In March 2026, migration debates in the EU were marked by a strong securitisation narrative from institutions and policymakers, countered by intensified warnings from NGOs and professional groups about human rights risks, externalisation, and the growing criminalisation of migration.
Key Developments in Europe and Beyond
Negotiations on Migration Agreements in Central Europe
In March, several Central European countries took steps to tighten their control over migration flows. Austria‘s government approved the opening of negotiations with Uzbekistan on a migration agreement, a deal that could set rules for how people move between the two countries, including on returns. Meanwhile, the Czech Republic prepared new legislation that would impose stricter regulations on NGOs (non-governmental organisations), which often provide support to asylum seekers and migrants. In Germany, authorities announced they will stop funding independent legal counselling for asylum seekers from 2027 onwards, a service that helps people navigate complex asylum procedures. Poland began constructing a fence along its border with Belarus to prevent irregular crossings, and in Switzerland, voters rejected a proposal to introduce a cap on the country’s total population.
Relevance: These developments signal a growing tendency across Central Europe to prioritise state-level control over migration, often at the expense of humanitarian support services. They reflect an ongoing tension between governments seeking to limit arrivals and organisations working to protect the rights of people on the move.
Displacement and Migration Challenges in EU External Partners
Beyond EU borders, a number of countries are facing serious challenges related to displacement and migration. UN human rights experts raised alarms about reported violations against migrants and asylum seekers in Egypt. In Israel, the Supreme Court stepped in to suspend government orders that had sought to halt the operations of NGOs working in Gaza and the West Bank. Lebanon, already under significant strain, is hosting nearly 700,000 displaced persons as conflict continues in the region. In Morocco, NGOs warned that migrants lack adequate pathways for social integration, following a series of violent incidents. Meanwhile, European Commissioners travelled to Senegal to negotiate new migration agreements, part of the EU’s broader strategy to manage migration flows from West Africa.
Relevance: These situations highlight why international cooperation and strong legal protection frameworks are essential. Managing displacement is not only a European challenge: it requires coordinated responses across countries of origin, transit, and destination.
UK Asylum System Updates
The United Kingdom continued to grapple with its asylum system in March. The government introduced new reforms, even as negotiations with France over a joint migration agreement hit setbacks. Legal experts raised concerns that the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in processing asylum claims could violate existing laws. For instance, if automated systems make decisions without sufficient human oversight or fail to account for individual circumstances. The scale of the challenge is significant: more than 80,000 asylum appeals were still pending at the end of 2025, meaning tens of thousands of people are waiting for a decision on their future. Public concern about migration levels also remains high, adding political pressure to an already strained system.
Relevance: This situation illustrates how asylum policy is shaped not only by legal and operational factors, but also by public opinion and political dynamics, making reform a complex balancing act.
Poland’s Migration Enforcement and Policy Shifts
Poland reported a high number of pushbacks at its eastern borders, meaning that people attempting to cross irregularly were turned back, often without the opportunity to apply for asylum. Human rights organisations have documented instances of violence during these operations. Prime Minister Donald Tusk also indicated Poland was considering laying mines along its border with Russia, an extreme and controversial measure reflecting the country’s increasingly securitised approach to border management. Additionally, Poland ended the special legal and social status that had been granted to Ukrainian refugees, a status introduced after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 that gave Ukrainians access to housing, employment, and public services.
Relevance: These shifts have significant implications for human rights and the protection of vulnerable people. They also reflect a wider trend in parts of Europe where border security is increasingly treated as a national security issue, sometimes in tension with international refugee law.
Belgium: Asylum Measures and Minor Protection
In Belgium, a federal minister was reported to have acted against a court ruling that had suspended certain asylum measures, raising serious questions about the rule of law and the government’s willingness to comply with judicial decisions. Separately, official data revealed that more than 43,000 unaccompanied minors (children travelling without a parent or guardian) were reported to authorities between 2015 and 2024, a figure that underlines the scale of child migration to Belgium. Authorities also noted an increase in small-boat departures from the Belgian coast, suggesting that people are attempting dangerous sea crossings to reach the UK.
Relevance: This combination of factors, political tensions with the judiciary, large numbers of vulnerable children in the system, and irregular departures, points to a migration context that is both legally complex and deeply humanitarian in nature.
