measures defined in national law;
• Despite creating the conditions for overcrowded detention centres, it introduces “emergency” possibilities for member states to disregard safeguards during detention such as limiting judicial review of detention decisions, including for families and children, when there are “exceptionally large numbers” of people awaiting their deportation.
• Introduces severe punitive measures, such as entry bans of undefined duration that could be determined at national level (including “permanent” in cases where security risks are invoked), financial penalties, reduction of financial assistance to rebuild a life after their deportation, and even criminal sanctions 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. 

1. What is the proposed Deportation (“Return”) Regulation?
2. What are some of the key elements in the Commission’s proposal?
3. What would happen to undocumented people if this becomes law?
4. Would there be any consequences for professionals, city level authorities and anyone supporting undocumented people?
5. What other policy choices do governments have besides deportations?
6. What is PICUM calling for?
7. What’s next in terms of negotiations on this proposal?
8. What can you do to oppose this?

What is the proposed Deportation (“Return”) Regulation?

The Deportation regulation (officially called “Return regulation”) is a legislative proposal that sets out the EU’s agenda on deportations of people who lack residence status. It was presented by the European Commission in March 2025, with the purpose of increasing deportation rates and allowing for swifter deportations. If adopted, it would replace the 2008 Return Directive.

Note on terminology: the Commission’s proposal uses the term “return” rather than “deportation” concerning this proposed legislation. PICUM, as many civil society organisations, prefers to use the term “deportation” as the proposal relies overwhelmingly on increased use of force and coercion in its various elements. Furthermore, what the proposal describes as “voluntary return” in fact corresponds to “voluntary departure”, meaning a person’s compliance with a mandatory return decision rather than a genuinely free and informed choice to return to their country of origin.

What are some of the key elements in the Commission’s proposal?

The Commission’s proposal strengthens the tools available to EU member states to identify, control, detain, and deport people in an irregular situation. It looks at deportations as the only possible way to reduce the number of people living irregularly in the EU, without considering any of the root causes that lead people to live without papers, or avenues that would allow them to regularise their status.

 The main proposed changes include:

• Expansion of countries where people can be deported and deportation centres outside the EU, including in countries where they have no prior ties. This includes the possibility for member states to conclude arrangements with any country that would be willing to accept their deportees. These arrangements – also known as “deportation hubs” – are likely to be based on detention and containment, such as Italy’s deal with Albania – and raise serious concerns about fundamental rights, discrimination, and democratic scrutiny.
• The proposal requires member states to deploy undefined broad detection measures. These might result in different measures and tools designed to “detect” people who have an irregular administrative status to facilitate their deportation. These practices could include police raids on workplaces and in public spaces, invasive and indiscriminate uses of surveillance technologies, racial profiling, and, in some cases obligations on public service workers in schools and hospitals to report anyone suspected to be undocumented. To learn more about detection measures, you can read PICUM’s explainer here.
• Vast expansion of immigration detention, both in terms of length (up to two years) and the criteria on the basis of which people could be detained. These include reasons such as having entered Europe irregularly, being homeless or not having documents – which could de facto cover all undocumented people. The proposal also allows for the immigration detention of children, despite international human rights 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. 
• Limitations to access national permits and increased irregularity. More people would be pushed into irregularity and legal limbo as the proposal requires member states to immediately 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). The proposal also weakens protections for those who cannot be deported as it removes the current requirement to identify and assess other individual circumstances apart from the risk of refoulement, ignoring that in many cases “return” may not be appropriate or even possible.
• Harsh sanctions and punishment for living with irregular residence status. First, 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. Additional specific sanctions are also foreseen for people on “security and public order” grounds, which are vaguely defined and may be applied abusively.

A more detailed overview of the Commission’s proposal and PICUM’s concerns, can be found here.

What would happen to undocumented people if this becomes law?

The proposed Deportation Regulation would make everyday life more unsafe and unstable for undocumented people.

