Press Review July 2026

Africa

 Atlantic Route

· RFI, « Mauritanie: un total de 144 morts ou disparus sur la route migratoire vers les Canaries », 24 July 2026

On 21 July, 144 people died or went missing when their boat sank off the coast of Mauritania. They had set out from The Gambia to reach the Canary Islands.
The Atlantic route is one of the most dangerous migration routes, particularly because the departure points on the west coast of Africa are shifting ever further south, which increases the distance to be travelled. Whilst a few years ago the main departure points were Mauritania and northern Senegal, today many people seeking to reach Europe are now setting sail further south, from Casamance, The Gambia or Guinea [1]. This is due to the tightening of coastal controls, raids and mass deportations carried out in the aforementioned countries, as part of migration partnerships with the European Union [2]. the aim of which is to delegate the repression of exiles in order to prevent them from reaching European shores. This shipwreck is yet another illustration of the fact that repressive migration policies kill.

 Tunisia

· Nawaat, « Migrants torturés : la Tunisie accusée, l’UE complice», 14 July 2026

For the first time, Tunisia will have to answer before an international court for the systematic violations of the rights of exiles committed on its territory. Four migrants, represented by lawyers from the Italian association ASGI – a member of Migreurop – and by lawyer Ibrahim Belguith, have filed four applications with the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. They allege serious crimes committed by the Tunisian authorities, such as arbitrary detention, torture, forced returns to the desert, as well as racial and gender discrimination. The aim is to secure recognition of Tunisia’s international responsibility for violations of the rights guaranteed by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
Although only four people have so far agreed to bring legal proceedings, their testimonies are representative of a fate shared by thousands of other exiles. It is this systemic nature of the rights violations that the petition seeks to have recognised [3], as well as the central role played by the European Union through its border externalisation policy. The petition emphasises that the abuses reported are made possible by the material, technical and financial support the EU provides to the Tunisian authorities. ASGI calls on the EU to end its migration partnership with Tunisia and to no longer consider that country a ‘safe’ destination for people on the move [4].

EU Member states

 Austria

· InfoMigrants, « Austria: Government celebrates deporting more people than receiving newly filed asylum applications », le 24 juillet 2026

For the first time in 20 years, the number of deportations of exiles (2,200) has exceeded the number of asylum applications (2,106) in Austria. Among the reasons for this trend are said to be the tightening of European border controls following the entry into force of the European Pact on Migration and Asylum (2024), increased national border controls, and the restrictions introduced on family reunification (2025, 2026).
For years, Austria has pursued a repressive migration policy, which has become even harsher since the current government took office in 2025 [5]. The approach adopted by this new coalition is fully in line with the European trend, with the country prioritising deportation at all costs in its immigration policy. It is hardly surprising that the Minister of the Interior, Karner, describes the changes in the number of deportations and asylum applications as ‘appropriate and necessary’, whilst recent migration measures flout Austria’s obligations regarding protection. The suspension of family reunification in 2025, followed by the introduction of quotas on such reunification in 2026, constitutes a violation of the right to family life [6]. Austria was also one of the first EU Member States to announce, as early as December 2024, the suspension of the examination of asylum applications submitted by Syrian nationals, with the revocation, in 2025, of refugee status for many of them [7]. The year 2025 also marked the start of deportations to Afghanistan [8]. Finally, the country is one of five EU Member States considering the establishment of externalised camps outside the EU as part of joint initiatives [9].

 Ceuta

· InfoMigrants, «Environ 60 000 migrants ont traversé la frontière entre le Maroc et Ceuta en 24 heures», le 31 juillet 2026

Between 30 and 31 July, around 60,000 people are reported to have crossed the border into Ceuta – a European colonial remnant under Spanish control situated on the African continent – from Morocco, mainly by sea, thereby asserting their right to freedom of movement. Dozens of people are reported to have died in the process, and more than half of those who arrived are said to have already been forcibly returned to Morocco, in breach of international law (the principle of non-refoulement) and Spanish legislation ( Spanish Supreme Court ruling, 8 July 2026). Faced with what is being portrayed as yet another ‘migration crisis’, Spain has denounced a ‘violation of [its] territorial integrity by criminal networks’ and deployed the army to support the Guardia Civil, whilst the European Union has offered the support of the Frontex agency.

Whilst Europe’s right-wing parties are crying “invasion”—allegedly caused by the Spanish government’s lax approach and its regularisation programme (even though this programme has now ended, and those who arrived in Ceuta would not have been eligible for it in any case)—it is precisely the EU’s policy of externalisation that is at the root of this situation. By delegating the management of migration to third countries – which are often authoritarian – the EU is turning those wishing to reach its territory into pawns in the hands of governments which, as the flip side of border externalisation, wield significant political leverage against a Europe plagued by growing racism, a Europe prepared to do anything to keep people on the move away from its borders [10].
The social unrest driving Moroccan citizens to exercise their right to freedom of movement (with youth unemployment at 37 per cent) has been turned into a tool for geopolitical pressure, with both Morocco and the far right having no qualms about exploiting these migratory movements to serve their own interests.
This heavily publicised episode speaks to us of a phobia of migration, overt racism and European isolationism, in a deeply unequal world. Responding to this thirst for freedom of movement through the militarisation of borders and the acceleration of forced returns in breach of national [11] and international law, has, however, proven to be both ineffective and dangerous for decades. Far from curbing migratory movements, these detached responses only lead to further tragedies and systematic violations of the rights of those seeking asylum.

 France

· Le Monde, « Mouvements migratoires : un rapport d’enquête étrille la politique gouvernementale à la frontière franco-britannique », le 8 juillet 2026

On 8 July, a French parliamentary committee of inquiry published a report condemning the harmful consequences of ‘border management’ policies on the Franco-British border, following the conclusion in 2003 of the Le Touquet agreements between France and the United Kingdom. These agreements enshrine the outsourcing of border controls on French territory: since 2003, the UK has been making financial contributions to France in return for repressive policies on French territory aimed at preventing attempts to cross the border. It is within this very same logic that the successive agreements signed by the two countries (the Sandhurst agreements, ‘One in, one out’) are situated. The report highlights the ineffectiveness of these agreements in relation to their stated objective of curbing migration: they have merely resulted in a ‘low-profile humanitarian crisis’ that ‘the French Republic is orchestrating on its own territory’, without putting an end to attempts to cross the border. The Commission of Inquiry is calling for an end to this
Indeed, the Franco-British agreements initially shifted migration routes to the sea and subsequently led to the ‘Stop the boats’ policy (2023), which resulted in an increase in deaths from the summer of 2023 onwards [12]. Franco-British cooperation has also led to a deliberate deterioration in the living conditions of exiles stranded at the border. Many of them live in informal settlements, with limited access to water, sanitation, food and healthcare, and are subjected to daily police harassment (violent dismantling of camps, use of tear gas, confiscation of personal belongings, physical assaults). This is carried out in the name of the ‘zero fixed points’ policy, which aims to prevent living spaces from becoming permanently established at the border [13]. By acknowledging the deadly consequences of these policies and calling for an end to them, the work of this commission – the first democratic assessment of public action carried out at this border – could mark a political turning point. It remains to be seen whether any real changes will be made, or whether, with the new European Action Plan for the English Channel (2026), the situation will continue to deteriorate.

 Greece

· Ekathimerini, « Asylum lawyers to get bonus for talking migrants into returning home», le 2 juillet 2026

A ministerial decree published on 2 July provides for a bonus of 250 euros for lawyers paid by the state to provide free legal advice to asylum seekers, should they succeed in persuading their clients to withdraw their applications for protection and return to their country of origin. This is part of the border procedure established under the European Pact on Migration and Asylum.
Greece is thus following Italy’s example: the Italian government had attempted to introduce a similar measure in April 2026, before it was blocked by the President of the Republic on the grounds of unconstitutionality [14]. This scheme would indeed have undermined the independence of lawyers as well as migrants’ right to a defence, which must be full, free and effectively accessible [15]. The Greek measure risks having the same serious consequences. Greek lawyers have condemned this provision, denouncing it as a breach of professional ethics. In a statement, the Co-ordinating Committee of the Plenary Assembly of the Greek Bar Associations considered that the introduction of financial incentives to serve political objectives is incompatible with the principles of the legal profession, such as client-solicitor confidentiality, professional independence and the duty to provide impartial advice. The Committee called for the immediate withdrawal of the measure and urged lawyers participating in the government’s legal aid scheme for asylum seekers to suspend their participation in the scheme until the contested provisions of the decree have been repealed [16].

European countries non EU members

 Ukraine/EU

· Le Monde, « L’Union européenne revoit un statut de protection des Ukrainiens qui fuient le front », le 15 juillet 2026

The European Union has extended the temporary protection status for Ukrainians until March 2028. However, at Kyiv’s request, men who have not fulfilled their military obligations will be excluded from this scheme: Ukrainians aged between 23 and 60 fleeing the front line will therefore no longer be eligible for this protection. Furthermore, applicants for this status will be required, upon arrival on European territory, to present a passport bearing an exit stamp issued by the Ukrainian authorities, proving that they have left Ukraine legally and that they have fulfilled their military obligations. The aim is reportedly to “reconcile temporary protection with Ukraine’s ability to ensure its own defence”.
Several human rights organisations have opposed this decision. In a statement, they condemn the introduction of a discriminatory exclusion criterion, which is not provided for in the Temporary Protection Directive (the grounds for exclusion do not include a lack of authorisation to leave Ukrainian territory) and runs counter to its spirit: eligibility should depend first and foremost on protection needs, rather than on the administrative rules governing departure from the country of origin. These organisations also point out that the European Commission appears to have provided only a limited analysis of the necessity and proportionality of the measure, without demonstrating how denying access to temporary protection would constitute the least restrictive means of achieving the stated objective of defending Ukraine. Whilst the EU had previously done for Ukrainian exiles what ‘it had long claimed was impossible – allowing their mobility and recognising their rights rather than seeking to block them at all costs’ [17], it is now following the backlash that is already sweeping through several Member States, where the protection and assistance granted to Ukrainians are being scaled back. By making access to temporary protection conditional on compliance with an exit ban – the legality of which, in light of the right to leave any country (Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the European Convention on Human Rights), may be contested – the EU risks being held responsible for worsening the living conditions of Ukrainian men fleeing the war, and would be pushing them towards more dangerous migration routes.

European Union

 Frontex

· Infomigrants, « Frontex expected to be given more powers, including new role in managing return hubs’», le 10 juillet 2026

Oliver Onidi, the European Commission’s Deputy Director-General for Migration and Home Affairs, recently confirmed [18] the EU’s intention to allow Frontex (the European Border and Coast Guard Agency) to carry out coordinated removals between third countries and the EU, as part of the ‘return hubs’ mechanism approved by the European Parliament in early June 2026 [19]. This change would be based on an international agreement supported by the EU Member States and the European Parliament and would form part of the reform of Frontex’s mandate, scheduled for the third quarter of 2026 [20].
The human rights violations committed by Frontex at the EU’s borders (and beyond) over the years are well documented: pushbacks, failure to act when boats are in distress, and acts of violence, amongst others. Its cooperation with third countries in implementing repressive migration agreements (both formal and informal) between those countries and the EU continues with almost complete impunity [21], and without any real consequences for the resulting human rights violations (see collaboration with the Libyan coastguard) [22]. Frontex’s management of third-country-to-third-country removals would therefore constitute merely a further step in the externalisation of European ‘migration management’. Under the pretext of ‘pragmatism’ and ‘efficiency’, this project will only serve to enable and systematise further human rights violations outside the EU’s borders. In places removed from public scrutiny and the direct jurisdiction of the EU, it will become more difficult (if not impossible) to ensure compliance with European and international standards on fundamental rights, and to make use of effective redress mechanisms to challenge the resulting rights violations and the policies that enable them.

 « Remigration »

· Euronews, « Pétition "remigration" rejetée par la Commission : l’extrême droite veut poursuivre l’exécutif européen », le 23 juillet 2026

The European Commission has rejected the citizens’ initiative [23] ‘Save Europe Act’, spearheaded by far-right activists and calling for the abolition of all ‘legal immigration routes’ for third-country nationals, as well as the ‘remigration’ of all people of foreign origin who are ‘not integrated’ into EU Member States. The aim of the initiative was to combat a supposed ‘demographic replacement’. The Commission refused to register this initiative on the grounds that it would lead to discrimination based on ethnic origin, which would be ‘contrary to the values of the Union’.
The fallacious concept of ‘remigration’, which emerged in far-right identitarian circles in Europe around 2010, envisages the forced expulsion of people of foreign origin who are not white, and their descendants, to their countries of origin. This would take place in progressive stages: firstly, those without the right of residence; then those holding a residence permit and/or a work visa, but considered to be ‘an economic, criminal or cultural burden’; and finally, naturalised immigrants deemed ‘unassimilated’, as they are suspected of ‘maintaining loyalty to foreign nations or radical religions’. This is a fascist, racist and Islamophobic project that contravenes international conventions, the aim of which is to rid the country of people deemed ‘undesirable’. In recent years, this concept has gained significant prominence, particularly from 2023 onwards, and has begun to be championed by parties such as the FPÖ in Austria, the AfD in Germany, Vox in Spain, and Futuro Nazionale and the Lega in Italy [24].
Whilst the European Commission has refused to register this initiative, specifically on the grounds of non-discrimination based on origin, several texts adopted in recent years by the European institutions, as well as several of the Union’s policy decisions, nevertheless follow the same logic. Consider, for example, the Return Regulation, which organises the rounding up and deportation of people without the right to reside within the EU; the Migration and Asylum Pact; the concepts of ‘safe countries of origin’ and ‘safe third countries’, designed to restrict the right to asylum; or the negotiations between the EU and its Member States with the Taliban with a view to deporting Afghans to Afghanistan who are in so-called ‘irregular’ administrative situations or who have committed serious offences. These are clear examples of the gradual imposition of far-right agendas at the highest levels of the European institutions.