November, 12 2024, 04:10pm EDT

EU Leaders should Uphold Right to Asylum in Europe
10 steps for the EU to ensure sustainable and rights-based asylum systems
BRUSSELS
In light of recent policies aimed at preventing the arrival in the EU of individuals seeking international protection and safety, OVER 40 humanitarian and human rights organizations working to protect the rights of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, call on EU member states and the European Commission to respect EU and international human rights legal frameworks and safeguard the global refugee protection system.
At a summit focused on migration on 17 October 2024, EU leaders doubled down on plans to prevent people from arriving on EU soil, to speed up forced returns and deepen cooperation with third countries to externalize asylum and migration management. This direction was reiterated at the confirmation hearings of the Commissioners-designate for the Mediterranean and for Internal Affairs and Migration on 5 November, where they expressed an openness to different offshoring schemes. Many of these proposals run contrary to current EU legal frameworks, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the recently adopted major overhaul of migration and asylum policy, the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. Before they pursue ill-conceived attempts to shift or offshore their responsibilities to third countries, EU member states and the European Commission should take a close look at their legal obligations and place emphasis on ensuring a successful and human rights compliant implementation of the reform of the asylum and migration policy they have worked on for years.
An increasing move towards containment and evasion of responsibilities
The EU’s migration policy has built on a strategy of containment of refugees and migrants, including efforts to reduce arrivals at the EU’s external borders, to boost returns, and to rely on inequitable outsourcing of responsibility to countries with less capacity to provide effective protection.
The reformed Common European Asylum System (the legal and policy framework developed to guarantee harmonized and uniform standards for people seeking international protection in the EU) maintains and confirms the fundamental right to seek asylum and does not provide for the externalization or ‘offshoring’ of asylum processing (the relocation of the procedure for examining asylum applications to the territory of a third country). However, it introduces an abundance of concepts and measures that risk posing practical barriers to the effective access to asylum, including the fiction of ‘non-entry’, mandatory border procedures, increased use of admissibility procedures, and a range of possible derogations in situations of ‘crisis’ or ‘instrumentalization’.
Political pressure is increasing for so-called ‘innovative strategies’ to either process asylum applications outside EU territory, to refuse asylum applications entirely and shift asylum processing and eventual protection responsibilities to countries outside the EU, or to externalize return procedures to centers outside of the EU, so-called ‘return hubs’. These schemes are not foreseen by the legislative reform under the Pact and they often involve a rehashing of previously discarded or tried-and-failed proposals. A global body of research shows that every time such schemes have been attempted, they have resulted in arbitrary detention, refoulement, avoidable loss of life and other rights violations, both in the returning member state and in the country to which people are transferred, all at a high financial cost for taxpayers.
Ten steps to meet EU human rights obligations and safeguard access to asylum in Europe
The undersigned organizations call on the European Commission, the European Parliament, the Council, and member states at national level to uphold their obligations under EU and international law and to firmly reject any attempts to weaken protection for asylum seekers at and within EU borders as well as in cooperation with third countries on asylum and migration. This includes opposing proposals for any revisions or watering down of the criteria for safety under the ‘safe third country’ concept in the Asylum Procedures Regulation; abandoning any plans to outsource refugee protection where these raise further barriers to accessing asylum; and rejecting harmful initiatives such as the Italy-Albania arrangement before the human rights consequences become ever more severe.
As an alternative approach, our organizations call on the EU and its member states to invest in sustainable, humane and well-functioning asylum systems, including through the ten steps outlined below.
Address and reverse impediments to the right to seek asylum and access to protection in Europe in the implementation of EU law and the Pact on Migration and Asylum
The right to seek asylum is guaranteed by law, including in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. However, impediments to seek and obtain international protection in the EU are prevalent in the Pact on Migration and Asylum. EU member states view reduced arrivals and accelerated asylum procedures and returns of rejected asylum seekers as fundamental to securing a ‘stable EU asylum and migration system’. This approach carries very real consequences for people seeking protection and undermines respect for international human rights and refugee law.