• Constant uncertainty and more precarious lives: Undocumented people will be more likely to live with the threat of a deportation order that could be enforced at any time, uprooting them from countries where they may have lived for years, worked, paid taxes, and built friendships and family ties. This uncertainty would also affect people who could not be deported due to human rights issues: they would receive only temporary “suspensions” of deportation that have to be reviewed every six months, instead of a longer leave to stay or a regular status that would allow them to rebuild their lives with stability and dignity.
• More fear and exclusion from essential services: Detection-driven policies could discourage people from accessing healthcare, education, housing support or reporting abuse, out of fear that seeking help may expose them to deportation procedures.
• Risks to the right to health: Health is a fundamental right under EU law. When people avoid medical care because of detection risks, or are placed in immigration detention, this harms individual wellbeing and weakens public health strategies.
• Punishment linked to migration status and chilling effect on solidarity: The proposal’s sanctions and restrictive approach risk pushing people further into homelessness, exploitation and isolation.

Would there be any consequences for professionals, city level authorities and anyone supporting undocumented people?

The proposed Deportation Regulation would also place significant new pressures for those providing support to undocumented individuals:

• Pressure on professionals and erosion of trust: If access to public services becomes formally linked to immigration enforcement, professionals such as doctors, teachers, social workers, and volunteers may face conflicts between their ethical obligations and expectations to cooperate with immigration authorities. This could undermine professional independence, weaken trust between service providers and communities, and ultimately make essential services less accessible.
• Chilling effect on community support: Individuals and organisations offering assistance – including neighbours, faith groups, and civil society organisations – may fear that providing basic humanitarian support could expose them or the people they assist to surveillance, checks, or investigations. Such concerns could discourage community solidarity and reduce access to informal support networks.

What other policy choices do governments have besides deportations?

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.  For example, the Spanish government recently announced a broad regularisation programme which could benefit around 500,000 people. This shows that regularisation is not only possible – it works, and it’s the right thing to do to offer dignity, stability, and access to basic rights.

What is PICUM calling for?

Together with over 250 other civil society organisations, PICUM has called for the Deportation regulation proposal to be rejected. We believe the proposal would have such far-reaching consequences for the rights of undocumented people, as well as for the societies in which they live, that without a fundamental revision of its approach, no safeguard could make this legislation acceptable.

What’s next in terms of negotiations on this proposal?

EU governments have already agreed on a common position and pushed the proposal further, further expanding the use of detention, opening the door for further restrictive measures under national law, and introducing a new article which would enable authorities to conduct home raids. The European Parliament is now reviewing the proposal and is set to vote on its position in March 2026.

Even after the European Parliament vote, negotiations between the Parliament and the Council will continue to reach a final agreement.

This means there is still space to influence the outcome – and pressure now matters.

What can you do to oppose this?

This is a moment for collective action. Across Europe, people are already mobilising to oppose this legislation. You can add your voice and strengthen this momentum in different ways.

1. Join and support existing mobilisation against the deportation law

• Sign the WeMove petition: https://action.wemove.eu/sign/2025-12-no-deportation-petition-EN/ – More information and next steps will follow.
• Follow dedicated social media pages to stay aware and join campaign actions like @WeKeep_UsSafe (Instagram)

2. Help us spread the word

• Organise discussions in your workplace, organisation or community (you can print and share our leaflet on detection measures with all the information)
• Help make this information accessible by translating or adapting it for different audiences (contact us if you’d like support)

3. Put pressure on decision-makers

• Contact your Members of the European Parliament to let them know that we are watching and asking them to reject the law.

4. Act locally – in your city

• Contact your local City Council or city representatives and ask them to take a stand against this EU law and fulfil their mandate to guarantee services and protection to all inhabitants
• Mobilise with others in your community, including through public meetings, collective statements, or peaceful protest

Additional Resources:

• Joint Statement – Over 250 Organisations: Inhumane Deportation Rules Should be Rejected
• Joint Statement – No to EU law enabling home raids, policing of public services and racial profiling
• Briefing – Unprotected: How proposed EU rules on deportation threaten the universal right to health
• Explainer on detection measures
• FAQ on Reporting obligations and firewalls
• FAQ on Security and public order grounds in migration procedures: Impact on social exclusion and access to regular status

On 10th December, the European Parliament and the EU Council reached an agreement on the revision of the Victims’ Rights Directive, the EU’s law setting minimum protection and redress standards for victims of crime.  

The leaked draft shows that EU lawmakers agreed on a text that fails to protect undocumented victims from detention and deportation should they report abuse or violence to police.

