On 11 March 2025, the European Commission presented a new proposal for a Return Regulation to replace the current Return Directive. Behind the euphemistic name, the proposal outlines coercive, traumatising, and rights-violating measures premised on an imperative of increasing deportation rates. Instead of focusing on protection, housing, healthcare and education, the Regulation is premised on punitive policies, detention centres, deportation and enforcement.

The “Deportation Regulation,” as it would be more aptly called, is part of a broader shift in EU migration policy to characterise human movement as a threat to justify derogations from fundamental rights guarantees. EU institutions and Member States have increasingly made criminalisation, surveillance, and discrimination the default tools of migration governance – as opposed to protection, safety, social inclusion measures, the expansion of safe and regular routes and rights based residence permits.

Our organisations are unequivocal: this Regulation must be rejected. It is driven by detention, deportation, externalisation, and punishment, particularly of racialised people, and will result in more people being pushed into legal limbo and dangerous conditions. We call on the European Commission to withdraw the proposal and urge the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to reject it in its current form.

The Regulation must be rejected for the following reasons: 

1. DEPORTATIONS TO COUNTRIES WITH NO PRIOR TIES AND OFFSHORE DEPORTATION CENTRES (Arts. 4, 17) 

This proposal – together with proposed changes to the Asylum Procedures Regulation – would make it possible, for the first time, to deport a person against their will to a non-EU country to which they have no personal connection, either through which they have only briefly transited, or in which they have never set foot.

Sending someone against their will to a country to which they have no link can in no way be considered reasonable, just, or sustainable. Such measures would tear apart families and communities across Europe, undermining the fabric of solidarity that people rely on to live with dignity. Expanding the options for “return” raises serious concerns about fundamental rights, including the risk of people being stranded in third countries, the safety and dignity of removal, the sustainability of inclusion and reintegration, and access to support, rights, and services. Such measures also apply to families and children, with limited exceptions.

The proposed Regulation also enables the establishment of so-called “return hubs”; highly likely to become prison-like detention centres hosting those awaiting deportations, outside of EU territory. This is an egregious departure from international law and human rights standards. These are likely to result in a range of rights violations, including automatic arbitrary detention, direct and indirect refoulement (in return hubs or through onward deportations), and denial of access to legal and procedural safeguards. At the same time, they would reinforce discriminatory practices as well as raising substantial challenges in monitoring human rights conditions and determining legal responsibility and jurisdiction. The current provisions in the Regulation are, moreover, alarmingly vague and set no binding standards, exacerbating these concerns. In line with past attempts to offshore or externalise asylum responsibilities, such as those by Australia, the UK, or Italy, such proposals are likely to be exorbitant in cost, carry significant diplomatic and reputational risks, and widen the gaps and divergences between EU countries’ asylum and migration policies. They would divert resources to punitive modes of migration governance instead of policies prioritising protection, care and safety.

2. NEW OBLIGATIONS ON STATES TO ‘DETECT’ AND SURVEIL (Art. 6) 

The proposal requires States to put in place measures to detect people staying irregularly in their territory. Over 80 organisations warned that similar provisions in the 2024 Screening Regulation would result in increased racial profiling and discriminatory treatment. Such provisions pave the way for the expansion of racist policing practices and immigration raids that foster fear in racialised and migrant communities. Moreover, detection measures tied to immigration enforcement create serious human rights risks, including those related to the right to health, labour rights, and human dignity, as fear of authorities discourages undocumented people from seeking healthcare, reporting abuse, or accessing protection. Such measures could raise ethical conflicts for professionals and undermine trust in public services. Finally, they risk threatening privacy rights through the unsafe sharing of sensitive personal data, including health data, breaching EU data protection standards and eroding the freedoms of society as a whole.

3. MORE PEOPLE PUSHED INTO IRREGULARITY AND LEGAL LIMBO (Arts. 7, 14) 

The proposal requires states to issue deportation orders alongside any decision ending regular stay, without prior consideration of other national-level status options (such as permits for humanitarian, best interests of the child, medical or family reasons, as well as during statelessness determination procedures or in other cases where deportation is not possible). Combined with similar rules in the Pact on Migration and Asylum that link negative asylum and deportation decisions, this would raise further barriers to accessing national residence permits. Alarmingly, it even foresees issuing deportation orders listing multiple potential countries of return when a country of return cannot be identified.

The proposal also weakens protections for those who cannot be deported – often through no fault of their own. Although it allows for postponement of “removal” in cases where there is a risk of refoulement, it removes the current requirement to identify and assess other individual circumstances, ignoring that in many cases “return” may not be appropriate or even possible, such as if a person is stateless, or for other human rights reasons.

