New EU Return Policy: Securitization Over Human Rights Protections

On 11 March, the EU Commission proposed the establishment of a new Common European System for Returns, in the form of a Regulation.

In what appears to be a rushed response to conservative pressure and growing anti-migration discourse, the Commission unveiled this draft law with no meaningful consultation of civil society or an impact assessment, as denounced by PICUM. Framed as a move for simplification and effectiveness, the proposal prioritises securitisation over human rights protections.

To complement the Pact on Migration and Asylum, the Commission proposes return decisions related to undocumented migrants to be mutually recognized by Member States. This would allow for direct enforcement of a (possible rushed) return decision issued by another EU Member State without further assessment. As La Strada International and partner organisations have repeatedly warned, the Pact could increase the risk of exploitation and human trafficking, especially as the timeframe set to assess the vulnerabilities of undocumented migrants is very short. EU Members States have only 7 days for mandatory preliminary health and vulnerability check screenings at the external borders and 3 days for such screening within their territory. This rushed process leaves many at risk of exploitation, including human trafficking, with their vulnerabilities poorly identified or overlooked.

The punitive measures established by the Pact on Migration and Asylum are further aggravated by the new regulation. Entry bans in EU territory are now proposed to increase from five to ten years, with extensions in cases where security risks are invoked. Additionally, individuals who fail to cooperate with deportation procedures may face financial penalties and a reduction in financial support.

This proposal opens the door for Member States to create deportation centres outside the Union, through “agreements or arrangements” with third countries, which raises serious concerns about accountability and human rights monitoring.

Deportation centres have proved time and again to be expensive and inhumane, as seen with Australia’s offshore processing scheme, the EU – Turkey deal, the UK’s halted deportation deal with Rwanda, and Italy’s controversial agreement with Albania.

Rather than prioritising fundamental rights safeguards, the proposal introduces “emergency possibilities” that allow Member States to disregard safeguards during detention and to limit access to judicial review for individuals—including families and children—awaiting deportation. This weakening of rights significantly increases the risk of detention abuse.

Despite the Commission’s longstanding emphasis on voluntary returns as a more humane alternative, this proposal seeks to make forced returns mandatory and the default response for those found in an irregular situation. Such an approach increases insecurity for migrants, making them more vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking, as well as posing significant risks of violations of international law and deportations to unsafe countries. It also reinforces the false assumption that anyone not eligible for asylum should be immediately deported, making it harder for individuals to access humanitarian, family, or work permits, further increasing vulnerability. 

We stress the importance of ensuring that human rights remain a priority in EU migration policies.