Louise Bonneau, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said “Across Europe, undocumented people already face the impossible choice between enduring abuse or risking detention and deportation if they seek help. This agreement reinforces that fear by signaling that some victims are less worthy of protection, undermining equality before the law and the fundamental rights the EU claims to uphold.” 

The Directive requires that victims should not be ‘discouraged’ from reporting and that their rights under the Directive must not be obstructed, yet it leaves it entirely to member states to decide whether to introduce concrete safeguards, such as guarantees that no personal data of undocumented migrant victims would be shared between police and immigration enforcement officials (e.g. “firewalls”). In practice, this means there will be no EU-wide guarantee of safe reporting mechanisms.

The text clarifies that member states can issue special residence permits for undocumented victims, but they are not required to do so. Only access to secure and autonomous residence status can ensure that victims can report crimes and seek redress without fear.  

Suzanne Hoff, International Coordinator of La Strada International, said “For trafficked and exploited people, one of the biggest barriers is the lack of safe reporting mechanisms, which are generally absent in Europe. We had hoped that the revision of the Victim Rights Directive would remedy this gap in the EU anti-trafficking law, but this did not happen. If the EU is serious about fighting human trafficking and other serve forms of exploitation and abuse it should ensure that reporting abuse does not lead to detention or deportation: without this guarantee, many victims will remain too afraid to come forward”.  

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• The political agreement reached by the European Parliament and the Council will then have to be formally adopted by both institutions, before it is published in the Official Journal and enters into force.
• The European Commission had proposed a minimal safeguard preventing authorities from sharing victims’ residence-status data with migration authorities until completion of the first individual needs assessment. Although far from a full safe-reporting guarantee, it acknowledged the risks faced by undocumented victims. Member states rejected even this limited protection, repeating the missed opportunity seen last year in the Violence Against Women Directive.
• These gaps must also be understood in the broader context of EU migration policy. Proposals such as the “Return Regulation” would further expand enforcement powers that already deter undocumented people – especially women and girls exposed to gender-based violence – from seeking help. Without binding safe-reporting safeguards across EU law, the rights set out in the Directive will remain inaccessible to many of those who need them most.

On 8^th December, the EU Council voted its negotiating position on the draft Return Regulation, the EU’s flagship initiative to escalate immigration detention and deportations of undocumented people, including to countries outside the EU. 

The Council has endorsed a position that further worsens the Commission’s original proposal: 

• A new article which would enable authorities to conduct home raids, investigations and further controls to enforce deportations. Searches would cover both the homes of people to be deported and ‘other relevant premises’, which would potentially open the door to police raiding houses of citizens suspected of sheltering migrants, as well as offices and shelters run by humanitarian organisations. 
• A massive expansion in the use and duration of immigration detention, up to 30 months (up from the current 18 and from 24 in the Commission’s proposal), including for children.  
• Expanded grounds for detention, including absence of family ties, engaging in irregular work and insufficient means of subsistence, de facto criminalising poverty and exclusion. 
• Possibility for member states to establish deportation centres outside the EU, leading to arbitrary detention, serious accountability and human rights monitoring challenges, risks of chain deportations to unsafe countries and numerous other violations of human rights and international law- including for children travelling with their families. 
• Extended derogations from fundamental rights for migrants considered a risk to national security and public policy, further blurring the lines between criminal law and migration and reinforcing dangerous stereotypes. 
• Entry bans of up to 20 years, extendable to an indefinite duration when security risks are invoked, as well as disproportionate obligations on people deemed non cooperative in the return procedure – non-compliance would result in fines, cuts to financial assistance intended to rebuild a life after deportation and even criminal sanctions. 
• Additional ‘flexibility’ clauses opening the door to further measures of punishment and containment at national level, including expanding the grounds for absconding and detention, extra obligations to cooperate and sanctions for non-cooperation. 

The regulation would enter into force two years after adoption, despite having been presented as “urgent”. However, provisions designed to shift responsibility and externalise deportations –such as return hubs – would be applicable immediately. 

QUOTE PACK:

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “This so-called ‘Return Regulation’ ushers in a deportation regime that entrenches punishment, violence, and discrimination. Instead of investing in safety, protection, and inclusion, the EU is choosing policies that will push more people into danger and legal limbo. The Council’s position goes against basic humanity and EU values. Now it is up to the European Parliament to reject this approach. Migration governance must be rooted in dignity and rights – not fear, racism, or exclusion.” 