We call on the EU and its member states to:
- Focus on compliance with EU law and implementation of the Pact in line with human rights and in close cooperation with civil society. States should take steps to implement the Pact comprehensively, ensuring people with protection needs are identified in a fair and efficient way and given swift access to the asylum procedure. They should take steps to prevent the reform’s worst likely consequences, including widespread detention at borders, lowered asylum standards, and an abuse of ‘crisis’ or ‘instrumentalization’ measures, leading to restricted access to asylum at and within their borders. States should refrain from practices leading to undue restrictions on freedom of movement, such as residence requirements or other measures amounting in practice to a deprivation of liberty. In line with the requirements of the Pact, EU member states need to take steps to ensure sufficient funding and preparedness of their migration, asylum and reception systems for possible increases in arrivals to prevent avoidable crises. The Pact implementation should also provide an opportunity to address longstanding gaps in national asylum systems, including inadequate and insufficient reception capacity, and addressing practices and policies that breach international law, such as the unlawful denial of access to asylum or to a state’s territory, or ongoing cases of border violence or failure to provide assistance at sea. The right to seek asylum should be upheld no matter where people come from or how they entered the territory or came within the jurisdiction or control of EU authorities.
- Refrain from arbitrarily detaining refugees, asylum seekers and migrants and imposing other restrictions on people’s freedom of movement during asylum and return procedures.States must take every step to avoid arbitrary detention at borders. They should generally refrain from detaining asylum seekers and migrants, and at a minimum, they should ensure detention is used as an exception, for the shortest possible time and subject to review. People with specific needs and vulnerabilities – including pregnant people, survivors of torture and of trafficking, people with physical or mental disabilities, serious physical or mental medical conditions, older persons, children, and families with children should not be detained. NGOs and rights monitoring bodies should have unhindered access to border facilities and free quality legal assistance should be provided.
- Enable effective monitoring and accountability for rights violations and pushbacks at European borders, including through addressing the shortcomings raised by civil society concerning the independent border monitoring mechanism to be established by all member states as part of the Pact.To ensure that the mechanism foreseen in the Screening Regulation and the Asylum Procedures Regulation is credible and effective it should be expanded in scope, made truly independent, and coupled with strengthened accountability for violations and sanctions for non-compliance.
- Expand avenues to alternative residence permits for people with protection and other human rights-related needs but not eligible for asylum and ensure the broad range of existing opportunities for legal stay are accessible in practice, including existing permits regulated under national or EU law for humanitarian reasons, medical grounds, for victims of human trafficking, for children, young people and families and stateless people.
Commit to genuine and equitable responsibility sharing in support of a functioning rights-based asylum system
Proposals to offshore and externalize asylum processing have surfaced time and again. They have been consistently rejected as unlawful and unfeasible, including by the European Commission, and have proven to be inhumane in places where such processing has been implemented, including by Australia in Nauru and Manus Island, and in Papua New Guinea. The externalization of asylum or return procedures involves severe human rights risks. Every such initiative that has been put in place has led to human rights violations, including with regards to refoulement, arbitrary detention, denial of the right to asylum and legal aid, lack of identification of vulnerabilities, falling short of the legal and reception standards clearly in place in EU law. These schemes, moreover, have had a ruinous impact on the administration and cost of asylum systems, and on the international refugee protection system, and pose significant risks to the EU’s autonomy and credibility in its external action.
The EU should invest in models to manage forced displacement and irregular movements humanely. Instead of pursuing objectives of shifting responsibilities for refugee protection to other countries, these models need to have at their core the achievement of better protection for those in need and the fulfilment of EU and international human rights obligations.
We call on the EU and its member states to:
- Uphold EU and international law obligations to ensure access to territorial asylum in the EU and to respect the principle of non-refoulement; providing regular pathways to migration can never replace access to territorial asylum. In accordance with the principle of non-refoulementin refugee and human rights law, states may not return people to places where they would be at significant risk of serious human rights violations. Initiatives and efforts to provide alternatives pathways and ‘safe routes’ should never be used as a pretext for justifying the curtailment of the right to seek asylum at the border or imposing admissibility restrictions including impeding or delaying access to territory.
- Ensure adequate Search and Rescue (SAR) capacity and safe and timely disembarkation at the closest port of safety. Rescue at sea is a duty of maritime law. The EU and its member states should end the hinderance and criminalization of SAR operations by civil society organizations and deploy and sustain adequate SAR capacity. Any vessel engaging in the rescue of refugees and migrants in distress should be promptly granted a place of safety where survivors can disembark in a timely manner, prioritizing the safety and welfare of rescued people, and their swift access to asylum procedures. Nobody should be subject to any form of unlawful or arbitrary detention upon disembarkation. Any cooperation with third countries that cannot be considered places of safety should be limited to cases where their intervention is essential to prevent imminent loss of life and be conditional on guarantees that their intervention would not result in the disembarkation taking place in an unsafe port.
