At a time when migration policies across Europe are becoming increasingly restrictive, PICUM’s 2026 General Assembly brought together civil society organisations, activists, researchers and people with lived experience to reflect on the challenges ahead while sharing strategies and promising practices of resistance. This General Assembly was also an important opportunity to celebrate 25 years of PICUM, its network and its continuing commitment to human rights and social justice. 

This blog aims to capture key highlights from the assembly’s plenary sessions. 

The Return Regulation: a major threat to undocumented migrants’ rights 

A central focus of the General Assembly was the proposed EU Return Regulation, the EU’s flagship initiative to escalate deportations across the EU, which is now nearing the end of the legislative process. Presenting PICUM’s analysis, Silvia Carta warned that the Regulation would fundamentally reshape Europe’s deportation framework while significantly expanding states’ powers and weakening human rights safeguards. 

Among the most alarming elements is the expansion of immigration detention. The Regulation would allow detention periods to increase from the current maximum of 18 months to as much as 24 or even 30 months, while broadening the grounds on which people can be detained. Conditions such as homelessness, poverty or not having a fixed address could become factors leading to immigration detention, and children would not be exempt from these measures. 

The proposal also introduces new punitive measures, including stricter obligations to cooperate with deportation procedures, broader restrictions on movement, longer entry bans and expanded use of security-related exceptions that weaken procedural safeguards. 

At the same time, the Regulation would facilitate the externalisation of deportation through so-called « return hubs » established in third countries. Individuals and families could be transferred to countries where they have never set foot, raising serious concerns about human rights protections and accountability. 

Carta also highlighted how the Regulation risks producing more irregularity rather than reducing it. People renewing residence permits could become subject to deportation procedures, while access to residence permits and regularisation would become more restricted. 

Amandine Bach, adviser to the Left Group in the European Parliament, provided an update on the final stages of the negotiations. She highlighted how alliances between mainstream conservative parties and far-right political forces have played a key role in shaping and advancing the Regulation. 

Faced with this political reality, Bach argued that traditional advocacy alone is no longer sufficient. Instead, she called on civil society to invest in mobilisation, coalition-building, strategic litigation and media engagement. While these efforts may not stop the Regulation’s adoption, they have already influenced public debate and prompted some centrist and liberal political actors to abstain from the vote. 

Andrea Soler Eslava from Médecins du Monde explained that fear of immigration enforcement is already one of the main barriers preventing undocumented people from accessing healthcare. The proposed Regulation risks intensifying this fear, discouraging people from seeking medical assistance until emergencies occur. 

Medical professionals could also face growing pressure to participate in deportation procedures, undermining core ethical principles such as patient confidentiality and non-discrimination. The possibility of immigration raids in shelters, healthcare facilities and NGO premises would further erode trust between vulnerable communities and service providers. 

Revijara Oosterhuis from Dutch immigration detention watchdog Stichting LOS, analysed the impact of the Regulation on detention. Drawing on testimonies from detainees, she described detention as a prison-like environment characterised by uncertainty, isolation, inadequate healthcare, and limited communication with the outside world. 

As detention periods become longer and deportation infrastructure expands into third countries, monitoring abuses will become increasingly difficult. Oosterhuis stressed the need for transnational monitoring networks, stronger cooperation with journalists and civil society organisations, and accessible channels for people in detention to report violations.

Building resilience: from participation to public campaigns 

Alongside discussions of threats and challenges, the General Assembly also focused on how civil society can strengthen its own resilience in the current context. 

Speakers from CEPAIM, Asociación Por Ti Mujer, CIRE and ASTI emphasised that meaningful migrant participation is essential for ensuring their work is grounded in migrant communities’ needs . Migrants and undocumented people must have opportunities to shape policies, contribute to research, participate in advocacy and represent themselves in public debates. 

Building participation requires practical tools, training, political education and long-term investment in community organising. As several speakers noted, creating spaces for meaningful engagement takes time, but it is one of the most effective ways to challenge dehumanising narratives. 

Examples of innovative campaigns across Europe demonstrated the power of creativity and coalition-building in maximising social impact. PICUM and other NGOs worked with ice-cream company Ben and Jerry’s to raise awareness about the criminalisation of solidarity with migrants through a social media campaign led by content creators which reached hundreds of thousands of people across France, Germany and The Netherlands. 