Sarah Chander, Director at the Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice, said: “European governments are seeking to change the law to deport people to places they are not from, and have no connection to. With the ‘Returns Regulation’, the EU is legitimising offshore prisons, racial profiling and child detention in ways we have never seen. Instead of finding ways to ensure safety and protection for everybody, the EU is pushing a punishment regime for migrants, which will help no-one.”  

Olivia Sundberg Diez, EU Advocate on Migration and Asylum at Amnesty International, said: “Today, EU home affairs ministers are expected to significantly worsen the Commission’s already punitive and deeply flawed Return Regulation proposal. Detention as a default, home raids, new sanctions and surveillance on undocumented people, and deportations at any cost – systematically dismantling rights protections and allowing for indefinite detention in some cases. Mirroring the dehumanizing and unlawful mass arrests and deportations in the US, these hardline policies from EU member states reveal a complete disregard for international law and human dignity.” 

Freek Spinnewijn, FEANTSA director said: “The new proposal not only further criminalises migrants but also threatens those who provide aid or essential services. EU policy must uphold a strict firewall between immigration enforcement and humanitarian support, and Member States must respect the human-rights-based principles, neutrality and independence of humanitarian actors. Homelessness services must be safe spaces, protected from raids or any form of immigration control targeting undocumented people.” 

Sofie Croonenberg, advocacy officer at Stichting Vluchteling, said: “This proposal further legitimizes the extremely harmful externalization policies of the European Union. Learning from similar practices of the past the so-called ‘return hubs’, we know these will lead to extensive human rights violations and even the detention of children. We urge the EU to abandon this concept and shift to human centred policies for people on the move. This is only possible when human rights and dignity are at its core.”  

Federico Dessi, Executive Director at Médecins du Monde Belgium said: “The potential damage that this legislation could cause to the health and well-being of undocumented migrants is too great to ignore. Limited safeguards regarding the sharing of health data have been further weakened, detention periods have been extended, even for children, and measures to ‘detect’ third-country nationals now extend to their own homes and to undetermined types of “relevant premises”. This represents a significant setback for the protection of fundamental rights and the right to health in Europe, and undermines the necessary barriers between service provision and law enforcement.” 

Alkistis Agrafioti, Advocacy Officer & Lawyer at the Greek Council for Refugees (GCR), said: “Greece has become one of the EU’s starkest experiments in detaining asylum applicants — marked by prison-like conditions, a lack of effective monitoring mechanisms, and repeated findings of rights violations. The ‘Returns Regulation’ threatens to replicate and entrench this model across Europe. Instead of learning from the profound failures of detention-based approaches, the EU is choosing to scale them up, turning border zones into sites of coercion and trauma for people seeking protection. This is a dangerous step backwards. A humane migration system must be built on dignity, transparency, and the right to seek safety.” 

Judith Sunderland, Acting Europe and Central Asia Deputy Director at Human Rights Watch: EU governments took a terrible proposal from the European Commission and made it immeasurably worse. The draft Return Regulation opens the door for arbitrary and abusive raids on and prolonged detention of migrants, including children, based on racial profiling, who then face being shipped off to detention centers in random countries they never set foot in, all with minimal legal oversight. This dystopian future is about as far as the EU can go from its founding values of equality and respect for human rights. 

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• Last September, over 250 organisations signed a joint statement calling on EU lawmakers to reject the proposed Return Regulation, highlighting human rights risks and opaque decision-making. 
• The European Parliament will adopt its own negotiating position in the next months. Both institutions, the Parliament and the Council, will then need to find a compromise to finalise the text. 

In March 2025, the European Commission proposed a Returns Regulation expanding immigration detention, deportation, externalisation, racial profiling, and surveillance of undocumented migrants. In a new report, Médecins du Monde International Network and PICUM warn that the proposal threatens the right to health and violates medical ethics, urging EU lawmakers to reject it and promote rights-based migration policies that protect people rather than punish them.

The European Commission’s proposal facilitates the collection, access and exchange of data on third country nationals’ vulnerability, health and medical needs, among other information, between EU member states (article 38), and between EU and non-EU countries to enforce deportation operations (articles 39 and 41).

