EU migration reform: Could it lead to ICE-style practices in Europe?

A controversial proposal aimed at increasing the return of irregular migrants from the EU has been approved at the committee level this week.

However, NGOs warn that parts of the plan could pave the way for enforcement practices resembling those associated with the controversial US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The proposal — known as the EU Return Regulation — would create what the European Commission calls a “Common European System for Returns”, designed to make deportation procedures across the bloc “faster and more effective”.

Among the measures under discussion are so-called “return hubs”, deportation centres located outside the EU where rejected asylum seekers could be sent while awaiting removal.

The draft legislation would also allow migrants to be detained for up to two years if authorities consider it necessary to enforce their return.

Supporters argue the reform is needed to address low deportation rates across the EU. But critics say some of its provisions could significantly expand enforcement powers.

NGOs warn of ‘ICE-style’ enforcement

In early February, around 70 NGOs issued a joint statement warning that elements of the proposal could lead to practices resembling those used by ICE, an agency mired in controversy that has sparked protests and clashes in the US over its immigration raids and detention practices.

The concern centres on provisions requiring EU member states to introduce what the Commission describes as “efficient and proportionate measures” to detect irregular migrants.

NGOs say such “detection measures” could potentially include police searches of private homes, law-enforcement operations in public spaces, racial profiling, reporting obligations imposed on public authorities and increased use of surveillance technologies.

Some campaigners argue that similar mechanisms already exist in parts of Europe, with the organisation Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) pointing to legislation in Germany as an example.

Under Section 87 of the country’s Residence Act, many public authorities are required to report undocumented migrants to immigration enforcement authorities. Schools and certain care institutions are among the few exceptions.

The law also obliges social welfare offices to notify immigration authorities when undocumented migrants approach them to request healthcare coverage.

Silvia Carta, a policy officer at PICUM, says the proposed EU regulation could broaden investigative powers if not carefully defined.

“This would potentially open the door to police raiding houses of people suspected of hosting migrants, as well as offices and shelters run by humanitarian organisations,” she said.

According to Carta, the measures could extend the ability of national authorities to conduct investigations “without a clear framework”. However, she notes that in some member states, national legislation or constitutional safeguards could limit how such rules are applied.

European Commission rejects ICE comparison

The European Commission rejects the suggestion that the reform would lead to aggressive enforcement practices.

A Commission spokesperson told Euronews’ fact-checking team, The Cube, that the proposal does not require public services to report undocumented migrants to immigration authorities or the police.

“It certainly does not foresee that national authorities should raid public and private spaces, conduct racial profiling, or use invasive surveillance technologies,” the spokesperson said.

The Commission also said the proposal is fully compatible with international law and fundamental rights, and includes “strong safeguards to ensure the protection of fundamental rights of returnees”.

But some NGOs argue that those protections are still too vague.

Carta says that simply referring to fundamental rights in broad terms may not be sufficient when laws are implemented differently across EU countries.

“Vague references to fundamental rights are not enough,” she said. “It will be very difficult to have a single standard of interpretation across member states unless these safeguards are clearly embedded in the legislation.”

The legislation is still at an early stage in the EU’s law-making process. The proposal must still be voted on by the full European Parliament, and member states will also need to negotiate and agree on the final text.