In the UK, Migrants’ Rights Network cooperated with cosmetics brand Lush in a public awareness and fundraising campaign against racism. In the Netherlands, Here to Support referred to a unique campaign by civil society organisation De Goede Zaak which raised over 100,000€ in just four days by asking people to donate 3 € every time they heard or saw far-right politicians make negative comments about migrants. In France, in 2024, over 5,000 health professionals signed a joint declaration vowing to continue caring for all people, irrespective of status, despite a potential far right presidency in 2027.

Signs of hope 

We concluded our assembly with a « Good News » panel highlighting recent victories and lessons learned. 

In Switzerland, advocacy efforts have helped advance a proposal that would allow undocumented women to report violence without fear of immigration consequences. The proposal is currently awaiting approval by the Swiss higher chamber before being adopted by the government. 

In Spain, the grassroots movement Regularizacion Ya! was instrumental in securing a broad regularisation programme announced by the Spanish government in January. Civil society and migrant-led organisations are successfully supporting communities across the country during regularisation processes, ensuring that people can access assistance, gather relevant documentation and apply for a residence permit. 

In the Netherlands, a broad coalition of over 80 organisations, including churches, trade unions, medical professionals and NGOs, succeeded in resisting proposed measures to criminalise irregular stay. Through a combination of public campaigning, policy advocacy and coalition-building, civil society actors shifted the political conversation and demonstrated the importance of acting quickly and working with unexpected allies. 

These examples offered a powerful reminder that progress remains possible, even in difficult political contexts. Whether resisting harmful deportation policies, defending access to healthcare, supporting regularisation processes or building migrant leadership, PICUM members and the network continue to demonstrate the strength of collective action. 

When working to advance migrants’ rights, safe and meaningful participation of those affected is essential when rooted in trust, safety, and shared purpose. Involving people with lived experience not only strengthens the effectiveness and impact of such work, but also supports community leadership, collective empowerment, and more effective narratives. 

As a broad network including grassroots movements and migrant-led associations, at PICUM we have been working to make this a reality since our foundation in 2001. Our new Strategic Plan 2026-2030 places meaningful participation of people with lived experience at the heart of all areas of work – from advocacy and research to communications and governance. As part of this commitment, in 2025 we launched a Task Force on Meaningful Participation, including members of affected communities, to drive PICUM’s participation agenda. Our objective with this taskforce is to channel good practices and experiences from our network to further foster safe, meaningful and responsible participation and inform our policy and advocacy efforts. Over the last years, we have increasingly promoted Participatory Action Research (PAR), an approach that recognises the agency of migrants as active research actors and seeks to link evidence to action. 

PAR played an important role in the EU-funded DignityFIRM project, which studies the working and living conditions of migrant workers in food-related labour sectors such as agriculture or delivery riders, in seven countries. In this project, we subcontracted three grassroots organisations, Mujeres Supervivientes in Seville (Spain), NOMADA Association in Wroclaw (Poland) and Here to Support in Amsterdam (The Netherlands) to train former undocumented migrants as peer-researchers and lead focus groups to identify and analyse the challenges of migrant workers in food supply chain sectors. More importantly, the migrant groups in the three cities had a budget to address the problems they had identified with concrete actions to change their realities.  

In the words of Lina Marcela Rincón, the peer-researcher in Spain, “PAR is a process that, in itself, is an action that changes reality. It allows us to meet, to get to know one another, and, by seeing ourselves as active subjects with dignity, to do something that changes the realities we wish to change – and in the way we wish to change them.” 

Some of the peer researchers in DignityFIRM were able to address EU and national institutions to shine a spotlight on the condition of migrant workers. 

Hamo Salhein, leading a migrant-led campaign for labor regularisation alongside Here to Support in The Netherlands, addressed the Committee of the Regions in Brussels and highlighted how the human rights the European Union claims to uphold too often apply only to those with regular status. Rocío Flores, President of the Union of Latin American Workers in Poland, became one of the first migrant workers to address the Polish National Parliament. In her intervention, she reminded that migration status remains one of the main drivers of exploitation of migrant workers and denounced the exploitative agencies and intermediaries that systematically abuse migrant workers in Poland.  

