Missed Opportunity: NGOs Sound the Alarm on the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum

SERIES: EU Pact on Migration and Asylum

In October 2020, a broad coalition of non-governmental organizations released a comprehensive joint statement expressing deep concern over the European Commission’s proposed Pact on Migration and Asylum. While the Commission presented the framework as a fresh start and a balanced compromise, the NGO community argued that the proposal failed to rectify the structural flaws of the existing European asylum system and threatened to severely compromise fundamental human rights.

CC Picture

The Persistence of the Dublin System and “Return Sponsorship”

A primary criticism detailed in the joint statement is that the Pact fails to fundamentally reform the controversial Dublin system, which dictates which Member State is responsible for processing an asylum claim. Despite promises of a new start, the default criteria for establishing responsibility continue to place an unequal burden on the first country of arrival.

Instead of implementing a fair, mandatory relocation mechanism to relieve pressure on frontline states, the proposal introduces a highly controversial concept known as “return sponsorship”. This mechanism allows Member States to avoid relocating asylum seekers to their own territory by choosing instead to sponsor the deportation of individuals whose claims have been rejected. The NGOs warn that this approach shifts the focus of European solidarity away from offering protection and toward enforcing expulsions, which raises significant legal concerns regarding the rights of the individuals involved.

Flawed Border Procedures and Reduced Safeguards

The joint statement strongly criticizes the mandatory border procedures outlined in the Pact, arguing that they rely on the deeply flawed assumption that complex asylum claims can be assessed quickly and easily without compromising fairness. The NGOs explicitly reject this fast-track approach because it inherently reduces vital legal safeguards and institutes a dangerous triage system.

By tying accelerated border procedures to an individual's country of origin, the Pact effectively creates a discriminatory, two-tier system. The scope of these rapid procedures can be significantly expanded to apply to any asylum seeker coming from a nation with an average EU protection recognition rate below twenty percent. According to the statement, this mechanical approach undermines the fundamental principle that every asylum claim must receive a comprehensive, individualized assessment.

The Normalization of Detention and the Fiction of Non-Entry

Furthermore, the NGOs express urgent concern over the mandatory pre-entry screening and border procedures, which they argue will lead to the widespread normalization of migrant detention. The proposed framework relies on a legal fiction of “non-entry”, meaning individuals physically present at an EU border are legally considered not to have officially entered the territory.

This distinction strips individuals of standard domestic legal protections and allows authorities to use detention as a primary management tool rather than a measure of last resort. Under these rules, individuals (including families and children) could easily be held in border facilities for up to twelve weeks during the asylum procedure, and for an additional twelve weeks if they enter a subsequent return procedure. This creates a reality where people can be legally detained at the border for up to six months, or even ten months during times of crisis.

Prioritizing Deportation Over Protection

Ultimately, the joint statement concludes that the overriding structural objective of the Pact is to maximize the number of people deported from European territory. This heavy prioritization of returns dominates the entire proposal, which is vividly illustrated by the creation of high-level institutional roles dedicated exclusively to enforcement, such as an EU Return Coordinator, without establishing any equivalent high-level appointments to monitor protection standards or coordinate relocations.

While the NGOs acknowledge that supporting dignified, voluntary returns is a legitimate component of migration management, they stress that enforcing returns cannot come at the expense of international legal obligations. By structurally favoring deportation over human rights, the Pact risks violating the absolute principle of non-refoulement and ignoring the best interests of vulnerable individuals and children seeking safety in Europe.