Europe’s continuous shift to the right and far right is fuelling increasingly restrictive migration policies and turning social rights into tools of migration enforcement. Human rights are under attack, with growing criminalisation of migrants and racialised communities, including undocumented people. Detention and deportation increasingly trump protection and inclusion.

Across the EU and national levels, new laws and reforms clash with international rights standards. Civic space is shrinking, and rights defenders face mounting legal, financial, and political pressure – including harassment and prosecution for offering humanitarian aid or defending migrants’ rights.

During PICUM’s 2025 General Assembly, we explored collective strategies to resist and respond to such an increasingly hostile context. We discussed areas for common advocacy, for building solidarity across movements, and strategies to reinforce the role of civil society in defending the rights and dignity of all migrants, regardless of status.

What opportunities in an era of hostile migration policies?

In our first plenary session, we discussed opportunities for resistance in research, the political level, the human rights framework, and local action.

Fatima Diallo, Chair of the UN Migrant Workers’ Committee, discussed how international human rights frameworks and bodies can monitor states’ actions and promote and develop international standards. Diallo especially underlined the role of the Committee she chairs in promoting an intersectional and decolonising approach to migration management, encouraging states to ratify the UN Migrant Workers Convention, and in urging actions to eradicate racial discrimination and xenophobia.

Attacks on civil society are increasing across the EU and in neighbouring countries where the EU is striking deals to block departures. Greens MEP Tineke Strik pinpointed how recent EU proposals, like the EU Facilitation Directive and the EU Returns Regulation, disregard the core rights of asylum seekers and undocumented people as if they are not protected by international human rights law. On the draft Returns Regulation, Strik invited civil society to engage with faith-based organisations, journalists and lawyers, and build larger alliances overall, without forgetting efforts to counter the dehumanisation of migrants and to mobilise citizens.

Emilio Puccio, Secretary General of the European Parliament’s Intergroup on Children’s Rights, said that restrictive narratives on migration have weaponized children as a problem, increasingly portraying them as criminals and radicalised. Puccio denounced the overall negative framework around child rights in the EU Migration Pact, and criticized how child safeguarding concerns were used to require children as young as six to be fingerprinted. He highlighted the need for political commitment that children are not a political threat and need protection, which would also mean that immigration detention of children should be eradicated and that we need legal aid and clear rules around guardianship. He echoed Strik’s calls to mobilise more broadly, to engage with faith-based organisations and grassroots civil society, and try to reach actors which may echo calls for protection of children and be listened to by centre-right policy makers.

Albert Kraler, MIrreM research coordinator and assistant professor at Krems University, Austria, discussed opportunities to counter the politicisation of migration by reframing the debate into more technical questions, where research and evidence play a bigger role. Citing the example of MIrreM, an EU-funded research project about irregular migration, Kraler noted that while regularisation is often portrayed as a political taboo, most countries do have some form of regularisation mechanism in place.

Researchers themselves can be actors of change. When the European Commission presented a new draft Returns Regulation as being backed by EU-funded research, key research consortia came together and issued a joint statement denouncing such instrumentalisation of their work to justify new restrictive measures. The statement was then used to open a communication channel between the Commission and the researchers.

Linnea Näsholm of the Health Center for Undocumented Migrants in Oslo, Norway, shared the experience of local health centres in improving access to health care for undocumented people by collaborating with municipalities, feeding politicians with knowledge and solutions, and mobilising unions and the health sector at large. Successful initiatives have sprung up in Bergen, Kristiansand, Oslo, and Trondheim.

At the end of our panel, we took a look at resistance by migrants’ rights organisations in the United States. Helena Olea, Deputy Director of Alianza Américas, underlined the many struggles facing civil society there, including limited capacity, anti-migrant narratives and funding cuts. The overall context on migration has severely worsened, with many undocumented parents no longer sending their children to school for fear of being arrested, while due process rights are being eroded. On resistance strategies, Olea highlighted the need to combine different types of work, from litigation to advocacy, from narrative work to campaigns to empower people with knowledge of their rights, especially in the face of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids. Olea also underscored Alianza Américas’ work in building alliances with other groups hit by hostile policies, such as black communities, LGBTQ+ and feminist organisations, and groups defending people with disabilities.

Strategies to counter hostile narratives and policies

In our second plenary session, we invited people who could share with us experiences and perspectives on civil society strategies to counter hostile narratives and policies inside and outside the migration space.

Aarti Narsee, Senior Policy and Advocacy Officer at the European Civic Forum, discussed how civil society in Europe is resisting the worsening context, from strategic litigation to mass mobilisation, to establishing new alliances. In the Netherlands, for instance, public interest litigation succeeded in challenging the sale of weapons to Israel and anti-Muslim discrimination in the banking system. In Belgium, the pro-Palestine movement is working with trade unions to block shipments of weapons to Israel. In Spain, grassroots mobilisation around housing rights gathered housing cooperatives and tenants’ associations in challenging real estate investors and local administrations.

Nadia Cornejo, spokesperson at Greenpeace Belgium, illustrated how the environmental organisation is responding to increasing judicial arrests, longer detention and prison sentences. Greenpeace has integrated the right to protest in its work and launched the “Time to resist” global campaign, in coalition with other NGOs, unions, and other actors to protect the right to protest. When organising protests, Greenpeace informs participants about legal risks and puts in place other precautionary measures, with a view of deescalating violence as much as possible in encounters with law enforcement.

Fezile Osum, Legal coordinator of the Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN), spoke about litigation work in European courts and highlighted a recent judgment from the European Court on Human Rights which condemns Greece for systematic pushbacks. Osum also presented BVMN reports exposing the criminalisation of migrants and human rights defenders, including prosecution, defamation, intimidation and extensive financial control, as well as the “In Defence of Defenders” toolkit which indicates avenues for protection and redress, including UN and Council of Europe bodies, to approach in cases of criminalisation.

Finding hope: wins and inspirations from the network

Our last panel showcased the wins and stories of inspiration from our network. All contributors underlined how change was possible but was only achievable through the tireless work of broad civil society coalitions.

Lucía Maquieira, Director of Red Acoge, spoke about recent reforms that grant residence and work permits in Spain. The reform of the arraigo (or “rootedness” in English) system means that conditions to access residence and work permits are easier to meet and that more people will be able to obtain them. Despite continuous shortcomings, a specific regularisation passed after the Valencia floods is expected to grant residence and work permits to some 25,000 undocumented victims.

Daan Bauwens, Director of Utsopi, celebrated a recent law that finally recognises and protects  labour rights for sex workers in Belgium, including when undocumented. This includes minimum working conditions and compensation for exploitation. Bauwens also reported that beginning of May sex workers went on their first ever spontaneous strike in Belgium.

Alicia Adams, Partnerships and Donor Relations Officer at FiZ, shared how a 30-year long fight by Swiss civil society achieved an important legislative change that makes it easier for dependent partners to access a residence permit in Switzerland when their relationship ends. The change also applies to unmarried and same-sex couples, and makes it possible for civil society to bring evidence of abuse experienced by one of the partners, often a migrant woman.

Janneke Wijman, Case manager at ASKV, celebrated a recent regularisation adopted by the Dutch government for Surinamese nationals living in The Netherlands who had lost their Dutch nationality after Suriname’s independence. Wijman recounted how various allies joined the struggle, from researchers to migration lawyers, from NGOs to members of the Surinamese community, and managed to achieve success through strategic litigation and political pressure.

1. What are reporting obligations?
2. Do reporting obligations violate human rights standards?
3. What are the consequences of reporting obligations?
4. Which countries have reporting obligations in place?
5. Are some countries introducing new reporting obligations?
6. How common is reporting in practice?
7. How have reporting obligations been received?
8. Where have reporting obligations been successfully challenged?
9. What are ‘firewalls’?
10. Where do firewall policies exist?

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

What are reporting obligations?

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

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

Do reporting obligations violate human rights standards?

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

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

What are the consequences of reporting obligations?

Reporting obligations have a wide range of negative consequences:

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

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

Which countries have reporting obligations in place?

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

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

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

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

Are some countries introducing new reporting obligations?

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

• Sweden: The government is exploring a widely contested proposal to oblige all public sector workers to report undocumented people they come in contact with to immigration enforcement and/or police. In November 2024, the government presented the outcomes of a public inquiry outlining how a potential new law could oblige some public sector workers to denounce undocumented people they come in contact with to the immigration authorities. According to the inquiry, the Swedish government should oblige the following governmental agencies in Sweden to automatically report undocumented people to the Police Authority as they come in contact with them: the Public Employment Service, Social Insurance Agency, Prison and Probation Service, Enforcement Agency, Pensions Agency and Tax Agency. The Swedish police may then pass on the information to the Migration Agency or the Security Service. It also proposes that the Swedish Economic Crime Authority and the Prosecution Authority should be obliged to provide information upon request from an enforcement agency. The inquiry proposes exemptions for health services, schools and social services (see also PICUM’s press release).
• Finland: In its 2023 programme, the Finnish government is also considering the expansion of the obligation to denounce undocumented people.

How common is reporting in practice?

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

How have reporting obligations been received?

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

Where have reporting obligations been successfully challenged?

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

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

What are ‘firewalls’?

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

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

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

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

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

Where do firewall policies exist?

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

Examples of explicit firewall policies include:

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

This blog outlines key tasks linked to migration and migrants as included in mission letters sent by the President of the European Commission to relevant Commissioner-designates.

Border and migration management

Once again, migration is embedded in a portfolio that is essentially centred around security, namely the  Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration. Such a security approach is evident in goals around doubling Europol’s staff and increasing its powers, tripling Frontex’ border guards, and “securing” the EU’s borders overall. This Commissioner would also report to the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

The mission letter tasks the new Commissioner with implementing the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which human rights organisations have long criticised for increasing detention, lowering essential safeguards for those who come to Europe seeking safety or livelihood and overall being unworkable and harmful.

Many of the Commissioner-designates’ goals are linked to strengthening the borders, from the digitalisation of border management and the implementation of connections between large-scale migration databases, to further leveraging visa policy for pursuing migration deterrence objectives. The latter is already being used by the EU as a bargaining chip to force third countries into facilitating deportations of their nationals. The focus on deportations is further highlighted by the announcement of a “new common approach to the return of irregular migrants” which is meant to speed up deportation procedures.

The mission letter asks the new Commissioner to respond to “hybrid attacks” and the “instrumentalisation of migrants”, a concept that the EU uses for cases when a third country is accused of pushing people to the EU’s borders for political reasons. This concept has already been invoked by member states in recent years to push people back and shirk international obligations at the Poland-Belarus border and more recently at the Finland-Russia border. The idea of migrants-as-a-threat is further shared in the portfolio of the new Vice President for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, who is called on to address the “weaponisation of people” and to pursue “strong external borders”.

