By Matthias Lücke , Helena Hahn , Silvia Carta , Martin Ruhs , Mehari Taddele Maru , Paweł Kaczmarczyk , Karolina Łukasiewicz , Marta Pachocka , Tobias Heidland

Recent geopolitical events like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the instrumentalisation of migration from Belarus to Poland are re-shaping the EU's migration policy. To build a resilient migration and asylum system, the EU and its member states must find a way to balance ad hoc, crisis-oriented responses with a long-term, strategic approach. This is one of the main findings of the 2022 MEDAM Assessment Report “Refugee protection in the EU: Building resilience to geopolitical conflict”.

This final report concludes the Mercator Dialogue on Asylum and Migration (MEDAM). Launched in 2016, the project aimed to develop concrete proposals to reform EU asylum and migration policy based on in-depth research. The report considers the most recent developments in the European migration system and reflects on how the numerous crises facing the EU influence the negotiations on the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, proposed in 2020, and public perception of migrants and refugees.

As Russia continues to wage war against Ukraine, the report provides an insightful analysis of refugee movements from Ukraine to Europe since February 2022. The authors discuss the effectiveness of the TPD and future challenges that the war's outcome can pose.

The report also considers general, global migration trends. First, it looks more closely at the link between migration and development policies. The report advances the argument that the relation between economic development, foreign aid, and out-migration is a complex one, challenging the widespread belief that better economic conditions encourage migration. The report also explores the preconditions for effective cooperation on migration management with countries of origin and transit, with a particular focus on EU-Africa relations.

Recent geopolitical events have put migration and asylum back at the centre of EU policymaking. Yet, member states are still struggling to find a common, structured and effective response. Finding a way to bridge their deep-seated differences will be vital to ensure that the EU is ready to navigate future crises.

MEDAM Assessment Report . Kiel, Germany: Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW) Mercator Dialogue on Asylum and Migration (MEDAM). 2022. 92p.

By Marta Gionco and Jyothi Kanics 

The European Union (EU) is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights.8 The Treaty on European Union (TEU) underlines that these values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and gender equality prevail.9

Yet, in recent years, these values have been under threat within the EU, as many Member States’ policies and actions have led to a “shrinking space” for civil society. Perhaps this trend is nowhere more evident than in the treatment of migrants in Europe and the human rights defenders working to assist them. The “criminalisation of solidarity” strikes at the heart of European values and contributes to the erosion of rule of law and democracy, while seriously impacting the rights and welfare of the most vulnerable in our societies and those who seek to protect and assist them. The criminalisation of solidarity with migrants remains a widespread phenomenon across the EU. According to our media monitoring, at least 89 people were criminalised in the EU between January 2021 and March 2022.10 Out of them, 18 people faced new charges, while the other 71 were ongoing cases from previous years. Four of them are migrants themselves. Three people were convicted and 15 acquitted, while all the other cases are still ongoing. People have been criminalised for actions including providing food, shelter, medical assistance, transportation and other humanitarian aid to migrants in dire conditions; assisting with asylum applications; and rescuing migrants at sea. In the vast majority of the cases (88%), human rights defenders were charged with facilitation of entry, transit or stay, or migrant smuggling (depending on how the crime is defined in the national legislation).11 It is also notable that the criminalisation of solidarity has continued, and in certain cases even soared (see section 1.2), during periods in which many countries adopted COVID-19 restrictions, at a time when human rights defenders risked their own personal safety and health to leave their homes to help others. Emergency measures adopted to address the COVID-19 pandemic have been used to limit access to reception facilities and detention centres, to impose fines on organisations providing services during lock-downs or after the curfew, and to limit the right to freedom of assembly. National data further contributes to give an idea of the magnitude of the criminalisation of solidarity in the EU. For example, according to the Polish civil society network Grupa Granica, nearly 330 people were detained for helping people crossing borders irregularly between Belarus and Poland between August and November 2021.12 Those detained include EU nationals as well as migrants and their family members, many of whom had residence permits in Belgium, Germany and Poland. Many are likely to have been motivated by humanitarian reasons, including helping family members. In another example, a total of 972 people were convicted in Switzerland in 2018 on grounds of facilitation of irregular entry or stay.13 The vast majority, almost 900 people, acted out of solidarity or family reasons.