At PICUM, we consider PAR a promising methodology to engage with academia whilst recognising the agency of migrants, valuing the expertise of grassroots organisations and shifting power in knowledge production. Based on this experience, we developed Guidelines on Participatory Action Research (PAR) in the work with undocumented migrants, also available in Spanish and Polish, which captures our experience and collective reflections, hoping this can be useful for future action-oriented research linked to migration.  

The Guidelines compile key considerations when working together with undocumented migrants, including tips and reflections from the fieldwork on DignityFIRM. 

For more information on the work done by the three PAR teams in Seville, Amsterdam and Wroclaw, check out: 

• Cross-country report by PICUM (in English, Spanish and Polish)  

• Summary of migrant-led actions taken in the three cities 

• Individual case studies: 
  • Amsterdam (Here to Support) (in English and Dutch) 
  • Seville (Mujeres Supervivientes) (in English and Spanish)
  • Wroclaw (Nomada Association) (in English, Spanish and Polish)  

Ultimately, meaningful participation is not an add-on but a fundamental shift in how knowledge is produced and how change is driven in migrant rights work. When people with lived experience are trusted as co-creators and leaders, research and advocacy become more grounded, impactful, and capable of transforming the very conditions they seek to address.

To say that we live in a challenging environment is quite the understatement.

Across Europe, human rights standards are backsliding, civic space is shrinking, and migration policies are increasingly defined by criminalisation, surveillance, detention, and deportation.

Undocumented people face deeper insecurity and exclusion from essential services, which are being increasingly instrumentalised for migration control. For many migrant workers, exploitation persists amid worsening labour shortages across the continent. At the same time, civil society organisations face mounting political and financial pressure – and outright criminalisation.

And yet, across Europe, resistance continues. Communities step up against the deportation of friends and neighbours. Teachers and doctors defend access to services as safe spaces. Workers and trade unions organise against exploitation. Civil society, migrant-led groups and local actors build alliances, challenge criminalisation, and push for inclusion and regularisation.

For 25 years, the PICUM network has been contributing to this movement. Our vision is clear: a world where everyone can realise their human rights, regardless of migration or residence status, and where human mobility is recognised as a normal reality.

But in today’s world, we realise that advocacy alone is not enough to promote sustained change – and that we need to revisit and consolidate our approach by incorporating more campaigning to amplify our impact, mainstreaming meaningful participation of people with lived experience across all areas of work, as well as incorporating strategic litigation to ensure increased accountability.

Against this backdrop, PICUM’s Strategic Plan for 2026–2030 sets out a clear pathway for change, shaped by collective resistance, solidarity and participation. Rooted in principles of social justice, anti-racism and intersectional equality, this strategy builds on shared learning and extensive consultation and co creation with PICUM members and partners.

Three objectives to guide collective action

The strategy is built around three interconnected objectives.

Resistance and remedy focuses on countering harmful migration enforcement and upholding rights. PICUM will work to challenge detention and deportation, safeguard essential services as safe spaces, expand access to justice and effective remedies, and counter the criminalisation of migration and solidarity. This means promoting community-based, rights-based alternatives and holding institutions accountable for violations, including through strategic litigation.

Belonging and inclusion recognises that undocumented people are part of our societies. PICUM will continue to push for regularisation and secure residence status, stronger workers’ rights and decent labour migration pathways, equal access to essential services, inclusive anti-poverty policies, and EU funding that truly reaches undocumented people and the organisations supporting them.

Resilience and participation reflects PICUM’s belief that lasting change comes from strong, connected movements. Over the next five years, PICUM will work to strengthen its collective voice and communication, protect civic space, foster participatory and inclusive ways of working, and systematise learning across the network. Central to this objective is ensuring that people with lived experience of undocumented or precarious status are meaningfully involved in shaping policies, research, and advocacy.

How we will work

For 25 years, the network has gathered evidence from its members to document the lived realities of undocumented people and translate this knowledge into concrete recommendations at EU, national and local levels.