The implementation of the new Schengen Borders Code, another top priority for the migration portfolio, is also cause for concern, as its 2024 revision validates in practice racial profiling in internal border checks to detect people in an irregular situation.

Irregular migration and migrant smuggling are largely seen as threats to fight with sanctions and criminalisation, instead of realities produced by global inequalities and repressive policies to address with support for people to move and settle in safety and dignity. References to the “fight against smugglers” and “innovative operational solutions to counter irregular migration” illustrate this approach.

A potentially promising opening is found in reference to search and rescue. The mission letter tasks the Commissioner-designate with a “stronger coordination of rescue operations” but this is coupled with “increased surveillance capabilities for Frontex”, an agency that has come under scrutiny for complicity in human rights violations multiple times.

Mediterranean

A new Commissioner for the Mediterranean, supported by a newly created Directorate-General for the Mediterranean, is expected to oversee deals with Mediterranean countries initiated under Von der Leyen I and prioritise cooperation on border control and anti-smuggling as part of the external aspects of EU migration policy. Yet this mission letter does not mention ways to allow people from the Mediterranean region to move and settle in safety and dignity in Europe.

The mission letter tasks the new Commissioner with developing a new Pact for the Mediterranean, in coordination with the High Representative for Foreign Affairs,which will largely focus on economic, security and migration issues.

Previous deals with Tunisia and Egypt are expected to be used as a model for these forms of cooperation. Human rights organisations like Amnesty International already highlighted in the context of the EU-Tunisia deal how such approach focuses on policies and funding that promote a punitive approach to migration and outsource border controls and responsibilities to third countries, in complete disregard of human rights obligations. In this contest, humanitarian and development policies become instrumental to pursue migration deterrence objectives.

Labour migration and labour rights

Labour migration is largely dealt with under the migration portfolio.

The letter asks the new Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration to “where necessary, review the rules on preventing exploitation of migrant workers with irregular status”. This is a welcome and important commitment but will only be a step forward if it means prioritising the rights of migrant workers over immigration control and exploring how to enable undocumented workers to file complaints against their employers without fear of deportation under existing complaints mechanisms.

Regular migration (called “legal migration” in the mission letter) is only mentioned in relation to refugees’ “integration” in the labour market (but quickly coupled with stepping up deportations), and in relation to labour migration pathways for those who have the “right skills” to match Europe’s needs. Similar language was included in the mission letter of the Executive Vice-President for People, Skills and Preparedness.

This repeats the utilitarian approach to migrant workers of the previous Commission and betrays the EU’s increasingly wildly lopsided enforcement and security approach to migration, which pays little attention to decent pathways and inclusion measures most needed.

On labour rights, the mission letter to the Vice-President for People, Skills and Preparedness provides some promising openings, given EU labour standards are generally applicable to undocumented workers too. The new Vice-President is tasked with developing a Quality Jobs Roadmap which would support fair wages, high standards of health and safety and good working conditions, as well as improving Europe’s approach to occupational health and safety. But overall European trade unions have denounced the removal of a dedicated commissioner for jobs and social rights as a concerning deprioritisation of workers’ rights.

Equality

The equality portfolio no longer stands alone, but is combined with a mission on Preparedness and Crisis Management (Commissioner for Preparedness and Crisis Management; Equality). This is a step backward as it shows a reduced political emphasis and capacity to work on equality.  

The mission letter tasks the new Commissioner with protecting “minorities” and proposing new equality strategies, including on gender equality and anti-racism, which might provide opportunities to include safeguards for undocumented people too.

Anti-poverty and inclusion

The President of the European Commission tasked the new College to tackle poverty, soaring housing costs and energy prices – all of which affect undocumented people in particular. The Executive Vice-President-designate for People, Skills and Preparedness will have to lead the work on a first-ever EU-wide Anti-Poverty Strategy and strengthen the Child Guarantee, a framework for combatting social exclusion of children, including those who are undocumented. The next five years will also see the development of a European Affordable Housing Plan and support to member states to develop social housing.

But no mention is being made of the European Platform on Combating Homelessness, established under the previous Commission, which aims to eradicate poverty by 2030. Nor are health inequities ever mentioned in any mission letter.

Children

Key policies relevant for undocumented children are largely split between the Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture and Sport and the Vice President for People, Skills and Preparedness. The former is tasked with further implementing the EU Strategy on the Rights of the Child, a policy framework that promotes participation and rights of children. The latter is tasked with strengthening the European Child Guarantee, a key instrument in tackling childhood poverty, including those that are undocumented.

Civic space and human rights

Missions concerning fundamental rights and civic space are largely assigned to the new Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, and the Rule of Law. This mandate is being asked to establish a Civil Society Platform to enhance civil dialogue, and to strengthen the “protection of civil society, activist and human rights defenders”, something which we will follow closely as solidarity with migrants and migration-related civic spaces are increasingly criminalised across Europe.

On fundamental rights, the Commissioner-designate is tasked with monitoring (not ensuring) the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and with acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights, which can be an important tool to advance the rights of undocumented people.