Policy Announcements and Institutional Decisions
European Parliament Vote on “Return Hubs”
In a significant vote, the European Parliament approved new legislation allowing the EU to establish so-called “return hubs”, facilities located outside the EU’s borders where people who have been refused asylum can be held before being returned to their home countries. The legislation also expands the use of detention and allows EU member states to transfer asylum seekers to third countries (countries that are not their country of origin). The vote passed with 389 in favour and 206 against, reflecting a coalition between centre-right and far-right political groups in favour of stricter migration controls.
Relevance: This is one of the most significant shifts in EU migration policy in recent years. Critics argue that housing people in facilities outside the EU makes it harder to guarantee their legal rights and access to protection. Supporters argue it is necessary to manage growing numbers of arrivals and improve the rate of returns.
EU Asylum Agency: National Implementation Plans
The European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), The EU body responsible for supporting member states in processing asylum claims, updated its national implementation plans. These plans outline the administrative, legal, and operational steps each EU country needs to take to implement the new EU Migration and Asylum Pact, which is due to come into full effect in June 2026.
Relevance: This is an important technical step: it means the EU is moving from writing the rules to actually putting them into practice. How well individual countries prepare will have a direct impact on how asylum seekers are treated across Europe.
Justice and Home Affairs Council – Migration Pact Implementation
EU interior ministers met to review progress on implementing the Migration Pact. Key priorities discussed included speeding up asylum procedures (to reduce backlogs and waiting times), reinforcing border controls, improving systems for returning people whose asylum claims are rejected, and deepening cooperation with countries outside the EU to manage migration upstream.
Relevance: These discussions signal that the EU’s approach to migration is becoming more operationally focused, moving from political debate to concrete implementation. The emphasis on faster procedures and stronger returns reflects the dominant political direction at EU level.
EU Coordination with International Organisations
The European Commission strengthened its cooperation with the International Organization for Migration (IOM), one of the world’s leading intergovernmental bodies working on migration. The partnership focuses on migration governance, practical operational support, and building relationships with countries outside the EU.
Relevance: This type of cooperation reflects a strategy of “externalisation”, managing migration before people reach EU borders by working with origin and transit countries. While this can reduce irregular arrivals, critics raise concerns about whether adequate human rights protections are guaranteed in partner countries.
Judicial Oversight of Migration Policies
Europe’s courts continued to play an important role in shaping migration policy. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the EU’s highest court, issued several key rulings in March. In Case C-489/24, the Court set a maximum time limit of 21 months for asylum procedure extensions, protecting applicants from indefinite delays. In Case C-458/24, it clarified which EU country is responsible for an asylum claim when a member state fails to act within the required timeframe, an important rule under the Dublin Regulation, which determines where asylum claims must be processed. In Case C-150/24, the Court ruled on how periods of detention should be calculated when a person is subject to a return procedure
Relevance: These rulings are a reminder that even as EU and national policies move in a more restrictive direction, independent courts remain an important check, ensuring that legal safeguards for asylum seekers are upheld and that governments are held accountable.
Statements from Institutions, NGOs, and Policymakers
Political Polarisation on Migration Policy: Return Regulation
Following the European Parliament’s vote approving “return hubs” (see Section 2), reactions from across the political spectrum were swift and sharply divided. Right-wing politicians and parties expressed strong support for the legislation, welcoming the focus on externalisation, managing migration outside EU borders, and faster deportations. On the other side, Green and progressive MEPs raised serious concerns, warning that housing rejected asylum seekers in facilities outside the EU could lead to humanitarian violations and undermine fundamental rights protections. Civil society organisations were equally vocal. Several NGOs cautioned that return hubs risk becoming “human rights black holes“, places where people are held with little legal oversight or access to protection. Others drew comparisons to aggressive enforcement models, warning of the potential for racial profiling in how return policies are applied in practice. Legal advocacy groups announced plans to pursue litigation against Frontex, the EU’s border agency, over alleged pushbacks, instances where people are forcibly turned back at borders without being allowed to seek asylum. At the grassroots level, the campaign group We Move Europe launched a petition titled “Say No to Mass Deportations in Europe,” calling on citizens to push back against the direction of EU policy.
Relevance: This moment illustrates the deep political divide over how Europe should manage migration and shows that civil society, legal advocates, and progressive politicians are actively organising to challenge policies they see as incompatible with human rights obligations.
Reform of EU Return Rules (LIBE Committee Position)
The European Parliament’s LIBE Committee (the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs, which oversees migration and asylum legislation) adopted its formal position on proposed reforms to EU return rules, the legal framework governing how people whose asylum claims have been rejected are sent back to their countries of origin or to third countries. The committee backed a package of measures aimed at making the system more effective, including the introduction of a standardised European return order (a common legal instrument to enforce returns across member states), extended detention periods of up to 24 months, stronger obligations on member states to cooperate with return procedures, and the possibility of returning people to third countries, including through return hubs. Rapporteur Malik Azmani, the MEP leading the legislative process, stressed the importance of making EU migration policy more credible and effective in practice.
Relevance: These proposals reflect the dominant political direction in the European Parliament, prioritising efficiency and enforcement in the returns system. Critics, however, argue that extended detention and returns to third countries raise serious concerns about the rights and dignity of the people affected.
EU Member States Statement at UN on Migration Governance (IMRF)
At a UN General Assembly informal meeting focused on the International Migration Review Forum (IMRF), a global forum where countries assess progress on international migration commitments, 25 EU member states delivered a joint statement on migration governance. The statement reaffirmed the EU’s commitment to protecting the human rights of migrants, while also making clear that any international framework on migration must remain non-legally binding, meaning it should not create enforceable obligations on states. The EU also emphasised that migration governance must respect national sovereignty, that is, each country’s right to control its own borders and immigration policies. The statement further underlined the importance of international cooperation and called for a balanced approach in the ongoing negotiations on the forum’s Progress Declaration, the key outcome document of the IMRF process.
Relevance: This statement reflects the EU’s careful balancing act on the global stage: publicly committing to rights-based principles while resisting any international rules that could limit member states’ control over their own migration policies. It illustrates how the EU seeks to shape global migration norms without being bound by them.
Reports and Programme Launches
Key reports published include:
Mixed Migration Centre, The Evolving Route of Bangladeshi Migration to Italy through Libya. It examines why and how Bangladeshi migrants are increasingly using the Libya-to-Italy route, tracing the factors driving this shift and the dangers people face along the way.
Aegean NGO Network, Monitoring closed controlled facilities on the Greek islands. It documents conditions inside the closed detention-style reception centres on Greek islands, assessing whether they meet legal and humanitarian standards for the people held there.
Dignity Firm, Indispensable but excluded: Migrant Riders in Italy, Poland, Spain and Ukraine. It investigates the working and living conditions of migrant food delivery workers across four countries, highlighting how a workforce that keeps urban economies running is systematically denied labour rights and legal protections.
Doras, The Reception Gap: Permanent International Protection Accommodation versus Emergency Accommodation,. It compares long-term housing provision for people with international protection status against emergency shelter arrangements, identifying gaps that leave many refugees in precarious or inadequate living situations.
European Parliament, Is it time to reform the international refugee regime? It assesses whether the 1951 Refugee Convention and broader international refugee law remain fit for purpose in today’s migration landscape, exploring arguments for and against updating the framework.
European Parliament, Strengthening Frontex’s mandate in border and migration management. It reviews the evolving role of Frontex, the EU’s border agency, and considers how its powers and accountability mechanisms could be expanded or reformed to better manage EU external borders.
European Parliament, Legal migration to the EU. It provides an overview of existing legal pathways for migrants to enter and work in the EU, analysing their effectiveness and identifying areas where policy could be improved to meet labour market needs.
European Union Agency for Asylum (EUAA), Jurisprudence related to Asylum Pronounced by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2025. It compiles and analyses key rulings by the EU’s highest court on asylum matters during 2025, serving as a legal reference for practitioners, policymakers, and advocates working in the field.
EUAA, Situation Update No. 25 – National Implementation Plans and National Strategies under the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. It tracks how individual EU member states are preparing to implement the new Migration and Asylum Pact, outlining the administrative and legal steps each country has taken so far.
EUAA, Latest Asylum Trends 2025: Annual Analysis. It presents a comprehensive statistical overview of asylum applications, decisions, and outcomes across the EU in 2025, offering a data-driven picture of who is seeking protection and where..
European University Institute, Comparing the working activates and conditions of irregularised migrants: Evidence from Austria, Italy, Poland, Sweden and the UK. It examines the types of work that undocumented migrants perform across five European countries and the conditions they face, revealing patterns of exploitation and exclusion from standard labour protections.
Improving the Living and Labour Conditions of Irregularised Migrant Households in Europe (I-CLAIM) Project, Racial Logics of Irregular Migration in Europe. Policy, Perception, and Precarity. It explores how racial assumptions and biases shape both migration policies and public perceptions of irregular migrants in Europe, and how these dynamics contribute to the precarious situations many people find themselves in.
Migrants Rights Network, Earned Settlement: Hostile Immigration Reforms – Not a Stranger Campaign Report. It critiques recent UK immigration reforms through the lens of long-term residents affected by hostile environment policies, making the case for a fairer settlement system based on contribution and community ties.
Migration Policy Group, The Migration Return Policy Index (MIREX). It introduces a comparative index measuring and benchmarking return policies across countries, enabling a clearer assessment of how different states manage the return of people whose asylum claims have been rejected.
Migration Studies Delegation (Delmi), Artificial Intelligence and Asylum Decision-Making: Any Role for Human Rights Law? It examines how AI tools are being used or considered in asylum procedures and whether existing human rights law provides adequate safeguards against unfair or discriminatory automated decision-making.
Netherlands Institute of International Relations (Clingendael), Pushing Boundaries: Externalisation of Asylum and a Broad-based Reform Initiative. It analyses the EU’s growing use of externalisation (managing asylum processes outside its borders) and proposes a broader reform agenda to make migration governance more sustainable and rights-compliant.
Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), Digital technology use by labour authorities and migrant workers’ rights.It investigates how labour inspection and enforcement authorities are using digital tools and data systems, and what implications this has for the rights and safety of undocumented migrant workers.
PICUM, Racial profiling practices at EU internal border. It documents instances of racial profiling by border and law enforcement authorities at borders within the EU’s Schengen area, where checks are supposed to be based on behaviour rather than ethnicity or appearance.
Sage Journals, Why People Migrate: Testing Socio-Psychological Explanations of Migration Aspirations, Plans, Preparations, and Irregularity. It applies social and psychological theory to understand what motivates people to consider, plan, and ultimately undertake migration, including through irregular channels, going beyond purely economic explanations.
SOS MEDITERRANEE, Into the Storm: Ten years of search and rescue amid neglect, solidarity and struggle in the Central Mediterranean. It marks a decade of search and rescue operations in the Central Mediterranean, reflecting on the human cost of crossings, the political obstacles faced by rescue organisations, and the ongoing need for civilian sea rescue.
United Nations Statistics Division, Communicating about Migration Statistics. It offers guidance on how to present and explain migration data clearly and responsibly to different audiences, helping policymakers, journalists, and organisations avoid misrepresentation of statistics.
Conferences, Events, and Initiatives
23-24 March, Online: Recent Case Law in the Field of Asylum, ERA. Training event for legal professionals reviewing the latest court rulings on asylum law, helping practitioners stay up to date with how legislation is being interpreted and applied across Europe.
24 March, London: Fortress Europe 2.0? The New EU Migration Pact, University College London. Academic event critically examining the implications of the new EU Migration and Asylum Pact, exploring whether it represents a step toward a more closed and enforcement-driven European migration system.
24 March, Brussels and Online: State of the Union Citizens’ Rights Conference 2026, European Citizen Action Service. Conference focused on the rights of EU citizens living in other member states, discussing how those rights are protected and what challenges people face in practice.
26 March, Leuven: Film Screening: ‘Refugee Stories’, DOCVILLE International Documentary Film Festival. Documentary screening that brings refugee experiences to a broader public audience, using personal storytelling to foster empathy and awareness around displacement and asylum.
26-28 March, Brussels: Photo Exhibition: ‘Chasing Sun’, BelRefugees. Photography exhibition highlighting the lives and journeys of refugees in Belgium, aiming to humanise migration and create space for dialogue between refugees and the wider public.
28 March, Berlin: From Refugees to Refugees – Egypt: The Guardian of Europe’s Borders, Egypt Solidarity. Event examining Egypt’s role as a key partner in EU border externalisation efforts, exploring what this means for refugees and migrants transiting through or stranded in the country.
29 March, Online: Vulnerability of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees: Council of Europe and European Union standards, Council of Europe and Maastricht University. Webinar exploring the legal standards that protect vulnerable migrants and asylum seekers under both Council of Europe and EU frameworks, aimed at legal practitioners and policy professionals.
30 March, Online: Policing migration: Racial profiling inside Europe’s borders, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM). Online discussion examining how law enforcement practices at internal EU borders disproportionately target people based on race or ethnicity, and what legal and policy remedies exist.
30 March – 1 April, Lyon: La traite des êtres humains – Mécanismes et protection, Forum réfugiés. French-language training event on human trafficking, covering how trafficking operates in practice and what legal and support mechanisms exist to identify and protect victims.
