A legislative proposal aimed at simplifying the return of migrants from the EU has raised fears that it might grant European officials powers similar to those exercised by the controversial US immigration agency ICE. The Cube examines the issue.
This week, a disputed draft law intended to boost the repatriation of irregular migrants from the EU passed the committee stage.
ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT
Nevertheless, NGOs caution that certain aspects of the plan might enable enforcement tactics resembling those linked to the contentious US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.
The draft law, known as the EU Return Regulation, aims to establish what the European Commission refers to as a «Common European System for Returns» that intends to expedite and enhance deportation processes across member states.
Provisions under consideration include the creation of «return hubs»—deportation facilities outside the EU where denied asylum applicants could be held pending removal.
The draft also permits holding migrants in detention for up to two years if deemed necessary to secure their return.
Proponents believe the reform is crucial to improve the EU’s generally low deportation rate, while opponents warn that some measures could broaden enforcement authority considerably.
NGOs raise alarms over ‘ICE-like’ enforcement
In early February, approximately 70 NGOs released a joint warning expressing concerns that parts of the proposal could lead to practices comparable to those employed by ICE, an agency controversial for triggering protests and confrontations in the US over its immigration raids and detention protocols.
Attention focuses on clauses obliging EU member states to adopt what the Commission terms «efficient and proportionate measures» to identify irregular migrants.
NGOs argue these «detection measures» might involve police conducting searches in private residences, enforcement actions in public areas, racial profiling, mandatory reporting duties for public entities, and expanded deployment of surveillance tools.
Some activists note that similar frameworks already operate in parts of Europe, with the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) highlighting German legislation as an example.
Section 87 of Germany’s Residence Act requires many public bodies to notify immigration authorities about undocumented migrants, with exceptions limited to schools and certain healthcare institutions.
Additionally, social welfare offices must alert immigration enforcement when undocumented migrants seek healthcare services.
Silvia Carta, a PICUM policy officer, warns that the suggested EU regulation might expand investigative capabilities if it lacks precise limitations.
«This approach could potentially permit police to carry out raids in homes suspected of harboring migrants, as well as offices and shelters managed by humanitarian groups,» she explained.
Carta emphasizes that without a clear legal framework, national authorities’ capacity to investigate might be broadened. Yet, she notes that in some EU states, existing laws or constitutional protections may restrict the application of such regulations.
European Commission denies parallels with ICE
The European Commission refutes claims that the legal reform would enable harsh enforcement tactics.
A Commission representative told Euronews’ fact-checking team, The Cube, that the proposal does not mandate public institutions to report undocumented migrants to immigration or police authorities.
«It definitely excludes national authorities conducting raids in private or public spaces, engaging in racial profiling, or employing intrusive surveillance technologies,» the spokesperson stated.
The Commission further affirmed that the proposal complies with international law and fundamental rights, incorporating «robust safeguards to guarantee the protection of returnees’ fundamental rights».
In contrast, some NGOs contend these protections remain insufficiently specific.
Carta points out that mere general references to fundamental rights may not suffice due to divergent implementation of laws across EU countries.
«General allusions to fundamental rights fall short,» she noted. «It is challenging to achieve a uniform interpretation across member states unless these safeguards are explicitly embedded within the legislation.»
The bill remains in the initial phase of the EU legislative procedure. It still requires approval by the full European Parliament, and member states must negotiate and consent to the final wording.