Belgium, PICUM. 2022, 66pg

By Eleonora Celoria, and Marta Gionco

This briefing presents noteworthy practices at the national and European Union (EU) level related to safeguarding the rights of people in immigration detention and ultimately ending detention for migration purposes, by focusing on a wide range of actors spanning from civil society to national governments. It focuses on three advocacy objectives: 1. raising the visibility of detention and its harms, 2. ending the detention of children in the context of migration, and 3. implementing community-based solutions that can ultimately prevent and contribute to ending detention. The first chapter of the briefing explores civil society efforts aimed at unveiling what happens in immigration detention centres as well as the harmful impact of immigration detention itself. Ensuring that people in detention speak to the outside world and giving NGOs access to detention centres have been identified as the most important tools in this regard. It is also contended that further research, as well as litigation and advocacy, related to the right to communicate is needed. NGOs in the Netherlands and the UK have set up hotline systems to establish contact with individuals in detention, most of whom do not have access to their mobile phones. In Italy, strategic litigation has challenged the state’s denial to grant NGOs access to detention facilities. Both activities – phone communication and civil society visits - can be seen as part of a wider advocacy strategy to end immigrant detention, as exemplified by the work of civil society coalitions and organisations in Belgium, Italy and the United Kingdom, among others. The second chapter focuses on immigration detention of children, a practice which is never in the child’s best interests and should always be forbidden. While EU law still allows for immigration detention of children, there have been developments at the political and legislative levels in Germany, Belgium, France and Greece aiming at restricting the situations in which children could be detained for immigration purposes. The cases of Ireland, Italy and Spain are also explored, as these states do not generally detain children (whether they are unaccompanied or with their families). Overall, to comply with international standards and to put an end to child detention in the migration context, further efforts are needed at both the EU and national levels. The final chapter focuses on community-based solutions to prevent or end immigration detention. This section focuses in particular on the advantages of providing support through case management, which is a structured social work approach which empowers individuals to work towards case resolution (i.e., any temporary or permanent migration outcome, such as a visa, regularization scheme, re-migration or voluntary return). This section explores case studies from Belgium, Bulgaria, Poland, the UK and Italy, where case management projects are run by civil society originations, in cooperation with local (Belgium) or national (Bulgaria, Poland, UK) governments. Although each national experience is unique, the independent evaluation of these projects showed that they have some features in common: high levels of compliance of the people involved with the project, the limited numbers of migrants who have access to case management in comparison to the number of undocumented migrants, and the fact that these projects need to be accompanied by a general policy shift towards the implementation of non-coercive solutions in migration management. To conclude, this briefing analyses the practices of two countries, Ecuador and Uruguay, which are among the few states in the world that never applied or no longer resort to immigration detention.

Brussels, Belgium : PICUM – Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants, 2024. 28p.

By: Anja Radjenovic

In recent years, the migration policy of the European Union (EU) has focused on strict border controls and the externalisation of migration management through cooperation with third countries. Although states have the right to decide whether to grant non-EU nationals access to their territory, they must do this in accordance with the law and uphold individuals' fundamental rights. Not only do the practices and policies of stopping asylum-seekers and migrants in need of protection at or before they reach the European Union's external borders ('pushbacks') erode EU values as enshrined in the EU Treaties, they may also violate international and European humanitarian and human rights laws. National human rights institutions, international bodies and civil society organisations regularly report cases of pushbacks at the European Union's land and sea borders. According to those reports, pushbacks often involve excessive use of force by EU Member States' authorities and EU agencies operating at external borders, and degrading and inhuman treatment of migrants and their arbitrary detention. The European Parliament has repeatedly called for Member States and EU agencies to comply with fundamental rights in their activities to protect the EU's external borders. Several international organizations and other stakeholders have condemned or filed legal actions against the practice of pushbacks carried out at the EU's external borders. In September 2020, the European Commission presented a pact on migration and asylum, including a proposal on pre-entry screening of third-country nationals at EU external borders, in a bid to address these potential breaches of fundamental rights.

Strasbourg, France: European Parliament, 2021. 8p.

Edited by Jussi P. Laine , Daniel Rauhut , and Marika Gruber

Focusing on the social impact of migration, this book explores migration as an inevitable part of rural development and transition in light of the sharp political divides in European and national political arenas on the topic. It provides an innovative immigration impact assessment based on recently conducted empirical work to enhance local development in European rural and remote regions, looking to promote change in the perception of migration and related policies and practices.

Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2023. 274p.

By Alia Fakhry

Since 2015, European partners have funded interventions in the Sahel to help countries like Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali increase their capacity to regulate and control migration. Through these interventions, the European Union has set precedents and encouraged securitised policies that reinforce the security interests of governments in the Sahel, and undermine the capacity of regional and continental organisations to establish comprehensive migration frameworks.

Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies, 2023. 24p.

By Chris Jones, Romain Lanneau, Yasha Maccanico

The use of new technologies is fundamental to the EU’s system of border control and migration management. This report explores their development and deployment over the last three decades, during which time an extensive infrastructure of surveillance systems, databases, biometric identification techniques and information networks has been put in place to provide state authorities with knowledge of – and thus control over – foreign nationals seeking to enter EU or staying in Schengen territory. Digital technologies underpin invasions of privacy, brutal violations of human rights, and make the border ‘mobile’, for example through the increased use of mobile biometric identification technologies, such as handheld fingerprint scanners used by police and border authorities. On the one hand, new technologies are deployed to facilitate the movements of “bona fide” travellers. In the years to come, tourists and businesspeople will be required to hand over increasing amounts of personal information to EU and member state authorities in exchange for being granted entry to the EU. That information will then be used to train algorithms that will be applied to new applications to enter the bloc, in order to assess the level of risk or threat posed by individuals (and, where that level is deemed too high, to deny them the ability to travel to the EU). On the other hand, new technologies are deployed to detect, deter and repel refugees and migrants seeking to enter EU territory through irregular journeys. Drones, cameras, social media monitoring, satellite imagery and networks of sensors form part of an elaborate surveillance architecture that is being continually extended. Those who do manage to enter EU territory – which is to say, if they are not illegally pushed back by EU authorities, or prevented from leaving a “third country” – are also biometrically registered and screened against a multitude of national and international databases. If they are deported, international data-sharing systems are increasingly being used to facilitate that task

London: Statewatch, 2023. 45p.

 By Martina Prpic  

In December 2022, the European Commission presented a proposal to review Directive 2011/36/EU to strengthen the rules on combating trafficking in human beings and to better protect victims. Despite some progress achieved in recent years, it is estimated that over 7 000 people become victims of human trafficking in the EU on an annual basis, although the figure could be much higher because many victims remain undetected. Human trafficking is not only a serious and borderless crime, but also a lucrative business, driven by demand for sexual (and other) services. Criminals exploit vulnerable people (increasingly children), making high profits and taking relatively low risks. Vulnerability can result from a whole range of factors, including socio-economic ones, and migrants are a particularly vulnerable group. Gender also plays an important part, as women and men are not trafficked in the same way or for the same purpose. Women and girls represent a disproportionately high number of victims, both globally and at EU level, especially in terms of sexual exploitation. This form of exploitation is still dominant in the EU, even though other forms are on the rise, such as exploitation for forced labour and for criminal activities. The COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have brought new challenges for victims, as well as amplifying the vulnerabilities of those most at risk. Traffickers – like legal businesses – have increasingly moved to digital modi operandi. In its efforts to eradicate human trafficking, the EU has not only created a legal framework, comprising an anti-trafficking directive and instruments to protect victims' rights and prevent labour exploitation; it has also put in place an operational cooperation network involving decentralised EU agencies, including Europol, Eurojust, CEPOL and Frontex. Moreover, trafficking in human beings is a priority in the EU policy cycle for organised and serious international crime. The European Parliament plays a major role, not only in designing policies but also in evaluating their implementation. 

EPRS | European Parliamentary ResearchService , 2023. 12p.

By Sanae Youbi  

In September 2020, the European Commission proposed a reform of the current European Union (EU) approach to migration and asylum entitled a ‘Common European Framework for Migration and Asylum’. A major novelty of this ‘New Pact on Migration and Asylum’ is the proposal to introduce a ‘Pre-Entry Screening’ procedure (Screening Regulation), allowing European authorities at EU external borders to channel irregular third-country nationals towards either an asylum or a return procedure. > As it stands, the proposed Screening Regulation seeks to address the issue of irregular entries and asylum-seekers’ mobility through policing via one single tool, namely a fast screening procedure. This may lead to policy incoherence and human rights abuses justified in the name of internal security and public safety. > Instead of endorsing this restrictive approach, this policy brief argues that the Council and the European Parliament should amend the proposed Regulation by designing an approach inspired by a solidarity-driven system, aligned with EU values. Detention outside the EU borders must not be generalized but based on real security risks, not assumptions based on threat perceptions. The instrumentalization of migration should be rejected, and the focus should be on more sustainable legal venues for humanitarian and labour migration.

Bruges, Belgium, College of Europe, 2023. 15p.

Edited by Hastings Donnan, Madeleine Hurd and Carolin Leutloff-Grandits  

Migrating Borders and Moving Times analyses migrant border crossings in relation to their everyday experiences of time, and connects these to wider social and political structures. Sometimes border crossing takes no more than a moment; sometimes hours; some crossers find themselves in the limbo of detention; for others, the crossing lasts a lifetime to be interrupted only by death. Borders not only define separate spaces, but different temporalities. This book provides both a single interpretative frame and a novel approach to border crossing: an analysis of the reconfiguration of memory, personal and group time that follows the migrants' renegotiation of cross-border space and recalibrations of temporality. Using original field data from Israel and northern and south-eastern Europe, the contributors argue that new insights are generated by approaching border crossing as a process with diverse temporalities whose relationship to space has always to be empirically determined.
Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2017. 201p.

Roxana Barbulescu, Sara Wallace Goodman, Luicy Pedroza

This open access book critically re-examines the theoretical and empirical interconnections between integration and citizenship, specifically, naturalisation. With new, empirical-grounded analyses of what we term 'citizenship-integration nexus' the central, shared contribution is showcasing how membership is informally achieved through everyday integration —usually around, but sometimes in spite of, formal citizenship requirements. By providing evidence of a nexus disjuncture, the book contributes to critical dialogues on immigrant integration and political incorporation, relevant for policymakers, civil society actors, and academics alike.

Springer Cham

By Jane Kilpatrick, Chris Jones

The EU's proposed Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act aims to address the risks of certain uses of AI and to establish a legal framework for its trustworthy deployment, thus stimulating a market for the production, sale and export of various AI tools and technologies. However, certain technologies or uses of technology are insufficiently covered by or even excluded altogether from the scope of the AI Act, placing migrants and refugees - people often in an already-vulnerable position - at even greater risk of having their rights violated

London: Statewatch, 2022. 46p.