Over 300 civil society groups from Europe and abroad urged the European Parliament and European Union (EU) governments to reject a proposed deportation law. They warned that it would weaken protections, expand detention, and make harsh migration controls routine.
The European Commission introduced the proposal for a new Return Regulation in March 2025 as part of the EU’s Pact on Migration and Asylum. It would replace the current Return Directive.
Human rights groups said that the draft, which campaigners call a “Deportation Regulation,” would lock in policies that favor forced removals and surveillance instead of protection and integration.
Mass mobilization against the proposal
On September 15, 2025, Statewatch published a joint statement signed by over 300 groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Médecins Sans Frontières, and the European Network Against Racism.
The signatories warned that the Regulation would weaken basic rights by allowing deportations to countries with no connection to migrants, creating offshore detention centers, and lengthening detention periods.
They urged the European Parliament and the Council of the EU to block the proposal and pressed the Commission to withdraw it entirely.
“Our organizations are unequivocal: this Regulation must be rejected,” the statement said, adding that the law would mainly affect racialized communities and leave many people stuck in legal uncertainty.
Deportations to third countries
One of the most disputed provisions would let authorities deport people to non-EU countries where they have no real ties. This could include places migrants only passed through briefly or never entered at all.
Campaigners warned that this could separate families, leave people stranded without support, and create serious risks for their safety and reintegration.
The plan also allows for “return hubs” outside EU territory. Rights groups feared that these would operate like detention centers but remain outside EU control, making oversight and accountability harder.
Advocates pointed out that past offshore processing efforts in Australia and the United Kingdom faced global criticism and came with high costs.
Surveillance and policing concerns
Article 6 of the proposal requires EU states to set up systems to “detect” people living irregularly. Over 80 organizations had already opposed similar measures in the 2024 Screening Regulation, warning that they could fuel racial profiling and lead to discriminatory policing.
Civil society groups argued that these systems would make undocumented migrants avoid medical care, reporting abuse, or using social services, which would increase health and safety risks.
They also raised concerns about privacy, especially the collection and sharing of sensitive data like health records.
Legal limbo and irregularity
Another major concern is the rule that deportation orders must be issued whenever a person’s right to stay ends.
Under the draft, states would not have to first consider other legal options, such as permits for humanitarian reasons, family connections, or medical needs.
Groups warned that this approach would leave more people in irregular status and long-term uncertainty. Deportation orders could even name several possible return countries if none is clear, a step campaigners called inconsistent and impractical.
Expansion of detention
The draft law extends the maximum detention period from 18 to 24 months and widens the reasons for placing migrants in custody. Under the proposal, lacking documents or even being homeless could justify detention.
Critics said that this undermines the principle that detention should only be a last resort.
The text also permits the detention of children, despite international law and broad agreement that this violates child rights. Member states could also skip basic safeguards in cases of an “unforeseen heavy burden,” a phrase rights that advocates argued is dangerously vague.
While the proposal mentions alternatives to detention, it does not require them to be used first. Instead, it allows electronic monitoring like GPS tracking alongside detention, raising more concerns about intrusive surveillance.
Punitive measures and sanctions
The Regulation imposes new duties on people with deportation orders, such as providing identity documents, cooperating with authorities, and allowing searches of their belongings. If they fail to comply, they could face fines, reentry bans, or limits on voluntary departure.
Rights groups warned that these penalties could punish people for factors beyond their control, like being stateless or facing obstacles tied to age, health, or trauma. The draft also removes the current minimum seven-day period allowed for voluntary departure.
Weakening of appeal rights
The proposal removes the automatic suspension of deportation while an appeal is pending. Instead, individuals would need to request a suspension with their appeal or depend on courts to grant it on their own.
With appeal deadlines limited to 14 days, campaigners argued that securing real legal remedies would be nearly impossible. They said that this change goes against rulings from European courts, which emphasize that suspensive effect is essential for fair procedures and to prevent unlawful removals.
Expansion of digital surveillance
Several articles allow broad data collection and sharing between EU member states and third countries, including health and criminal records.
The plan would add a new “European Return Order” to the Schengen Information System, a database already criticized for misuse and data leaks.
Rights advocates said that these measures blur the line between migration control and law enforcement, fuel demand for surveillance technology, and weaken privacy rights.
Lack of impact assessments
The Commission put forward the proposal without a human rights impact assessment or formal consultations. Critics said this violates the EU’s own Better Regulation Guidelines and weakens evidence-based policymaking.
Campaigners stressed that such an assessment is necessary to ensure compliance with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, including protections against torture, inhuman treatment, and discrimination.
Alternatives overlooked
Civil society groups said that the Commission’s focus on deportation overlooks other solutions. They called for protecting access to permits based on human rights and expanding legal pathways for migrants to work, study, and take part in society.
The joint statement urged EU institutions to shift resources toward protection, safety, and social inclusion instead of enforcement.
“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,” the text concluded.
Broader political context
The deportation proposal is part of the EU’s broader push to tighten migration control. Over the past 20 years, Frontex, the EU border agency, has greatly expanded its role, including organizing deportation charter flights.
A recent Statewatch report traced nearly two decades of Frontex involvement in removals, showing how much has already been invested in enforcement.
Critics said that the new Regulation would speed up this trend while ignoring long-standing gaps in asylum systems and safe migration routes.
Supporters in EU institutions argued that higher return rates are needed for a functioning migration system, but campaigners respond that this comes at the expense of fundamental rights.
New border checks add pressure to migration rules
Travel to Europe is about to change.
Starting October 12, 2025, the Entry/Exit System (EES) will replace passport stamps with digital records of each entry and exit. It will also collect fingerprints and facial scans from non-EU travelers staying up to 90 days.
In late 2026, the European Travel Information and Authorization System (ETIAS) will require visitors from 59 visa-free countries to apply online for approval before traveling.
For tourists and business travelers, these systems add steps but may speed up border checks.
For migrants, the impact is bigger. The EES will make overstays easier to detect, and ETIAS adds another layer of control for non-EU visitors.
Combined with the new deportation law, data from these systems could make it harder for people with uncertain status to remain in the EU.
In practice, short-term visitors will mostly face new airport and border procedures. But for long-term migrants, linking EES, ETIAS, and the deportation law could mean more surveillance and quicker removals.
How the EU applies these systems will show whether it balances border control with rights—or prioritizes enforcement.
Europe’s choice on migration
The EU deportation law is not just about technical rules. It raises a basic question: should Europe handle migration with detention and forced removals, or with policies that protect rights and support inclusion?
Over 300 groups have warned that the plan would expand detention, cut legal safeguards, and make coercion routine.
This decision matters because it will shape how the EU treats people on the move for years to come. Rejecting the law could stop serious rights abuses and allow for fairer, safer policies.
This debate is also about the kind of Europe we want to live in—one that shuts people out or one that respects dignity and rights. The European Parliament and Council still have to decide.
Will leaders and citizens step up to ensure migration rules reflect Europe’s core values?
The outcome will show whether the EU deportation law becomes a step toward fewer rights—or a chance to choose a different path.