

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

10 steps for the EU to ensure sustainable and rights-based asylum systems
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:
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:
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.
"Targeting an entire family in this savage manner reveals the true nature of the Israeli occupation and its policies based on killing and extermination, destruction and displacement," the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.
The Israeli Defense Forces killed a Palestinian couple and two of their children in the West Bank on Sunday, on one of the deadliest days for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank in weeks.
The soldiers opened fire on a car in the village of Tammun in which 37-year-old Ali Khaled Bani Odeh, his 35-year-old wife Waad, and their four sons Mohammad, Othman, Mustafa, and Khaled were traveling. Odeh, Waad, 5-year-old Mohammad, and 7-year-old Othman were shot in the head and died, leaving behind two injured children.
"We came under direct fire, we didn't know the source. Everyone in the car was martyred, except my brother Mustafa and me," one of the surviving children, 12-year-old Khaled, told Reuters from the hospital.
He said that after the shooting was over, the Israeli soldiers pulled him out of the car and began to beat him, telling him, "We killed dogs."
"These crimes occur within a systematic policy pursued by the occupation authorities using lethal force against Palestinian civilians."
The soldiers also beat his other surviving brother, according to Al Jazeera.
The Israeli military said that it had been operating in Tammun to make arrests on "terrorist" charges and that soldiers had fired on a vehicle when it accelerated toward them, according to Reuters. It said it was reviewing the incident.
Al Jazeera journalist Nida Ibrahim said that the family had been totally shocked by the shooting.
“The extended family says the father and the mother did not know that Israeli forces were there as they were in a Palestinian car,” she said.
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the killing on social media as a "terrifying arbitrary execution crime that targeted an entire Palestinian family inside their vehicle."
The Israeli soldiers also prevented Red Crescent workers from reaching the family, the ministry said, leading to the families' "deliberate and cold-blooded execution."
The ministry continued: "The Ministry affirms that targeting an entire family in this savage manner reveals the true nature of the Israeli occupation and its policies based on killing and extermination, destruction and displacement, amid a systematic impunity, and it further affirms that these crimes, concurrent with the escalation of settler crimes and their organized terrorism in the occupied West Bank, are not isolated incidents, but part of a comprehensive and systematic aggression aimed at exterminating the Palestinian people and displacing them, in clear exploitation of the escalation occurring in the region."
In a statement issued on social media, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) also blamed the deaths on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice.
"This escalation in these crimes comes as a direct result of the expansion of shooting instructions in the Israeli army, the rising violence of settlers amid the prevalence of an impunity policy, and the entrenchment of ethnic cleansing amid unprecedented international silence," PCHR said.
It continued: "While the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights condemns the unjustified murder crimes committed by occupation forces and settlers, it affirms that these crimes occur within a systematic policy pursued by the occupation authorities using lethal force against Palestinian civilians, in flagrant violation of the principles of necessity and distinction that form fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Moreover, they come as part of a pattern aimed at terrorizing citizens, intimidating them, and entrenching ethnic cleansing policies, and replicating acts of genocide, albeit in a less overt manner."
Also on Sunday, Israeli settlers killed a Palestinian man in Nablus Governorate, making him the sixth man killed by settlers since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran. Movement restrictions imposed due the war have emboldened setters to attack, knowing that ambulances will be delayed in reaching their victims, human rights advocates and healthcare workers told Reuters.
In total, Israeli settlers and soldiers have killed 25 Palestinians in the West Bank since the beginning of the year, PCHR said.
In Gaza, where Israeli strikes at first declined following the beginning of the Iran war, the death toll is rising again. On Sunday, Israeli strikes killed nine police officers in Zawayda and a pregnant woman, her husband, and son in Nuseirat.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protest," one legal advocate said.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to "antifa," which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
"The US lost today with this verdict."
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with "attempted murder of a police officer," according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump's designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government's case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
"When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result."
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife's home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
"The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, "Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top."
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
"We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges," they said. "What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up."
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
"Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because 'ANTIFA isn't even a real organization'? We told you that didn't matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result," said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: "The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you."