- Expand protection and assistance for refugees and migrants along migratory routes through partnerships with third countries without containment objectives. Establishing safe pathways, supporting asylum capacity, and expanding protection for refugees and migrants along migratory routes as part of a route-based approach is important as a way of improving global asylum governance and migration management in a rights-respecting way. However, when investments in asylum capacity in third countries are driven by an underlying objective of stemming and reducing arrivals to European shores, increasing evidence, including research commissioned by the EU, suggests that this creates disincentives for EU’s neighbors to progress on building national asylum systems and expand protection for refugees as they know that this will lead to the EU containing migrants and refugee populations on their territory.
- Recognize the need for significant upscaling of safe and regular pathways in the pursuit of improved management of global mobility. Initiatives to expand safe and regular pathways are commendable and should inspire further efforts. Lessons learned from the Safe Mobility Offices in Latin America demonstrate, however, that to be successful, safe pathways need to be accessible at scale, match the needs of those moving irregularly and reach those most in need. The existence of regular pathways should not be used as a pretext or rationale for disqualifying eligibility to lodge asylum claims for people who enter without authorization. Resettlement through the UN's resettlement system should be strengthened, and the Union Resettlement Framework offers an opportunity for the EU to do so. Moreover, additional safe and regular avenues for protection should be developed, such as the possibility for applying for asylum at embassies and consulates, humanitarian visas and easier access to family reunification. Taking a less restrictive approach to family reunification for refugees is an important alternative pathway to protection in Europe, as experience shows that many refugees and asylum seekers enter via irregular and dangerous routes to seek protection and be reunited with family members. Dignified mobility opportunities such as labor or education-based pathways should also be greatly expanded. Safe and regular pathways should be seen as complementary, rather than a substitute, to the right to asylum.
- Prioritize and conduct human rights impact assessments in advance of collaboration with or support to third countries on asylum and migration and suspend funding when human rights are violated. A human rights approach and timely human rights impact assessment should guide interventions to ensure that asylum and migration cooperation with non-EU countries is conditional on guaranteeing protection for refugees and migrants. The EU must ensure that any funding for border control and migration management includes human rights safeguards, follows rigorous human rights risk assessments, and develops concrete benchmarks to this end. No support should be channeled to entities responsible for human rights abuses. Transparent and independent monitoring and accountability mechanisms should be in place, with public reporting of their findings and outcomes. Where abuses are reported, they should be swiftly investigated, and cooperation should be suspended until the abuses are rectified, safeguards are in place, and steps are taken to ensure that such cooperation does not facilitate further rights violations.
- Strengthen parliamentary and public scrutiny over ongoing agreements. This should include ensuring public availability of monitoring reports and respect for the principle of freedom of information. Evidence of the negative human rights effects of extraterritorial migration cooperation by actors working with refugees, migrants and host communities needs to be acknowledged, and timely and appropriate corrective action taken in program and policy interventions by the EU and member states. Likewise, systematic inclusion of civil society and of those affected by the policy in the monitoring should be ensured. Where this is not possible, consultations and/or access for civil society to share data and evidence with relevant EU institutions should be established.
Signatories
11.11.11
ActionAid International
AGDDS
Asociación Rumiñahui
Bedsteforældre for Asyl
Brot für die Welt
CARE Denmark
Caritas Europa
Centre for Peace Studies
CGIL
Christian Council of Norway
Churches´Commission for Migrants in Europe (CCME)
Ciré
CNCD-11.11.11 (BE)
Danish Refugee Council
Danish United Nations Association / FN-forbundet
Dutch Council for Refugees
Ellebæk Kontaktnetværk / Ellekbaek Contactnetwork
EuroMed Rights
Europe Cares e.V.
European Network on Statelessness
Federation of Protestant Churches in Italy (FCEI)
Finnish Refugee Advice Centre
Finnish Refugee Council
Fundacja Inicjatywa Dom Otwarty
Grandparents for Asylum, Kongelunden
Greek Council for Refugees (GCR)
Human Rights Legal Project
Human Rights Watch
International Rescue Committee
Irídia - Centre for the Defence of Human Rights
JRS Europe
Lysfest for Humanisme
Migration Consortium
MISSION LIFELINE International e.V.
Movement for Peace (MPDL)
Novact
r42-SailAndRescue
Red Acoge
Refugees International
Refugees Welcome, Denmark
RESQSHIP
Right to Protection
SOLIDAR
SOS Humanity
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one officials said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweatheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Elon Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular