The new EU ‘deportation bill’ was adopted by the European Parliament amid roaring applause, laughter and chants of “send them back, send them back!” For many people watching, the scenes sent shivers down their spines. Indeed, such scenes should be of grave concern to anyone who cares about human rights and dignity, equality and the future of Europe.

What happened in Strasbourg marked a political turning point. The Return Regulation was passed thanks to an unprecedented and dangerous alliance between centre-right and far-right forces, with support from parts of the political centre. The symbolism matters, and so does the substance: the harms of this regulation go well beyond the much discussed ‘return hubs’.

Long presented as the ‘missing piece’ of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, the Return Regulation was proposed by the European Commission in March 2025 to increase deportations across the European Union. It does so by expanding immigration detention, restricting human rights and creating new pathways for EU member states to deport people to countries in which they have never set foot.

While we wait for the EU Council to adopt it formally after the summer, we know already that this regulation will inflict harm on an estimated 2 to 3 million undocumented people, including families and children. We also know that it will increase irregularity and will do nothing to address the economic realities that drive migration and sustain Europe’s labour markets.

More, not less, irregularity

Far from reducing irregular migration, the regulation is likely to create more of it. Member states will be required to issue deportation orders immediately after a residence permit expires, effectively multiplying the number of people considered to be irregular, even if they might have other grounds for staying. This will be the case even when there is a risk of refoulement – that is, when deporting someone would expose them to persecution, torture or other serious harm. In this case, authorities will not be obliged to issue a residence permit but will be able to postpone deportation indefinitely. In short, people could potentially be stuck in legal limbo for years.

In a striking last-minute change, the explicit reference to the possibility for governments to issue residence permits for humanitarian or other grounds was removed from the regulation. While EU law cannot prevent governments from granting humanitarian permits, deleting this safeguard sends a powerful political signal.

A colossal detention system

Under current EU law, immigration detention can last for up to 18 months. The new regulation increases this to 30 months: adults and children alike may face detention for up to 24 months, with a further six-month extension where authorities claim there is a ‘reasonable prospect’ of removal.

Decades of research have shown that immigration detention causes serious harm. Even short periods are associated with anxiety, depression and severe psychological distress. The longer detention lasts, the worse the consequences become. For children, the evidence is even clearer: detention is always a violation of their rights and is never in their best interests.

Yet the regulation not only extends detention periods, it also broadens the grounds on which detention can be imposed. This includes vaguely defined security concerns, alleged failures to cooperate with the deportation process, and other broad categories left largely to national law. Homelessness and a lack of social ties can also become grounds for detention, as EU lawmakers consider these to be indicators that the person will hide from authorities. In practice, people in conditions of poverty and social exclusion will be punished instead of being helped.

For people who are not detained, various forms of restrictions on movement can be imposed. People may be confined to a specific address or area, subjected to reporting obligations, or subjected to other invasive surveillance measures such as electronic monitoring or bail.

Out of sight, out of mind: the externalisation of deportations

The regulation takes the EU’s desire to offload its human rights obligations to third countries to a new level. For the first time in EU law, a new legal basis allows member states to establish ‘return hubs’ – that is, deportation centres in non-EU countries, as well as other forms of ‘agreements’ or more informal ‘arrangements’. In short, member states could send people outside the Union for deportation processing and immigration detention, including parents with children, even if they have no connection to the country concerned.

The regulation provides remarkably little detail about any safeguards that would apply in such systems. Questions of accountability, monitoring, judicial oversight and responsibility remain largely unanswered. Yet several member states are already exploring similar arrangements. According to media reports, Austria, Denmark, Germany, Greece and the Netherlands are all looking at starting discussions with third countries.

Investigative measures: from home raids to reporting obligations

Finally, the regulation encourages member states to deploy ‘investigative measures’ aimed at enforcing deportations, including raids in private homes and any other ‘relevant locations’. While the text leaves significant discretion to member states and does not explicitly require governments to take specific measures, the political direction is clear. These measures could also have a chilling effect on solidarity, with those civil society organisations or citizens providing shelter and support to undocumented people becoming potential targets.

Measures to detect and apprehend undocumented people are already being applied in some member states, or are being introduced as we write. In Belgium, the parliament is currently discussing a government proposal to allow the police to raid private homes even in the presence of children. In Sweden, the parliament has just approved a proposal that obliges certain public workers to report any undocumented people they come in contact with to the police. Germany’s longstanding requirement for most public services to denounce undocumented people means many avoid any contact with public authorities – from the police (for reporting a crime for example, including gender-based violence), to courts and hospitals.

What now?

This is not the end of the story. Many aspects of the regulation are unlikely to be compatible with the European and international human rights framework, leaving room for future litigation and mobilisation.

Europe undoubtedly faces complex migration challenges. But a policy built around detention, deportation, externalisation and coercion runs against human rights, social cohesion and professional ethics, as well as against common sense.

Photo credits: European Union, 2026