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a "serious threat to the First Amendment."
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury's decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech."
"Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official," one news network said.
In a move one administration critic described as "fragrantly unconstitutional," Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr wrote a post on social media on Saturday that appeared to threaten the broadcast license of any media outlet that reported information concerning President Donald Trump's war on Iran that the president did not like.
"Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions—also known as the fake news—have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not," Carr's message began.
Carr also shared a screenshot of a Trump post on Truth Social complaining about "Fake News Media" coverage of five US Air Force refueling planes that were reportedly hit and damaged in an Iranian missile strike on Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia.
"The[is] is the federal government telling news stations to provide favorable coverage of the war or their licenses will be pulled," wrote Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on social media in response to the post. "A truly extraordinary moment. We aren't on the verge of a totalitarian takeover. WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. Act like it."
Several other media professionals, free speech advocates, and Democratic politicians understood Carr's post as a threat.
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that."
"The FCC is threatening the licenses of news stations that report on the effects of Iranian attacks on the American military," wrote journalist Séamus Malekafzali.
Bulwark economics editor Catherine Rampell wrote, "FCC Chair Brendan Carr threatens broadcast licenses over Iran War coverage."
Journalist Sam Stein posted, "The state doesn't like the war coverage, threatens the license of the broadcasters."
Independent news network MediasTouch wrote: "Brendan Carr is threatening the media to cover the war the way the Trump regime wants. It’s one of the most anti-American messages ever posted by a government official."
"The truth is this war has been a failure of historic proportions. They don’t want Americans to know that," the group continued.
"This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Several pointed out that such a threat would be in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and of the press.
"Constitutional law 101: It’s illegal for the government to censor free speech it just doesn’t like about Trump’s Iran war," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) posted on social media. "This threat is straight out of the authoritarian playbook."
Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), who has faced scrutiny from the administration for advising service members to disobey illegal orders, wrote: "When our nation is at war it is critical that the press is free to report without government interference. It is literally in the Constitution. This is overreach by the FCC because this administration doesn’t like the microscope and doesn’t want to be held accountable."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote, "If Trump doesn't like your coverage of the war, his FCC will pull your broadcast license. That is flagrantly unconstitutional."
Aaron Terr, the director of public advocacy at the Foundation of Individual Rights and Expression, said: "The president's hand-picked misinformation czar is at it again, singling out 'fake news' that conflicts with his boss' political agenda. The First Amendment doesn't allow the government to censor information about the war it's waging."
Free Press senior director of strategy and communications Timothy Karr responded to Carr with a screenshot of the First Amendment and the words: "Here it is—as it seems you've forgotten what you swore an oath to 'support and defend.'"
This is not the first time that Carr has been accused of putting his loyalty to Trump over his duty to the Constitution. In September, he pressured ABC to take comedian Jimmy Kimmel off the air over remarks Kimmel had made following the murder of Charlie Kirk.
While ABC eventually reinstated Kimmel's show following public backlash, free speech advocates warned at the time that the Trump administration would not stop trying to censor opposing views.
“The Trump regime’s war on free speech is no joke—and it’s not over," Free Press co-CEO Craig Aaron said at the time.
Indeed, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) wrote of Carr's Saturday statement: "This is worse than the comedian stuff, and by a lot. The stakes here are much higher. He’s not talking about late night shows, he’s talking about how a war is covered."
Carr's note comes at a particularly urgent time for independent media coverage in the US, as Paramount Skydance, which is run by the son of pro-Trump billionaire Larry Ellison, is set to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery, which owns CNN. The Trump administration has often criticized CNN's coverage, including of the war.
On Friday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth told reporters, “The sooner David Ellison takes over that network, the better,” as he complained about a CNN report on how the Pentagon underestimated the risk that Iran would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to US aggression.
Carr has already spoken out in favor of the merger, telling CNBC he thought it was a "good deal, and I think it should get through pretty quickly."
This piece has been updated with quotes from Sens. Chris Murphy, Elizabeth Warren, and Mark Kelly.