Funding

All the mentioned policies and portfolios will be supported by a new long-term EU budget, which the Commissioner-designate for Budget, Anti-Fraud and Administration is tasked to develop in cooperation with the entire College. The mission letter positively makes a strong commitment to ensure that EU funds are protected against rule of law breaches. But it does not refer to the application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights in EU funds, a clear commitment made by the past European Commission.

Participatory policy-making

A general positive is von der Leyen’s commitment to bringing EU institutions closer to the people living in the EU. She tasks most of the Commissioner-designates, including those working on migration and poverty alleviation, with meeting young people on an annual basis. She also tasked her College with setting up a President’s Youth Advisory Board, a European Citizens’ Panel and a Civil Society Platform, the latter to support more systematic civil dialogue and better protect civil society, activists and human rights defenders. These spaces must include people with diverse lives and backgrounds – including people with lived experience of migration and migration procedures.

Conclusion

These mission letters largely reflect the EU’s overall approach to migration as a threat to fight, with renewed emphasis being put on strengthening borders, increasing surveillance and enforcement capacities, stepping up repression to address migrant smuggling, and speeding up deportations.

Little to no attention is paid to systems and policies that would allow people to move, settle and work in Europe in safety and dignity. For the most part, marginalised groups like people with a migrant background are not mentioned at all.

Potential – and limited – openings essentially relate to anti-poverty strategies, children’s rights, equality strategies and preventing exploitation of migrant workers. But political will – and a strong civil society – will be needed to make sure potential openings will translate into meaningful change on the ground.

On 23 and 24 May 2024, PICUM brought together over 60 member organisations at our General Assembly in Madrid to reflect on the current context and strategise about resistance and mobilisation in the next five years. This blog shares some highlights of our discussions.

Setting the context: between the EU Migration Pact and the Global Compact for Migration

As far-right politics and their anti-migrant messages become more normalised, migration policies become more repressive in a growing number of EU countries. Some of the EU’s recent policies in the area of migration are also aiming to institutionalise them. As PICUM’s board member Moussa Sangaré noted in his opening speech, the EU Migration Pact, adopted in April 2024, will increase harm for people seeking safety and opportunities in Europe.

As we have been pointing out with many other human rights organisations, this Pact will likely increase the likelihood that people coming to Europe without valid travel/residence documents will be deprived of their liberty, face lower safeguards in deportation procedures, and heightened racial profiling at and within the EU’s borders. As Claudia Bonamini from the Jesuit Refugee Service Europe pointed out, many of these practices already exist, but the Migration Pact will consolidate and institutionalise them. In parallel, the Pact is likely to increase irregularity as people who will be quickly unsuccessful in requesting asylum will be fast tracked to deportation, without being offered a means to seek other protection statuses or residence permits.

Many member states are already taking measures even beyond those adopted in the Migration Pact. Referring to the hostile political context on migration in Europe, Spanish Secretary of State for Migration Pilar Cancela Rodriguez evoked a recent letter sent by 15 member states to the Commission calling for more deportations and externalisation of migration control measures.

If the EU Migration Pact essentially aims to restrict migration to Europe, the 2018 UN Global Compact for Migration encourages states to expand regular routes for people to migrate. Paloma García of Red Acoge highlighted four opportunities the Global Compact on Migration offers for states and civil society to advance fairer, inclusive and rights-based migration policies: a holistic view of human mobility and its root causes, a focus on fostering international cooperation to build safe and regular routes, a multi-level governance approach involving stakeholders from the UN to local authorities, and review mechanisms to track states’ progress on the implementation of the Global Compact.

UN bodies have also expressed their concerns about the EU Migration Pact. UN Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants Gehad Madi discussed a recent joint statement from UN bodies prior to the adoption of the EU Migration Pact, calling on EU member states to prohibit child immigration detention, following international human rights standards that immigration detention is never in a child’s best interests and always a human rights violation. The statement also urges states to end immigration detention for all, establish independent mechanisms to monitor strict respect for human rights during screening and border procedures, refrain from collective expulsions, prevent racial profiling by immigration and law enforcement officers, and expand and diversify pathways for regularisation.

Organising resistance

Hostile migration policies have for years been a reality in many parts of Europe. We heard from Alkistis Agrafioti from the Greek Council for Refugees about de facto detention at borders, the abuse of the “safe country” concept, swift asylum procedures and pushbacks in Greece. María Fernández from Andalucía Acoge evoked the reception crisis in the Canary Islands in Spain. Diana Radoslavova from the Center for Legal Aid-Voice discussed violent border controls in Bulgaria and the application of the “safe country” concept to authoritarian regimes like Turkey and Iran.

PICUM board member Adam Weiss set out key avenues for strategic litigation against the Pact’s provisions that knowingly violate EU law principles of non-discrimination, privacy, respect for family life, and freedom. He encouraged advocates and activists to engage in strategic litigation to expose such violations to counter the institutionalisation of racial profiling (on anti-discrimination grounds), the establishment and use of mass surveillance (on data protection and privacy grounds), and the detention of children and families (on family life grounds).

Members from Spanish civil society reflected on the role of migrant women in social change, from an intersectional perspective: we heard from Lucy Polo from Asociación Por Ti Mujer, Antonia Ávalos from Mujeres Supervivientes, and Diana Tutistar from Red AMINVI.

In the face of a largely hostile environment, PICUM’s network remains determined to keep working for a compassionate Europe where everyone can thrive. Our 2024 General Assembly was a key moment to reconnect and strategise about future mobilisation and resistance.

We discussed thematic priorities in workshops covering community engagement, detention and deportations, health and social rights, labour rights and labour migration, and regularisation. We further explored strategic directions for the network in the field of narratives and communications, funding, the geographical scope of our work, criminalisation, and the participation of people with lived experience. Many members expressed concern about an increasingly hostile environment where civil society is harassed or outright criminalised, and the dehumanisation of undocumented and racialised people which opens the door to ever more repressive policies. While recognising that the network is built on solid foundations, members underlined the importance of strengthening work on emerging issues of concern, engaging meaningfully with affected communities and with people with lived experience, and on building shared transformational narratives for a fairer Europe for all.

As EU election results come in, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), and others have warned politicians against conceding ground to an extreme right bloc seeking to further erode human rights and the rule of law.

In a linked briefing, PICUM has highlighted how right and far-right parties have pledged to increase human rights violations across Europe, with migrants and racialised people bearing the brunt. This includes: 

• Extending a foreign policy that funds regimes outside Europe in return for violent border control on the EU’s behalf. This threatens migrant and refugee lives, whilst risking putting Europe at the mercy of violent authoritarians and eroding its moral leadership on the rule of law. 
• Increasing both EU and member state overreach in mass surveillance and policing; including through tripling the size of EU border agency Frontex, whose disgraced former director Fabrice Leggeri  is now an MEP for France’s far-right National Rally. 
• Increasing deals with countries outside the EU to process claims for protection in breach of international law.

Most Europeans did not support the far-right. But further concessions to the far-right, as signalled by Austria’s Chancellor, risks further electoral costs to mainstream parties. Tougher migration legislation (like that adopted in France and Germany), proposals by some Scandinavian governments (Sweden and Finland) to report undocumented migrants, as well as the EU Migration Pact, have all failed to stop the rise of the far-right, and may even fuel it. Research published earlier this year has also demonstrated the costs of concession for social democrats. 

Quotes

Michele Levoy, Director of PICUM: 

“Werefuse to accept a cynical EU that undermines its own values and interests by funding regimes that harm people seeking safety and opportunity and takes resources away from social investment and pours them into border management.”

“Together we must join forces for a compassionate Europe that addresses the many genuine emergencies we face collectively, from deepening inequalities to a looming climate disaster. It is time for all of us across the continent to direct our energies towards building a society we all can live and thrive in.”

Giulia Messmer, spokesperson for Sea-Watch (search and rescue NGO):

“European migration politics is already more right-wing than it has ever been. The individual right to asylum is effectively abolished and human rights violations at the external borders are a legalized system.” 

“The new EU Parliament will capitalize on this and have unseen opportunities to deprive people on the move of their rights. If liberal parties such as the Social Democrats do not want to be mere stooges for the new European fascism, right now is the time for a change of course.”

Isabelle Chopin, Director of the Migration Policy Group:

“The new reality of a stronger presence of far-right forces in the EP means noticeable threats towards advancing policies of inclusion and respect for human rights.”

“The new European Parliament must reiterate its commitment to the fundamental values and principles of equality and non-discrimination and ensure they are given a central place in the work programme of the new European Commission.”

Tineke Strik, MEP:

“The rise of the far-right in Europe means the democratic majority in the European Parliament must come together even stronger in defence of our Union’s fundamental values. The far-right’s playbook of scapegoating minorities, portraying asylum seekers as threats, and cracking down on institutions meant to uphold the Rule of Law is an existential threat to everything the EU stands for. This election outcome requires extra vigilance from all EU institutions. It is key to keep the pressure on the centre right parties not to open the door to the far right, and to give true meaning to the European values. The Parliament must at the same time increase the pressure on a new Commission to prioritise upholding the Rule of Law and fundamental rights and hold Member States accountable. Simultaneously, the Council must form a united front against these rising anti-EU tendencies and the European Parliament’s function of scrutinizing the Commission and defending the democratic voice of EU citizens will become ever-more important. I am personally more determined than ever to continue the fight back against this tide; to do everything in my power to ensure that Europe is a safe, dignified, fundamental-rights-compliant and inclusive home to us all.”

Ysé El Bouhali Bouchet, International Migration Officer at CCFD-Terre Solidaire:

“In 2023 alone, over 110 persons died or went missing in the desert between Tunisia and Libya as a result of the externalisation policies conducted by the EU and its member States. These policies, increasingly adopted with various third countries, pose a direct threat to the human rights of people on the move.
More than ever, it is essential that the new European Parliament fulfill its role in safeguarding the fundamental freedoms and human rights, in particular in the field of international migration cooperation.”

This blog provides a short overview of the main EU political parties’ stance on migration, based on their manifestos for the 2024 EU elections.

Identity and Democracy (ID)

Identity and Democracy (far right) is a far-right political party that has consistently supported repressive policies against migrants. While no public manifesto was made available on their website, their online petition to “Stop illegal immigration!” is a telling illustration of the criminalising, threatening and stigmatising narrative of migration ID embraces.

European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR)

The European Conservatives and Reformists (right and far-right) follows a securitisation approach that conceives migration as a threat. In fact, the section of its manifesto that deals with migration is eloquently titled “Safeguarding Citizens and Borders”. In it, the ECR pledges more support for member states to “protect the EU’s external border”, including through a strengthened role for Frontex, something which has consistently chimed with human rights violations at borders.

The ECR also vows to increase deportations of unsuccessful asylum seekers, completely disregarding alternative residence permits available under national legislation, and to further cooperation agreements with third countries to prevent people from reaching Europe.

European People’s Party (EPP)

The European People’s Party (centre-right) follows a securitisation approach similar to that of the ECR: in its manifesto, key migration measures are outlined in a section called “Our Europe protects its borders against illegal migration”. Of all manifestos considered in this blog, the EPP’s includes the most references to “illegal migration” and “illegal migrants”, a terminology that perpetuates stigma against undocumented people and opens the door to harmful policies. In the same vein, the party invites “legal migrants who live with us to become part of our community by integrating themselves”, a paternalistic and repressive narrative that subordinates access to rights to cultural assimilation and the good will of the white majority.

Among key measures, the EPP vows to triple Frontex staff (bringing it to 30,000 officers) and grant it stronger powers and a higher budget. These measures stand in stark contrast with numerous accusations of the agency’s complicity in human rights violations at the borders, and lack of transparency and accountability, brought by civil society, institutions, and victims themselves.

The EPP supports deals with third countries that would see the EU sending asylum-seekers to a “safe” third country for the processing of their asylum claim, and for hosting those who would be granted asylum. This type of agreement recalls the UK-Rwanda deal, much criticised by international and national institutions and civil society for violating international law and exposing people to abuse and human rights violations.

The EPP also vows to use trade agreements, development aid and visa policies as a lever to force third countries into facilitating deportations to their territories. Labour migration deals are left to the member states.

The conflation of migration and security is further evidenced in their pledge to strengthen the information exchange between counter terrorism authorities and migration authorities.

Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)

The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (centre-right and centre) largely frames migration from an asylum perspective. Key measures in the migration field are all listed under a section called “An asylum policy that works”.

On the one hand, ALDE vows to launch a European Action Plan for search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean and ensure pushbacks, mistreatment of migrants and other rights violations are not left “without consequences”, although no further detail is given on what those consequences would look like.

On the other hand, ALDE supports agreements with third countries to “halt irregular migration to the EU” and tackle push and pull factors through partnership programmes centred around job creation, climate change mitigation and information campaigns on the “realities of migration”. The party further vows to reform Frontex to better control the EU’s borders, swiftly mentioning “respect for human rights”.

Support for asylum is also not unconditional, as ALDE vows to establish EU-managed facilities outside the EU borders for processing asylum claims.

Party of the European Socialists (PES)

The manifesto of the Party of the European Socialists (centre-left) addresses migration in a section called “Managing asylum and migration” that tries to balance respect for human rights and border control.

On the one hand, the PES vows to establish a common system to manage migration and asylum based on “solidarity and shared responsibility” and calls for the EU Migration Pact to be implemented through an approach “grounded in the respect of human rights and people’s dignity”. Together with numerous other human rights organisations, PICUM has been denouncing how this Pact legalises and entrenches ample rights violations, with little space for human rights or people’s dignity.

The PES also calls for fair migration procedures, including the right to legal assistance, “safe and legal pathways”, respect of the right to asylum and protection, and “humane and decent reception conditions”. The party stands against “any form of EU border externalisation” and further vows never to criminalise humanitarian assistance and to support a European mission for search and rescue in the Mediterranean. The manifesto finally includes a swift reference to “inclusive labour market policies” and “stronger inclusion policies”.

At the same time, the PES calls for return decisions to be carried out “effectively”, which in EU policy lingo often means “swift deportations”, and for strengthened EU external borders.

European Green Party (the Greens)

The manifesto of the European Green Party (centre-left) approaches migration through a rights-based lens: the relevant section is called “A Union of rights and freedoms: protecting the rights of all”.

The Greens vow to end the criminalisation of migrants and the criminalisation of humanitarian assistance. They support an EU-funded search and rescue mission in the Mediterranean and vow to strengthen the “humanitarian mandate” of Frontex, while improving parliamentary oversight over its operations.

They oppose deals with third countries that aim to prevent people from trying to reach Europe and support human rights assessments for “any cooperation with third countries”.

As one of the few political forces opposing the EU Migration Pact, the Greens call for a new “Migration Code” that provides for visas linked to family reunification and work at different skills levels. They call for access to justice for all migrant workers and the recognition of the universality of labour rights to fight against their exploitation, as well as decent and affordable accommodation for all mobile EU citizens and migrant workers. They pledge to protect victims of human trafficking and labour exploitation through “protection programmes and residency rights”.

The manifesto further calls for universal health coverage and the elimination of health inequities, as well as universal access to early childhood education and care for all children, “no matter their passport”.

Finally, the Greens’ is the only manifesto to show explicit support for a regional campaign to regularise the status of undocumented people who have been living in the EU for years (“long-term sans papiers”), a key measure to improve their living conditions and that benefits society as a whole.

European Free Alliance (EFA)

The European Free Alliance, a federation of regionalist and autonomist parties, has only one direct reference to migration in their manifesto. In it, they call for a common European response to migration, based on “humanitarian principles and international law”, and on “safe and legal pathways”. The EFA has been part of the same parliamentary group as the Greens since 1999.

European Left (the Left)

The European Left (left) addresses migration through a social inequality and decolonisation approach: the relevant section is called “Co-development, not colonial domination and hegemony”.

The Left supports “legal and safe migration routes” and  “equal terms and working conditions” for migrant workers. They call for a “truly European migration and asylum policy”, based on co-responsibility and mandatory solidarity between all member states, and characterised by “safe, legal passages” to counter trafficking in human beings and end deaths in the Mediterranean. The Left opposes pushbacks and vows to repeal all migration agreements that violate fundamental rights, including agreements on the externalisation of European borders.

The Left calls for an “EU directive against social inequalities and discrimination in education” based on various grounds, including residence status. They support universal and free access to care and public health systems.

Finally, the Left calls for the “dissolution” of Frontex.

Despite repeated warnings from civil society organisations, EU lawmakers have reached an agreement on the Schengen Borders Code reform which will be voted on in the LIBE Committee next week. The legislative file that has emerged from negotiations between the Belgian Presidency of the Council of the EU, the European Parliament and Commission will have devastating consequences for people in migration and racialised communities.

We call on MEPs in the Plenary vote to reject the Schengen Borders Code reform and give a clear signal against legislation that undermines fundamental rights.

The vote will include several concerning amendments that, taken together, will create a dangerous new system for ‘managing migration’ at Schengen borders, contribute to shrinking civic space, in particular increasing criminalisation of movement and solidarity:

• While the revision of the Schengen Borders’ Code is hailed as the solution to stop the constant reintroduction of temporary internal border controls, the proposal generalises police checks with the explicit aim to prevent irregular migration. Stopping individuals who are suspected of being undocumented relies heavily on racial profiling. Research from the EU Fundamental Rights Agency has shown that racialised communities are subject to discriminatory and arbitrary checks, regardless of citizenship or residence status. In fact, over half of people of African descent surveyed felt that their most recent police stop was a result of racial profiling. This practice is in clear violation of EU and international anti-discrimination law, and contradicts the spirit of the EU Action Plan Against Racism. While the recitals of the reform state that all actions should be carried out in full respect of the principle of non-discrimination, there is no indication of how this will be monitored or ensured, or how Member States will be sanctioned if they do act in violation.

• Article 23a allows for internal pushbacks between Member States as safeguards to mitigate its consequences on fundamental rights introduced by the Parliament are removed. This article provides for the immediate “transfer” (removal) of third country nationals apprehended “in border areas” to the country that they crossed from. Whilst there are provisions that state the individual can appeal this “transfer” decision, the appeal will not have a suspensive effect, meaning the person will be returned regardless. There are no exemptions to this procedure for unaccompanied children, families with children, or individuals in a state of vulnerability. Whilst it is written that asylum seekers will not be subject to such internal readmission procedures, how this exemption will be respected in practice remains to be seen. Such “transfers” would violate well-established jurisprudence by courts in Italy, Slovenia and Austria, which have all ruled against chain pushbacks between Member States.

Case Study: Italy

Summary returns or readmission practices at the Italian borders have been taking place for years and vividly exemplify the implications on the human rights of people on the move. In fact, in January 2021 and again in 2023 the Civil Court in Rome ruled that numerous cases of readmissions to Slovenia from Trieste and Gorizia implemented under a 1996 Readmission Agreement were in fact unlawful as they violated the right to non-refoulement, the right to apply for asylum, and the procedural rights to individual assessment and effective remedy. At the Adriatic border, Italy was sanctioned by the ECtHR in 2014 for a readmission to Greece in which the Court found a violation of the prohibition of collective expulsion and of ill-treatment. Communications sent to the Committee of Ministers under the supervision procedure for the supervision of the execution of judgement relating to Sharifi case and a recent ruling by the Court of Rome on the readmission of an Afghan unaccompanied minor to Greece show how violations continue. At the Italo-French border, the CJEU and Council of State found that returns between the two countries were in direct contradiction to guarantees laid out in the Returns Directive.

On the other hand, practices of racial profiling are already significantly widespread at Italian internal borders. As pointed out by ASGI in its submission to CERD (Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination), the Ventimiglia train station, a major transit point for people moving to France, is characterised by police checks that almost exclusively and systematically target people of African descent. Consequently, the Committee has made specific recommendations to the Italian government to tackle profiling, highlighting the complete lack of appropriate mechanisms within the national system to combat it.

• The concept of ‘instrumentalisation’ is carried over from the New Pact’s Crisis Regulation despite being removed from the Parliament’s initial position on the Schengen Borders Code reform. In practice, this means that Member States could derogate at will from fundamental rights frameworks whenever a third country or non-state actor is accused of ‘instrumentalising migrants’ to destabilise the EU or its Member States. We have seen this play out in the attacks against people crossing borders by Greek authorities in 2020, the numerous deaths recorded at the Spanish, Polish, Latvian and Lithuanian borders, and the closure of all entry points into Finland in 2023. The Schengen Borders Code reform takes this a step further by including a disturbing Council amendment which allows for Member States to take “any necessary measures” to preserve “security, law and order” if a large number of individuals attempt to enter a country irregularly “en masse and using force”. This is transposed improperly from the N.D. and N.T. v. Spain case and could have devastating consequences; in effect the text allows for unlimited derogations from the EU asylum and fundamental rights acquis.

• The reform also repeatedly refers to the increased usage of surveillance and monitoring technologies at both internal and external borders. Technologies such as drones, motion sensors, thermal imaging cameras, and others ease the identification of people crossing borders prior to arrival and have been shown to facilitate pushbacks. In fact, the Border Violence Monitoring Network (BVMN) has recorded 38 testimonies, impacting over 1,000 people, where the respondent reported to have heard or seen a drone prior to their pushback. The use of technologies to track and monitor the movement of people could therefore enhance the ease with which they are readmitted between Schengen Member States.

We, the undersigned, call on MEPs to reject the Schengen Borders Code reform at both the LIBE and Plenary votes. This file expands the harmful concept of ‘instrumentalisation’, legalises internal pushbacks, risks widespread racial profiling, and enhances the use of border surveillance technologies that have been proven to facilitate fundamental rights violations.

The Parliament position on the file sought to remove the most problematic aspects and include safeguards for the rights of people in migration and racialised communities. That position has since been abandoned, and the one that has replaced it is untenable when it comes to the protection of fundamental rights.

Signatories:

• Abolish Frontex
• Accem
• Access Now
• ActionAid International
• African Children and Youth Development Network (ACYDN)
• AlgoRace
• AMANE
• Amnesty International
• Amnesty Luxembourg
• ARACEM
• Are You Syrious (AYS)
• ASGI
• Asociacion Geum Dodou
• Asociación Pro Derechos Humanos de Andalucía – APDHA
• Asociación Por Ti Mujer
• Asociación Rumiñahui
• Asociación Salud Y Familia
• Association des Travailleurs Maghrébins de France -ATMF
• Association pour la promotion des droits humains APDH
• Association Marocaine des Droits Humains
• Be Aware and Share (BAAS)
• Better Days Greece
• Blindspots e.V.
• Boat Refugee Foundation
• borderline-europe – Menschenrechte ohne Grenzen e.V.
• Center for Legal Aid, Voice in Bulgaria
• Centre for Peace Studies
• CNCD-11.11.11
• Collective Aid
• Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII
• Convenzione per i diritti nel Mediterraneo ETS
• CONVIVE- Fundación Cepaim
• Convivir sin Racismo
• CSC ACV Brussels
• Cultural Center Danilo Kiš
• Danes je nov dan / Today is a new day
• Danish Refugee Council
• Digital Society, Switzerland
• Diotima Centre for Gender Rights & Equality
• Dråpen i Havet / Stagona
• Draseis sth geitonia
• E.L. Foundation
• ECCHR – European Centre for Constitutional and Human Rights
• ECHO100PLUS
• EmpowerVan!
• Entreculturas
• Epicenter.works
• Equal Legal Aid
• Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice
• Equipo Decenio Afrodescendiente- España
• EuroMed Rights
• Europe Cares e.V. / Paréa Lesvos
• European Center for Non-Profit Law
• European Civic Forum
• European Digital Rights (EDRi)
• European Network Against Racism (ENAR)
• European Sex Workers Rights Alliance (ESWA)
• Fenix Humanitarian Legal Aid
• forRefugees
• From the Sea to the City – FSTC
• Fundación Alboan
• Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)
• Greek Forum of Migrants
• Greek Forum of Refugees
• Gruppo Melitea
• Habibi Works (Soup and Socks e.V.)
• Hermes Center
• HIAS Europe
• Homo Digitalis
• Hope and Humanity Poland
• Humanitas – Centre for Global Learning and Cooperation
• HumanRights360
• I Have Rights
• IDAY Liberia Coalition Inc
• Infokolpa
• Institute Circle
• Inter Alia
• InterEuropean Humanitarian Aid Association Germany e.V. (IHA)
• International Rescue Committee (IRC)
• Irida Women’s Center
• Iridia. Centro por la Defensa de Derechos Humanos
• Jesuit Refugee Service Greece
• KAST (Khora Asylum Support Team)
• KOK – German Network against Trafficking in Human Beings
• Komitee für Grundrechte und Demokratie e.V.
• La Cimade
• La Coordinadora de Organizaciones para el Desarrollo
• Legal Centre Lesvos
• Lighthouse Relief
• Ligue des Droits Humains
• Mec de la Rue
• Migreurop
• Mobile Info Team
• Network for Children’s Rights
• Northern Lights Aid
• NOVACT
• No Name Kitchen
• Oxfam
• PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants)
• POPH
• Privacy International
• Project Play
• PRO ASYL
• Quaker Council for European Affairs
• Red Umbrella Sweden
• Refugees in Libya
• Refugee Legal Support (RLS)
• Refugee Literacy Project
• Refugees International
• Revibra Europe
• S.P.E.A.K.
• Safe Place Greece
• Salud por Derecho
• Salvamento Marítimo Humanitario
• Samos Volunteers
• Sea-Eye e.V.
• Sea-Watch e.V.
• Second Tree
• Seebrücke Schweiz
• Seios Grupe
• Slovene Philanthropy
• Society Kljuc – Centre for Fight against Trafficking in Human Beings
• SOLIDAR
• Statewatch
• Stichting LOS
• TAMPEP – European Network for the Promotion of Rights and Health among Migrant Sex Workers
• The Human Rights Legal Project
• Yoga and Sport with Refugees
• Zeitschrift Bürgerrechte & Polizei/ CILIP (Germany)

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

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

Campaigners’ principal concerns relate to: 

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

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

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

Quote pack 

Michele LeVoy, director at PICUM, said: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope Barker, Senior Policy Analyst at BVMN, said: 

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

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

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

Sara Prestianni, Advocacy Director at EuroMed Rights, said: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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