Decisions on transferring personal data, including sensitive health data, of third-country nationals are left to national authorities and, where relevant, Frontex. No mention is made of independent medical professionals, data protection authorities, or judicial oversight in assessing the risks or justifying the data transfer. When data is shared outside the EU, people risk having their personal data being misused in countries where human rights protections are weak.

This proposal is in direct contrast with Article 8 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which guarantee the right to privacy and the protection of personal data for everyone in the EU, including undocumented people.

In multiple judgments, since at least 2000, the European Court of Human Rights has held that collecting or storing health data by public authorities, even if not used, interferes with the right to privacy (Article 8 European Convention on Human Rights) and breaches medical confidentiality.

Medical professionals and civil society organisations have also contested EU and national migration enforcement and deportation policies that jeopardise the right to health and compromise medical professional integrity.

In 2024, the Standing Committee of European Doctors, which represents national medical associations across Europe, denounced how doctors have faced governmental pressure to break patient-doctor confidentiality and report names of patients seeking their care to identify undocumented migrants.

In Italy, campaigners are asking doctors to stop declaring anyone fit for immigration detention. In Belgium, Médecins du Monde and other NGOs appealed to the Constitutional Court against a law that allows physical coercion for mandatory medical examinations in return procedures during WHO-declared public health emergencies. In Sweden, over 4,000 health care workers pledged to commit civil disobedience and refuse to report their patients should the government introduce reporting obligations in the healthcare sector.

Besides concerns linked to the sharing of health data, the draft Regulation jeopardises people’s health and wellbeing in the following ways. The proposal:

• The proposal calls for an escalation of immigration detention across the EU, including for children (despite international standards indicating that immigration detention of children is never in their best interests), expanding the grounds for detention and extending its maximum length from 18 to 24 months. Research shows that any period in immigration detention harms people mental and physical state and various international bodies and courts have emphasised the disproportionate effects of immigration detention on physical and mental health .
• only requires the provision of “emergency health care” and “essential treatment of illnesses” (article 34) in immigration detention centres, and otherwise largely ignores detention standards beyond a general obligation to provide access to “open air space” (article 34).
• expands the grounds for forced deportation, including with coercive measures (article 12(4)), with little consideration of medical needs during the deportation procedures, and to countries where people may face torture or other forms of violence. The text also allows for the creation of deportation centres outside the EU, with unclear oversight over conditions and human rights standards.
• explicitly pushes for detection of people based on their residence status (Article 6) thereby promoting harassment, violence, and racial profiling.

PICUM and Médecins du Monde call on EU lawmakers to reject this text and instead uphold the universal right to health and respect medical ethics; promote safe and regular migration pathways; and ensure access to secure residence permits.

The European Parliament’s civil liberties committee should start discussing its negotiating position in November. The EU Council is expected to vote on its negotiating position by the end of 2025.

QUOTES:

Louise Bonneau, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, said: “Punitive migration measures have already cost lives. History shows where persecution leads, and this Deportation Regulation risks repeating those mistakes: it isolates people, blocks access to healthcare and undermines public health. EU lawmakers must stop it.”

Federico Dessi, Executive Director at Médécins du Monde Belgium, said: “Turning healthcare into a migration control tool is a profound violation of medical ethics and undermines patient safety. Doctors and health workers are bound by a duty of care and confidentiality, yet the use of sensitive health data for deportation and compulsory medical examinations directly undermines this duty. If patients fear that seeking treatment will expose them to deportation, they will delay or avoid care altogether, with devastating consequences for individual and public health. At the same time, expanding immigrant detention, despite the well-documented damage to mental and physical health, puts people at even greater risk.  We urge EU lawmakers to reject measures that compromise medical integrity and the right to health for all.”

NOTES TO THE EDITORS:

• An embargoed copy of the report can be found here.
• The number of people living in Europe irregularly is uncertain and estimates vary. Recent research suggests that between 2.6 and 3.2 million undocumented migrants resided in 12 European countries (including the UK) between 2016 and 2023. These estimates place migrants in an irregular situation at less than 1% of the total population and between 8% and 10% of those are born outside the Schengen Area (for EU countries) or the Common Travel Area (for Ireland and the UK).
• This report follows a recent statement by over 240 organisations calling on EU lawmakers and member states to reject the draft Return Regulation.

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