The new strategic plan deepens this approach by:

• placing meaningful participation of people with lived experience at the heart of all areas of work – from advocacy and research to communications and governance;
• working more intentionally across movements and building alliances, strengthening cooperation with professional associations, trade unions, anti-racism, disability, child rights and workers’ rights actors to confront shared forms of structural exclusion;
• further developing strategic litigation and legal accountability work, pooling legal expertise across the network to support cases with the potential for wider systemic impact;
• reinforcing support to members, including in response to criminalisation, shrinking civic space and other legal, political and financial pressures they may face;
• strengthening work on narrative change to deconstruct criminalisation narratives around irregular migration and centre migration as something human, which helps societies grow and thrive.

PICUM’s Strategic Plan for 2026–2030 is both a response to today’s challenges and a commitment to a shared future. It is an invitation to continue resisting harmful policies, building inclusion in practice, and strengthening collective resilience.

The full Strategic Plan can be read here.

Every year, for the last 15 years, Nordic non-profit health clinics have been meeting in a different Scandinavian city to discuss health care for undocumented people and other marginalised groups. They exchange experiences and perspectives, learn from each other and strategise about how to move forward in an increasingly hostile context.  

Participants to the 2025 Nordic gathering* included Global Clinics in Helsinki and Turku, Finland; the Health Center for Undocumented Migrants (Church City Mission and the Red Cross) in Oslo and Bergen, Norway; the Swedish chapters of the Red Cross and Doctors of the World in Stockholm, as well as the Rosengrenska Foundation in Gothenburg; and the Health Clinic for Migrants operated by the Danish Red Cross in  four cities in Denmark. 

Healthcare clinics: filling the gaps left by the state 

In all Scandinavian countries, undocumented people have a legal entitlement to emergency care from the public healthcare system, but broader entitlements vary and are limited in different ways. 

Besides legislation, a whole set of practical barriers make it hard for undocumented people to access health care and for health clinics to help. The digitalisation of health care services often means that people without a national registration number are unable to book medical appointments. Medical fees and uncertainty about what is covered by the public system keep many away from doctors and hospitals. 

In this context, the health clinics try to fill the gaps of the public systems: they may provide primary care in drop-in centres, refer patients to specialists, run helplines or advocate for patients’ rights. 

Sweden and Finland: progress under threat 

In Sweden, undocumented people have a right to subsidised care “that cannot be deferred”, based on medical assessment. Similarly, in Finland, a 2023 law grants undocumented people subsidized access to necessary care beyond emergency situations, as defined by a health professional. But recent proposals threaten an already limited access to health care. In Sweden, a plan to oblige some public sector workers to denounce undocumented people to the police is already instilling fear in the migrant community, pushing many to avoid contact with health care institutions. In Finland, the government is discussing a proposal to overturn the 2023 law and limit access to necessary care. 

Ensuring the chain of treatment can also be challenging for marginalised groups who move between countries and do not live in stable accommodation. In Gothenburg, Sweden, a man who needed strict follow-up for his heart disease was refused treatment by a mainstream health care facility because they doubted that he could follow it. It was only thanks to help from Rosengrenska that the facility eventually agreed to plan the follow-up. 

Norway: the realities of care that ‘cannot wait’ 

In Norway, undocumented people are entitled to receive healthcare which is “absolutely necessary and cannot wait”. In these cases, medical fees related to specialist healthcare can be covered by the health institution if the person cannot afford to pay, but this is often not known by the patients or the medical staff.  

In one case, the Oslo Health Center for Undocumented Migrants helped a pregnant woman who was afraid of accessing maternal care in hospital, and made sure that the fees be waived. In 2024 alone, the Oslo Health Center managed to get 375 invoices for specialist care waived. 

Access to GPs is also restricted for undocumented people. In another case reported by the Oslo Health Center, a pregnant woman in her third trimester could not get a prescription to treat a urine tract infection and was only able to receive help from the Oslo Health Center itself at an already late pregnancy stage. 

The notion of “care that cannot wait” is also problematic and may not always include cases of severe health problems. Linnea Näsholm of the Oslo Health Center cited the case of a cancer patient who was denied early treatment because it was not considered “healthcare that cannot wait”: the patient only received treatment at a late stage, palliative, and died. 