This highlights the inconsistency of a proposal developed with the flawed objective of “increasing return rates”, but which at the same time artificially inflates the number of people issued a deportation order. As a result, many more people will be pushed into irregularity and legal limbo, denied basic rights like healthcare, and exposed to destitution, homelessness, exploitation, or prolonged detention. These policies do not only harm individuals: they destabilise and create further fear and insecurity, particularly for migrant and racialised people, as well as the wider communities they are part of.

4. SEVERE EXPANSION OF DETENTION (Arts. 29-35) 

The proposal promotes the systematic use of detention by states. It significantly extends the maximum length of detention, from 18 to 24 months. This extension is disproportionate and ineffective, and would only deepen harm to people’s rights, dignity and health. It also expands the grounds for detention, including criteria that, in effect, cover most people who have entered Europe irregularly or who are in an undocumented situation, against the principle of proportionality and necessity. For instance, a lack of documents or experiencing homelessness would be sufficient grounds for detention. The proposal allows for the detention of children, despite international human rights law and standards indicating that it is always a child rights violation and never in a child’s best interests, and global commitment by governments to work to end the practice. Other vulnerable groups, as well as people who cannot be deported, would also be subject to detention. The proposal appears to allow for indefinite detention of individuals deemed to pose “security risks”, by judicial decision. It also allows Member States to deviate from basic guarantees around detention if systems face a vaguely defined “unforeseen heavy burden.” The expansion of detention capacity will create lucrative opportunities for private contractors running detention centres, incentivising the growth of a detention industry at the expense of people’s rights and dignity.

The “alternatives to detention”, or non-custodial measures, as proposed by the Commission would not serve their purpose as genuine alternatives, and would not need to be considered before applying detention. Rather, they could now be used in addition to detention and after its time limits have been exceeded. Together, these developments amount to a significant expansion of immigration detention, whereby it would no longer even be treated as a measure of last resort or imposed for the shortest possible time, in clear tension with international law requirements.

5. PUNITIVE AND COERCIVE MEASURES (Arts. 10, 12, 13, 16, 22, 29) 

The proposal introduces extensive, disproportionate and unrealistic cooperation requirements on people issued a deportation order, such as having to provide identity documents they may not possess, having their bodies and belongings searched, or cooperating with third countries to obtain travel documents. These are coupled with punitive and heavy sanctions in cases of ‘non-compliance’, including financial penalties, entry bans, restrictions on voluntary departure, as well as refusal of benefits, allowances or work permits. With no effective way to challenge the determination that they are not cooperating sufficiently or to ensure that people are not penalised for circumstances beyond their control – such as statelessness, digital or literacy barriers, age, health or trauma – these measures risk being applied arbitrarily and disproportionately punishing people in vulnerable socio-economic situations.

The proposal introduces a further shift from “voluntary departure” to “removals”, making deportation the default option. Even though the notion of voluntariness in such circumstances remains questionable, the proposal restricts people’s options and agency further. It does so by introducing broad grounds on which forced “returns” would be mandatory and by removing even the current minimum period of seven days for voluntary departure, or compliance with a deportation order. 

Specific derogations are foreseen for people who “pose a threat to public policy, to public security or to national security” – grounds that are vaguely defined and may be applied abusively. Any cases posing a security risk or concerning a criminal conviction should be dealt with in the context of criminal justice proceedings with the fair trial safeguards required.

6. EROSION OF APPEAL RIGHTS (Art. 28) 

In continuity with the erosion of these rights under the Pact, the proposal removes the automatic suspensive effect of appeals against the enforcement of a deportation decision. The suspensive effect will have to be requested together with the appeal, or granted ex-officio. This creates an additional layer of complexity for people at risk of being deported as well as judicial authorities, and removes an essential safeguard to the right to an effective remedy. With no mandatory minimum time for appeals (the proposal specifies only that the deadline shall not exceed 14 days), Member States could make it impossible for people to effectively challenge deportation orders in practice, against the established jurisprudence of European courts.

7. EXPANDED DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE AND DATA PROTECTION VIOLATIONS (Arts. 6-9, 23, 38-41) 

The proposal expands the digital surveillance of people in deportation procedures, denounced by digital rights experts and the European Data Protection Supervisor. This includes the broad collection and sharing of personal data, including sensitive health and criminal records, between EU Member States and with third countries which may be lacking adequate data protection. It also enables the use of intrusive surveillance technologies in detention centres, and the use of digital “alternatives to detention”, such as GPS tracking and mobile phone surveillance, which, while supposedly considered an alternative to detention, remain highly intrusive and can amount to de facto detention. Such technologies also create profitable new markets for surveillance companies.

The creation of a ‘European Return Order’, stored in the Schengen Information System (SIS), further conflates migration management and policing, with foreseen data sharing with law enforcement. There are documented patterns of data abuse and non-compliance with legal standards on privacy and protection of personal data by authorities under SIS, increasing the likelihood of data breaches and misuse. 

8. LACK OF IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND CONSULTATIONS 

Like other recent legislative proposals on migration, this European Commission proposal was issued without a human rights impact assessment or formal consultations, including social partners, in an area in which evidence-based policymaking is especially crucial. This is contrary to the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-Making and the Commission’s own Better Regulation Guidelines when a legislative proposal has significant social impacts and where a choice of policy options exists. A prior fundamental rights impact assessment is essential to ensure compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights, non-refoulement, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, personal liberty, the rights of the child, effective remedy, private and family life, privacy and data protection, and non-discrimination.

9. OVERLOOKING ALTERNATIVES TO PUNITIVE MIGRATION CONTROL  

The proposal reflects a false assumption that deportation should be the only option for people whose asylum application has been rejected or whose residence permits have expired or been revoked. To reduce the number of people trapped in irregularity, EU states should uphold access to existing human-rights-related permits, and expand avenues to a broad range of residence permits that allow people to plan their lives, engage in regular work, study, and fully participate in all the economic, social, and cultural facets of the societies in which they live.

—

We call on the EU to stop catering to racist and xenophobic sentiments and corporate interests and reverse the punitive and discriminatory shift in its migration policy, and instead direct resources towards policies rooted in safety, protection and inclusion, that strengthen communities, uphold dignity, and ensure that all people can live safely regardless of status.

EU institutions and Member States should reject deportation measures that are based on a punitive and coercive approach, lower human rights standards, and disproportionately affect racialised people. In light of the concerns outlined above, we call on the European Commission to withdraw this proposal and urge the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union to reject this proposal.

Signatories (List updated as of 15 September 2025)

EU/International

1. 11.11.11

2. Abolish Frontex

3. Academics for Peace-Germany

4. Access Now

5. ActionAid International

6. Africa Advocacy Foundation

7. AlgoRace

8. All Included

9. Alternatif Bilisim

10. Amnesty International

11. Apna Haq

12. ASAM Greece

13. Aspiration

14. Avocats Sans Frontières (ASF)

15. Border Violence Monitoring Network

16. borderline-europe – Menschenrechte ohne Grenzen e.V.

17. Bridge EU

18. Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS)

19. CCFD-Terre Solidaire

20. Changemakers Lab

21. Civil Rights Defenders

22. COFACE Families Europe

23. Correlation-European Harm Reduction Network

24. COSPE

25. CPT – Aegean Migrant Solidarity

26. de:border // migration justice collective

27. DeZIM, German Centre for Migration and Integration Research

28. EAPN European Anti-Poverty Network

29. ECCHR European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights

30. EL*C – Eurocentralasian Lesbian* Community

31. EmpowerVan

32. EPSU

33. Equinox Initiative for Racial Justice

34. EuroMed Rights

35. European Alternatives

36. European Network Against Racism (ENAR)

37. European Network on Religion & Belief

38. European Network on Religion and Belief

39. European Network on Statelessness

40. Famiglie Accoglienti

41. FEANTSA

42. Fenix Humanitarian Legal Aid

43. Forum per Cambiare l’Ordine delle Cose

44. Global Alliance Against Traffic in Women (GAATW)

45. Global Asylum Seeker Human Rights Defenders Committee (GASHDC)

46. Hoffnung leben e.V.

47. Human Rights Watch

48. Humanity Diaspo

49. I Have Rights.

50. Inter Alia

51. InterEuropean Human Aid Association Germany e.V.

52. International Planned Parenthood Federation – European Network (IPPF EN)

53. International Women* Space e.V

54. iuventa

55. Kerk in Actie

56. La Strada International

57. Madera Creation

58. Médecins du Monde International Network

59. Médecins Sans Frontières

60. Mediterranea Bruxelles

61. Mediterranea Saving Humans

62. Missing Voices (REER)

63. Mission Lifeline International eV

64. Movimiento por la Paz (MPDL)

65. Mujeres Supervivientes

66. Mundo en Movimiento

67. Network Against Migrant Detention

68. New Horizons Project

69. New Women Connectors

70. No Name Kitchen

71. Northern Ireland Council for Racial Equality

72. Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants – PICUM

73. Protestantse Kerk Nederland

74. Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA)

75. Recosol

76. Roma Feminist Collective

77. Romnja Feminist Library

78. SCI Catalunya

79. Sea-Watch e.V.

80. Service Civil International

81. SOLIDAR

82. SOS Humanity

83. SOS Racism Denmark

84. Spectrum

85. Statewatch

86. Symbiosis-Council of Europe School of Political Studies in Greece

87. Syrian Justice and Accountability Centre

88. Transnational Institute

89. UNESCO Inclusive Policy Lab -People of African Descent & SDGs E-Team

90. Validity Foundation – Mental Disability Advocacy Centre

91. WeMove Europe

92. Women Against Violence Europe (WAVE) Network

93. Yoga and Sport with Refugees National

94. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Migrationsrecht des Deutschen Anwaltvereins

95. Ariadni AMKE

96. ARSIS Association for the Social Support of Youth

97. ASGI

98. ASKV

99. Asociación Por Ti Mujer

100. Association for Integration and Migration (SIMI)

101. Associazione Arturo

102. AWO Bundesverband

103. Ban Ying e.V. coordination and counseling center against trafficking in

human beings

104. Boat Refugee Foundation

105. Brot für die Welt

106. CEAR – Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado

107. Center for legal aid – Voice in Bulgaria

108. Centre Avec

109. Centre for Information Technology and Development (CITAD)

110. Centre for Labour Rights, CLR

111. CIEs NO MADRID

112. CIRÉ

113. CNCD-11.11.11

114. Community Rights in Greece

115. Congolese Anti-Poverty Network

116. coop. soc. APE06 – AlterProjectEmpowerment2006

117. Coordinadora CIE No Cádiz

118. Coordinadora Obrim Fronteres

119. Council of Churches Amsterdam

120. Danes je nov dan, Inštitut za druga vprašanja

121. Diaconaal Centrum De Bakkerij

122. Diásporas Association

123. Dutch Council for Refugees

124. ECHO100PLUS

125. Equal Legal Aid

126. Europasilo

127. Famiglie accoglienti Bologna e Torino

128. FEDERACIÓN ANDALUCIA ACOGE

129. Federación SOS Racismo

130. Feministas en Holanda

131. Flüchtlingsrat NRW e.V.

132. Flüchtlingsrat Schleswig-Holstein e.V.

133. forRefugees

134. GAT – Grupo de Ativistas em Tratamentos

135. Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)

136. Greek Forum of Migrants

137. Greek Forum of Refugees

138. Greek Housing Network

139. Hermes Center

140. HOTM

141. Huize Agnes

142. Human Rights Initiatives

143. ICS (Italian Consortium of Solidarity)

144. INTERSOS HELLAS

145. Irídia – Centre per la Defensa dels Drets Humans

146. Italy Must Act

147. Jeannette Noëlhuis

148. Jesuit Refugee Service Belgium

149. Jesuit Refugee Service Greece

150. JRS Malta

151. KOK – German NGO Network against Trafficking in Human Beings

152. Kopanang Africa Against Xenophobia (KAAX)

153. La Cimade

154. Legal Centre Lesvos

155. M.oV.I Caltanissetta

156. Meldpunt Vreemdelingendetentie

157. Migrant Rights Centre Ireland

158. Migrant Tales

159. Migrant Voice UK

160. Mobile Info Team

161. MOC

162. Move Coalition

163. Naga Odv

164. Nazione Umana

165. Network for Children’s Rights (Greece)

166. NOF

167. Nomada Association

168. ONE PEOPLE

169. Pauluskerk Rotterdam

170. POUR LA SOLIDARITE

171. PRO ASYL, National Working Group for Refugees

172. Racism and Technology Center

173. RADIO BULLETS APS

174. Red Acoge

175. RED AMINVI, SPAIN

176. RED ESPAÑOLA DE INMIGRACION Y AYUDA AL REFUGIADO

177. Red Interlavapies

178. Refugee Council of Lower Saxony

179. Refugee Legal Support (RLS)

180. Refugees Platform In Egypt-RPE

181. Refugees Welcome Italia

182. Rotterdams Ongedocumenteerden Steunpunt

183. S.P.E.A.K ( moslim woman collectif)

184. SAAMO Antwerpen

185. Salud por Derecho

186. SCI Switzerland

187. SNDVU Seguro

188. SolidarityNow

189. Solidary Wheels

190. Stem in de Stad

191. Steunpunt Ongedocumenteerden Pauluskerk

192. Stichting LOS (NL)

193. Stichting ShivA

194. Stichting Vluchteling Kansen

195. Stichting Vluchtelingen in de Knel

196. STIL Utrecht

197. Stowarzyszenie Interwencji Prawnej (Association for Legal Intervention)

198. The Norwegian Centre Against Racism

199. Tierramatria mujeres migrantes y Refugiadas en Andalucía

200. Turun Valkonauha ry, Finland

201. URGG

202. Villa Vrede

203. Vluchteling Onder Dak

204. Vluchtelingenwerk Nederland

205. Waterford Integration Services, Ireland

206. Wereldhuis – World House (STEK)

207. Wereldvrouwenhuis Mariam van Nijmege

Culled from Human Rights Watch’s website