Denmark: harsh limits to healthcare 

In Denmark, non-emergency treatment is granted when it is deemed unreasonable to refer the person to treatment in their country of origin, but this is not subsidised. The Danish Red Cross reported the case of a Turkish Middle Eastern 13-year-old child who needed surgery for a lump in her ear that kept growing. Despite having lived in Denmark since she was five, she had only a temporary right to remain while the authorities processed her family reunification application. This “procedural residency” meant she could not access the healthcare she needed. The Red Cross-run health clinic could not operate her as they lack anaesthesia tools and personnel. 

Building connections and sharing knowledge 

In an increasingly hostile environment, Nordic health clinics make connections and draw inspiration from each other to develop their services and advocate for better access to health care.  

The Nordic annual gatherings are an important moment for the clinics to reconnect, learn and strategise. Matti Wirehag of Rosengrenska said, “Having the possibility to see each other every year is also about feeling that you’re not alone. There aren’t many people working on these issues in the Nordic countries”. 

A dental clinic run by the Danish Red Cross in Copenhagen inspired the Oslo Health Center to open one in Norway. Using lessons from Finnish colleagues’ advocacy work around primary healthcare, the Oslo and Bergen Health Center successfully inspired the Bergen municipality to include undocumented patients in a public primary healthcare facility. 

Sweden-based Rosengrenska found out about the interventions of Finnish municipalities in opening social housing to marginalised groups and has been using this argument in its advocacy towards the Gothenburg municipality.  

“This knowledge doesn’t exist in writing”, said Rikke Dalsted of the Danish Red Cross, “It’s a large database of living people, it’s super important. And that’s why we have to keep going.” 

*PICUM supported the 2025 Nordic Gathering, which took place in Stockholm in May. 

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

A first version of this op-ed, slightly edited here, appeared on ECRE’s website on 15 February 2024.

After many months of complicated negotiations and a failed attempt to find a deal in December, the European Council finally adopted a revision of the EU’s long-term budget (the so-called ‘Multiannual Financial Framework’ (MFF) 2021-2027’) at its extraordinary meeting on 1 February. Compared with the European Commission’s original proposal, the revised MFF is significantly lighter in terms of additional funding that EU member states will be required to provide (€ 21 billion down from € 65.8 billion) and includes a combination of financial cuts and reallocation of resources, mainly at the expense of development and cohesion funding. In short, EU leaders managed to reduce extra contributions to the EU budget while further strengthening the focus on migration control and border management. The European Parliament’s rapporteurs endorsed a provisional political agreement with the Council negotiators on 6 February, and the final text will likely be adopted at the next plenary.  

Here are four takeaways from the European Council’s agreement:

EU leaders always seem to be able to agree on additional funding for migration and border control.

The deal confirms the overall figures proposed by the European Commission and increases funds for migration and border management (Heading 4) by € 2 billion, bringing the total funds to € 25.7 billion. Unlike the original proposal, the European Council’s deal also clearly specifies the allocations for individual funding programmes: € 0.8 billion (+8%) for the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF), € 1 billion (+16%) for the Border Management and Visa Instrument (BMVI) and € 0.2 billion (+18%) for the EU Asylum Agency. Whereas the Commission intended to add resources to implement various parts of the Pact, ranging from screening and border procedures to reception capacity and relocations, EU leaders chose to focus only on ‘border management in frontline Member States’ and ‘new border procedures’.

Funds for cohesion, development and humanitarian assistance are being diverted to migration control.

The original Commission’s proposal was to increase national contributions for development assistance (Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument, NDICI) and humanitarian assistance (Solidarity and Emergency Reserve, SEAR) by 10.5 billion €. Instead, the European Council agreed to a more modest increase of 3.2 billion euros in fresh funding, accompanied by additional budgetary cuts of 4.5 billion € to existing programmes. Some cohesion programmes under Heading 2 (Cohesion, Resilience and Values) will also be reduced, such as the EU4Health (-1 bn), Horizon Europe (-2.1 bn) and cohesions funds (-1.1 bn). This means less funding for supporting refugees in third countries, and an increased focus on the Southern Neighbourhood and the Western Balkans to boost deportations and prevent departures.

Before the extraordinary European Council’s meeting, 26 humanitarian and development NGOs, including Caritas International, the International Rescue Committee and Oxfam International, issued a statement in which they warned that ‘The cuts will affect human rights, peace-building efforts, health, education, nutrition, climate, and many other areas for migration priorities. Here, we are essentially talking about solidifying fortress Europe by undermining programmes that contribute to sustainable development’. This assessment is shared by ECRE and PICUM, who previously argued that the EU is prioritising migration control over other policy goals by using funds to prevent movements along migration routes.

The EU will be able to maintain support for Ukraine, but Orban’s acquiescence comes at a price.  

To secure Hungary’s support to funding the EU response to the war in Ukraine, the other member states had to make a number of (marginal) concessions: the European Commission will need to report annually on the implementation of the Ukraine Facility, followed by a debate by the European Council; the European Council will also be able to ask the Commission to review the € 50 billion funding in the context of the next MFF negotiations in 2026. However, Hungary’s government had already secured the unfreezing of  € 10.2 billion of various EU funds (cohesion programmes, Border Management and Visa Instrument, Internal Security Fund and most elements of the Asylum and Migration Fund), that will allow Hungary to escalate violent border control policies. The European Commission’s decision to unfreeze the funds had sparked heavy criticism from the European Parliament.

The European Parliament has little influence in defining budget allocations, but it can still use its supervisory powers to avoid abuses  

MEPs wanted an increase of € 10 billion over the Commission’s original proposal (a total of € 75.8 billion of fresh funding). However, in the end, they agreed to a revised MFF that includes € 21 billion of new contributions, and additional budget cuts to cohesion and development funding, despite their own concerns  against reorienting cohesion funds to other priorities. Despite the EU Treaties limit its role in revising long-term budgetary priorities, the Parliament should at least make full use of its supervisory powers to ensure that no EU funds are transferred to authoritarian regimes or used to finance fundamental rights violations. The potential Parliament’s lawsuit against the Commission’s decision to greenlight funding to Hungary may provide an excellent opportunity for the Parliament to push the ‘guardian of the treaties’ to clarify the criteria it used (and will presumably continue to use) to disburse or withhold funding to EU member states that fail to uphold human rights and the rule of law.

On 29 and 30 November 2023, PICUM jointly organised with Equinox a legal seminar on racial profiling, policing and migration control, bringing together advocates, community organisers and legal practitioners working on racial justice, migrant justice, prison abolition and related movements. This blog shares some highlights of our discussions.

« Migration frameworks all over the world are mechanisms through which racial subordination is achieved. »

These words from former UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Tendayi Achiume, who opened our legal seminar, were a  reminder of how migration and racism are deeply interlinked.

Across Europe, policing and immigration enforcement are increasingly interconnected, disproportionately harming communities of colour. The growing use of technology and AI as a tool for border management compounds existing discriminatory practices against people with an irregular migration status and communities of colour. Racialised communities on either side of border crossings and within our communities bear the brunt of these trends.

Racism and migration in the EU

Moderated by Emmanuel Achiri, European Network Against Racism

We heard from Karin de Vries, Associate Professor of Constitutional Law at Utrecht University, about how racism plays a critical role in the EU migration policy. This includes visa policy, conditions for long term residence, state discretion in treating people with different countries of origin differently, and the very inequality underlying many of the choices, opportunities and experiences of migration. Alyna Smith, Deputy Director at PICUM, further highlighted how race and racism are embedded in the very language of EU laws about “deterrence” and the “fight against irregular migration”, in criminalisation frameworks, in counter-smuggling measures that tend to make crossings and journeys more dangerous for people.

Vida Beresneviciute, Equality Project Officer at the Fundamental Rights Agency, shared key findings from the Agency’s recent research on the discrimination experience of black people in Europe. Racial discrimination increased in key areas of life, with 45% of respondents reporting racial discrimination in 2022 – marking a significant increase from 39% in 2016. Police stops continue to be particularly problematic, as 58% of them are characterised as racial profiling by people who experienced them.

The EU equality frameworks largely fail to address these realities, and the various manifestations of racism more broadly. For instance, the 2000 Racial Equality Directive does not apply to law enforcement. The 2020 Anti-Racism Action Plan, quickly adopted in response to the murder of George Floyd in the US and the ensuing Black Lives Matter protests across the world, fails to address racism in EU migration policies. In fact, within days of adoping the Anti-Racism Action Plan the European Commission released a ‘New Pact on Migration and Asylum’ that further criminalises and targets undocumented people, leading to discrimination, violence against migrants and racialised people, whether at the borders or already living in the EU.

Blurring the line between criminal law and immigration law

Moderated by Laurence Meyer, Digital Freedom Fund, and Laure Baudrihaye, Independent expert

On the contrary, many EU migration policies, including recent and ongoing reforms, perpetuate systemic racism through measures that blur the lines between immigration and criminal law.

Ulrich Stege, a lawyer collaborating with the Italian Association for Juridical Studies on Immigration (ASGI), illustrated key trends in this conflation between immigration and criminal law – denoted as “crimmigration”. These include the use of administrative detention for security-related purposes, the use of criminal law as a deterrent against migration, the criminalisation of irregular entry and of solidarity with people in an irregular situation, as well as the use of technology to enhance immigration enforcement. On this latter point, Chloë Berthelemy, Senior Policy Advisor at European Digital Rights (EDRi), discussed the expansion of the Eurodac database to collect more personal data of asylum seekers, including children, and cooperation between Frontex and Europol in collecting and sharing personal data.

Silvia Carta, Advocacy Officer at PICUM, outlined how current EU migration reforms, such as the revision of the Schengen Borders Code and the Migration Pact, would likely lead to more racial profiling as border guards and police are encouraged to stop and search anyone who looks ‘foreign’ to detect people in an irregular situation.

At the national level, such trends and policies are already having dramatic effects on racialised people and people in an irregular situation. In particular, we heard about the criminalisation of people steering boats with migrants in Italy (Sara Traylor, Alarm Phone), violent police operations that led to the murder of a two-year old in Belgium (Selma Benkhelifa, Progress Lawyers), and border control technology in Greece in the form of biometric police gadgets, surveillance systems and social media monitoring apps (Lamprini Gyftokosta, Homodigitalis).

Racial profiling for immigration control across borders and within Europe

Moderated by Adla Shashati, Greek Forum of Migrants

Racial profiling in the name of migration control has long been present at Europe’s borders. As Parvin Abkhoudarestani, a refugee from Iran who experienced multiple violent pushbacks at the Greek-Turkish border, said: « Who can move depends on your skin colour, it’s decided by your race. My movement is illegalised ». Laure Palun of French NGO Anafé, discussed how racial profiling in border checks and migration and visa policy in France is leading to pushbacks, refusals of entry, detention of children, police violence, the militarisation of borders with Italy and Spain, and the criminalisation of those who help people in an irregular situation.

Racial profiling has already quickly moved beyond the confines of border crossings and transit hubs into mainstream policing and broader civil administration. Ting Chen, coordinator of Roses d’Acier, a group that provides support to undocumented Chinese sex workers, spoke of the police targeting Chinese women in Paris with repeated identity checks in specific districts.

Monish Bhatia, Lecturer in Sociology at the University of York, discussed his research on immigration raids in the UK and described them as racist state violence and kidnappings that exist to instill fear among impacted communities. Raids are sometimes triggered by citizens’ calls to the police, which are grounded on racist assumptions as to the potential presence of people in an irregular situation.

The way forward – How can we challenge racial profiling in the immigration context?

Moderated by Sarah Chander, European Digital Rights

Different strategies are needed to challenge these trends, and to anchor them in a shared frame of racial and migrant justice. In our last panel, we heard from Jennifer Kamau from International Women Space about the need for Europe to recognise its historical responsibilities around colonialism, conflict, climate change, and ongoing colonialist approaches, which all have an impact on global migration today and driving harmful policies and practices. She also invited everyone to recognise the power of words in shaping reality and to change the way we talk about this reality to fight against systemic oppression.

Saskia Bricmont, Member of the European Parliament, addressed the political struggle in the European Parliament and between EU institutions in resisting harmful migration policies, such as the EU Migration Pact, as well as in promoting fairer trade deals with third countries.

Sarah Chander, co-founder of Equinox, encouraged groups who share transformative goals to connect our different strategies and struggles, from grassroots to political levels. In closing, Alyna Smith invited social change actors to reflect on how we can work across movements, how we are perpetuating structures of oppression through our language and work, and how we can dismantle systemic oppression while reimagining a different world.

Watch the recordings of the legal seminar on our YouTube channel: