Immigration news from Europe
> On this page <
> Spain: 1.2m undocumented migrants apply for work permists
> UK to require refugees to repay support costs
> Sweden tightens immigration rules
> Swiss voters reject population limit
Over 1.17 million undocumented immigrants have applied for legal status under Spain’s extraordinary regularisation programme, more than twice the government’s initial estimate. Most applicants originate from Latin America rather than Africa. (Photo: NIM Immigration Lawyers)
SPAIN
Twice as many undocumented immigrants apply for Spanish work permits as expected
July 2026: Over 1.17 million undocumented immigrants have applied for residence and work permits under Spain’s extraordinary regularisation programme, more than twice the number initially expected by the government.
When the scheme was announced earlier this year, ministers estimated that around 500,000 to 600,000 people would qualify. Final figures released after the application deadline show that 1,174,978 people submitted applications, making it one of the largest regularisation programmes ever undertaken in Europe.
The programme, introduced by the government of Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, offers a renewable one-year residence permit with the right to work. Applicants must demonstrate that they were living in Spain before the end of 2025, have no criminal record and meet other eligibility requirements. Authorities will now assess the applications over the coming months before deciding how many permits will ultimately be granted.
According to the government, over 600,000 applicants have already received temporary work permits while their cases are being processed, allowing many to enter the formal labour market immediately instead of working in the informal economy.
The unexpectedly high number of applications highlights both the extent of undocumented migration in Spain and the country’s ongoing dependence on immigrant labour. Government ministers contend that legalising the status of workers already residing in Spain will bolster the economy, boost tax revenues, and curtail labour exploitation. Spain boasts one of Europe’s fastest-growing economies and faces labour shortages in sectors such as agriculture, hospitality, construction, and care services.
The figures also challenge a common view about immigration to Spain. While irregular arrivals across the Mediterranean and to the Canary Islands often make headlines, most people seeking regularisation come from Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. Colombians represent the largest group of applicants, followed by Moroccans, Venezuelans, and Peruvians. Overall, about 67 per cent of applicants originate from Central and South America.
Spain has become one of Europe’s main destinations for migrants. Nearly one in five residents was born abroad, with immigration helping to counteract an ageing population and support economic growth. Prime Minister Sánchez has repeatedly argued that immigration is vital for Spain’s future prosperity and has contrasted his government’s approach with the increasingly restrictive policies adopted elsewhere in Europe.
The programme has nonetheless proven politically controversial. The conservative People’s Party and the far-right Vox have criticised the regularisation, arguing that it could encourage further irregular migration and place additional pressure on public services. The government rejects those claims, maintaining that the measure is intended to bring people already living in Spain into the legal economy rather than encourage new arrivals.
​​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
​UNITED KINGDOM
UK to require asylum seekers to repay £10,000 in accommodation costs
June 2026: The UK government has announced that people granted asylum will be required to repay approximately £10,000 towards the cost of their accommodation and support once they begin earning, under legislation due to be introduced to Parliament this week.
The Immigration and Asylum Bill will set out the powers needed to recover the costs. The rules will apply to adults with sufficient income who have the right to work in the UK, and refugees must clear the debt before becoming eligible for permanent settlement.
Eligible adults will likely repay the amount in monthly instalments above a set threshold, in a system similar to student loan repayments. Those who leave the UK while still liable for the cost will be required to pay in full before returning. Those whose asylum claims have been rejected will also be subject to repayment if their income meets the designated threshold. The Home Office has not yet set the minimum income threshold required before repayments begin, though the Home Secretary will have powers to adjust both the charge and the threshold.
Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: "Asylum support is a right, but it is also a responsibility. Once people can contribute and repay the generosity of the British people, we expect them to do so.”
Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, noted that in 2023, an estimated 13 per cent of people granted refugee status five years earlier were earning at least £20,000, with the rest either not working or on lower earnings. She said the data suggests that unless thresholds were set significantly below the minimum wage, only a relatively small share of those granted asylum would earn enough to make contributions to the scheme.
Sumption also said the scheme could have unintended effects, such as discouraging asylum seekers from taking up government-provided accommodation if alternatives like family or charity support are available, or discouraging them from working once granted refugee status due to a higher effective tax rate. She noted that the proposed flat rate of £10,000 may not accurately reflect the actual cost of support in individual cases: a person housed in a hotel for a year would cost the state over £50,000, while someone in cheaper shared housing for six months would cost under £6,000.
The announcement follows recent Home Office disclosures that it plans to open more former military barracks to accommodate asylum seekers, while closing 20 more hotels across England. The same legislation will introduce capped, safe, and legal routes to the UK, allowing universities, businesses, and community groups to sponsor refugees.
The legislation emerges during a change of government. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation on 22 June, with Andy Burnham, the former mayor of Greater Manchester, being the only declared candidate to succeed him as Labour leader and prime minister. Nominations close on 16 July, and Burnham could assume office as early as 17 July if unopposed. It is still unclear whether a new government would amend the Bill or keep Shabana Mahmood as Home Secretary.
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
SWEDEN
Sweden tightens immigration rules, but businesses warn of economic cost
June 2026: Sweden has approved new legislation allowing authorities to revoke residence permits from some foreign nationals whose conduct is deemed incompatible with what the government describes as an “honest way of life”, marking another step in the country’s increasingly restrictive approach to immigration.
The law, passed by the Swedish parliament, is expected to come into force later this year. It permits the withdrawal of residence permits not only for serious criminal offences but also for other types of misconduct, including benefit fraud, unpaid debts, tax offences, undeclared work, and associations with extremist organisations. Government ministers say the measure aims to bolster public confidence in the immigration system and promote integration.
The legislation is part of a wider tightening of Swedish immigration policy under the centre-right government, which depends on parliamentary support from the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats. Since taking office in 2022, the government has introduced stricter asylum rules, reduced opportunities for permanent residence, and expanded powers to deport foreign nationals who do not meet the new requirements.
Supporters argue that people granted the right to live in Sweden should be expected to respect Swedish laws and values. Critics, however, say the new legislation gives authorities broad discretionary powers and could create uncertainty for migrants and refugees who have committed only minor offences or administrative breaches. Human rights organisations have also questioned whether some provisions are sufficiently clear and proportionate.
Meanwhile, Sweden’s stricter immigration policies are raising growing concern among employers and economists, who warn that the country risks becoming less appealing to the skilled international workers it requires.
According to business organisations, applications from highly skilled workers and entrepreneurs outside the European Union have fallen sharply since 2022, while companies in sectors such as technology, engineering, and healthcare continue to report labour shortages. The Swedish technology industry alone estimates that it needs around 18,000 additional skilled workers each year to keep growth on track.
The Confederation of Swedish Enterprise has argued that foreign workers make a significant contribution to the country’s economy, adding 52 billion kronor (US$5.4bn) in economic output in 2023. Business leaders warn that increasingly restrictive immigration policies risk deterring qualified professionals from choosing Sweden over competing destinations in Europe and North America.
The government dismisses suggestions that economic growth and stricter immigration policies are incompatible. Ministers contend that Sweden should focus on attracting highly qualified workers while reducing irregular migration and tightening requirements for those seeking permanent residence. They argue that a well-functioning immigration system relies on public confidence that those granted residence permits obey Swedish laws and contribute to society.
The debate arises as immigration is expected to remain one of Sweden's key issues ahead of next year’s general election. While opinion polls continue to show widespread public support for stricter migration controls, employers are urging policymakers to ensure that efforts to limit immigration do not harm Sweden’s long-term economic competitiveness.
Sources: Swedish Government; Confederation of Swedish Enterprise; Reuters
​
​Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Immigrants in Europe’s Nordic nations ||
​​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
SWITZERLAND
Swiss voters reject proposal to limit the country’s population to 10 million
June 2026: Swiss voters rejected a proposal to limit the country’s population to 10 million by 2050, marking a setback for campaigners who argued that immigration-driven growth was placing unsustainable pressure on housing, infrastructure, and public services.
Official results from Sunday’s (14 June) referendum showed that about 54.8 per cent of voters opposed the initiative, while 45.2 per cent supported it. Turnout was nearly 59 per cent.
The proposal, officially titled “No to a Switzerland with 10 million!”, was supported by the right-wing Swiss People’s Party (SVP). It would have required the government to implement measures to prevent the population from exceeding 10 million by 2050 and might have ultimately forced Switzerland to withdraw from its agreement on the free movement of people with the European Union.
Switzerland’s population is currently around 9.1 million. Supporters of the initiative argued that rapid growth was contributing to increasing housing costs, overcrowded transport networks, and pressure on public services. Opponents countered that the country relies heavily on foreign workers, especially in sectors like healthcare, construction, hospitality, and engineering.
The result was welcomed by the Swiss government, business organisations, and trade unions, which had campaigned against the proposal. They warned that stricter immigration limits could harm economic growth and complicate relations with Switzerland’s largest trading partner, the European Union.
According to Swiss media, support for the initiative was strongest in some rural and German-speaking regions, while major cities and much of French-speaking Switzerland voted against it. The geographical divide reflected a broader debate about the benefits and challenges of immigration in one of Europe’s wealthiest countries.
Reaction from neighbouring countries was mostly positive. European commentators and business groups warned that approval of the initiative could lead to a lengthy dispute with Brussels and weaken a network of bilateral agreements that support Swiss-EU relations. Several observers compared the vote to Britain’s Brexit referendum because of its possible impact on economic integration with Europe.
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
BRITAIN / NORTHERN IRELAND
An Indian business was attacked and burnt down days before the current Ulster riots
June 2026: Police used water cannons on the second consecutive night of anti-immigration unrest in Northern Ireland on 10 June, as disorder spread to Newtownabbey after the most serious night of rioting in Belfast on 9 June. The violence was sparked by a knife attack in north Belfast on 8 June, but it followed a racially motivated incident in the city in the days immediately before.
The current disorder did not occur without warning. On 6 June, two days before the knife attack, a former gospel hall on Shankill Road in north Belfast was destroyed by fire in what the police described as racially motivated arson. The building had been purchased by an Indian-born businessman who had lived in Northern Ireland for 18 years and was preparing to open a grocery store; he had no insurance as electrical work was still ongoing. Superintendent Finola Dornan said the building had been "totally gutted" and that it had been bought by "legitimate business people who would have brought jobs to the local community."
Northern Ireland assembly member Brian Kingston described the attack as "utterly appalling", noting that many people had been working to regenerate the Shankill Road and refurbish derelict buildings.
People Before Profit parliamentarian Gerry Carroll said those responsible had unleashed "weeks of poison online" and that the attack was the direct consequence.
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
BRITAIN / NORTHERN IRELAND
Anti-immigration riots erupt in Northern Ireland following a knife attack
June 2026: Anti-immigration riots across Belfast on the night of 9 June resulted in homes, vehicles, and at least one commercial premises being destroyed by fire, forced families to flee, and prompted a major emergency response after a knife attack in north Belfast the previous night left a man critically injured.
The attack
Shortly after 10:30 pm on 8 June, a 30-year-old Sudanese man attacked a man in his 40s with a kitchen knife in the Kinnaird Avenue area of north Belfast. The victim sustained critical injuries to his eyes, face, and back and was hospitalised in serious condition; the court was later told he had lost his left eye. Several members of the public intervened before police arrived, one using a hurley to help subdue the suspect.
The suspect appeared at Belfast Magistrates' Court on Wednesday and was remanded in custody, charged with attempted murder, possession of a bladed weapon in a public place, and making threats to kill an NHS worker. The alleged attacker entered the UK via the Common Travel Area in 2023, claimed asylum upon arrival, and was granted refugee status and leave to remain until 2028. The family of the victim issued a statement calling for peaceful protest as "the only way forward" and said there are "many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our society."
The riots
Hundreds of protesters, many wearing masks, gathered at various locations across Belfast on the evening of 9 June, setting fire to houses, a bus, cars, and barricades. Several families were forced to flee their homes, including one with a two-month-old baby.
Among those who lost their homes was a resident of Lendrick Street in east Belfast for thirteen years, whose house caught fire after a car belonging to neighbouring foreign nationals was set alight by rioters. All public transport was suspended across the city during the night; bus services on Wednesday were halted from 17:00 and train services from 18:00.
Disorder spread beyond Belfast to Newtownabbey, Portadown and Derry. A Turkish barber's shop that had traded for twenty years was attacked in Ballyclare, County Antrim. The Royal College of Nursing reported that overseas nurses attempting to reach work had been stopped by masked men and asked to show their credentials. Some schools in Belfast and surrounding areas closed early, though no blanket closure was ordered; examinations continued.
Anti-immigration protests have spread to Scotland, with hundreds gathering in Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Aberdeen. Smaller protests also occurred in London and Bangor. An anti-immigration rally was reported on O'Connell Street in Dublin. Three individuals were arrested in connection with the violence in Belfast; three more arrests were made in Scotland, where police stated that some people had been attacked because of their skin colour.
Previous riots in Northern Ireland
The current violence marks the third wave of anti-immigration disorder to impact Northern Ireland within two years. In August 2024, riots erupted across English cities and Belfast following the Southport stabbings, driven by false social media claims that the attacker was a Muslim asylum seeker. By June 2025, riots had broken out in Ballymena after two Romanian teenagers faced charges of sexual assault, with assaults on immigrant households and businesses spreading to several towns. During two weeks of unrest, 107 police officers were injured. Amnesty International described the 12 months leading to November 2025 as "a shameful year of hate" in Northern Ireland.
Political response
The leaders of all five main parties of the Northern Ireland parliament, Stormont, issued a joint statement condemning the attack. Northern Ireland's Executive ministers held a virtual emergency meeting. First Minister Michelle O'Neill described the riots as "nothing less than disgusting cowardice", saying: "Racism, intimidation and violence are wrong wherever they occur."
UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer stated that acts of violence and arson were "totally unjustified", and confirmed he had spoken to the First Minister, Deputy First Minister, and PSNI chief constable of Northern Ireland, pledging to "restore order" and "ensure that justice is done."
In an earlier statement, Starmer warned that the full force of the law would be applied against those responsible, including those who had encouraged the violence online.
Conservative opposition leader Kemi Badenoch described the scenes as "deeply disturbing" and acknowledged that people had a right to be angry and to expect politicians to secure the borders. However, she also emphasised that "no one has a right to burn families out of their homes or to burn public property and attack the police."
PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher said officers would be deployed in greater numbers on Wednesday night, warning that online incitement by "people who are faceless and know nothing about this brilliant, vibrant place" was the main challenge facing police. Elon Musk and other far-right figures used social media to call for further protests in the wake of the attack.
​​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
EUROPEAN UNION
EU moves closer to allowing deportations of rejected asylum seekers to third countries
June 2026: The European Union has moved closer to a major overhaul of its deportation system after negotiators from the European Parliament and member states reached a provisional agreement on new return rules.
The proposed legislation aims to simplify the process for EU countries to remove migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected or who no longer have a legal right to remain in the bloc. Supporters argue that the changes will create a more efficient and trustworthy immigration system, while critics caution that they could weaken protections for migrants and asylum seekers.
One of the key elements of the proposal is the creation of a legal framework allowing member states to transfer migrants to so-called ‘return hubs’ in third countries outside the European Union. Under the plan, migrants could be moved to these centres while arrangements are made for their eventual return to their countries of origin or to another accepting country. The legislation would permit such transfers even when the individual has no prior connection to the third country involved.
The agreement is part of a wider effort by European governments to ramp up deportations. EU officials have long complained that only a small number of people who receive return orders are actually removed from the bloc. The new rules aim to establish common procedures across member states and enhance cooperation between national authorities.
The legislation would also establish a European-wide return order system, making it easier for one member state to recognise and enforce a deportation decision issued by another. Supporters say this should reduce duplication and prevent migrants from moving between countries to avoid removal proceedings.
The proposal still requires formal approval before it becomes law, but it indicates a broader shift in European migration policy. In recent years, governments across the continent have increasingly aimed to speed up deportations and reduce irregular migration, often under pressure from anti-immigration parties.
Despite the political agreement, many practical questions remain unresolved. No EU member state has yet established a fully operational network of third-country return centres, and it is uncertain which nations would be prepared to host such facilities. Previous endeavours to process or transfer asylum seekers outside Europe have encountered substantial legal and political challenges.
Britain’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda was abandoned after years of legal challenges and political controversy. Italy’s effort to process some migrants in Albania has also encountered difficulties and court challenges, drawing attention to the complexities of managing migration procedures across borders.
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
EUROPE
Irregular migration* to Europe falls sharply, but the death toll rises
New Frontex data covering the first four months of 2026 indicates a 40 per cent decline in detected crossings across all major routes, yet more than 1,200 people have already died in the Mediterranean this year.
May 2026: The number of irregular border crossings into the European Union decreased by 40 per cent in the first four months of 2026 compared to the same period last year, according to preliminary data published on 15 May by Frontex, the EU's border and coast guard agency. Just over 28,500 crossings were recorded between January and April, representing a significant decline that continues a downward trend seen throughout most of 2025, when full-year detections dropped by 26 per cent.
The decline was not consistent throughout the year. The sharpest decreases occurred during the winter months, when extreme weather across the main Mediterranean and Atlantic routes disrupted departures: crossings dropped by 52 per cent in January and February combined. As conditions improved in spring, figures began to recover.
The Belarus-Poland land route
Frontex observed that pressure on the Belarus-Poland land border sharply increased again in March, driven by improved weather and what the agency described as recent legislative changes that made access to the border zone on the Belarusian side easier.
The Central and Eastern Mediterranean routes
The Central and Eastern Mediterranean were the busiest routes from January to April, accounting for about a third of all irregular entries into the EU. The Central Mediterranean recorded approximately 8,500 arrivals, a 46 per cent decrease compared to the previous year, with Libya remaining the primary departure point. The Eastern Mediterranean saw roughly 8,400 crossings, a 32 per cent decline, although the Libya-to-Crete corridor continued to be active.
The Western African route
The Western African route, which transports migrants from West Africa to Spain's Canary Islands, experienced the sharpest decline among all routes: detections dropped by 78 per cent to approximately 2,300. Frontex credited this mainly to preventive measures introduced by Mauritania from spring 2025, and later by Senegal and The Gambia, in collaboration with Spain and the EU. The agency warned that smuggling networks along this route are adaptable and that activity can shift rapidly.
The Western Mediterranean route
The Western Mediterranean was the only major route to see an increase, with detections rising 50 per cent to around 5,200. The increase was mainly due to higher departures from Algeria, reflecting what Frontex described as a shift in smuggling routes, as stricter controls in Morocco and along nearby routes pushed more departures towards Algerian shores.
The Western Balkan route
The Western Balkan route, which transports migrants from Turkey and the Middle East through Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina towards Croatia and the broader EU, recorded around 2,800 detections, a decrease of 19 per cent. The Croatian border with Bosnia and Herzegovina remained the primary exit point. Frontex warned that the route is likely to face increasing pressure as weather conditions improve and migrant mobility rises, partly driven by secondary movements connected to the Eastern Mediterranean.
The Eastern Land Border route
The Eastern Land Border, which includes the frontiers with Belarus, Russia and, to a lesser extent, Ukraine, recorded approximately 1,100 detections, representing a 49 per cent decrease overall. However, the pressure exerted by Belarus, which had eased at the beginning of the year, re-emerged in March. Frontex also observed that crossings on the EU-Ukrainian border mainly involved Ukrainian men attempting to avoid military conscription.
The English Channel route
Crossings to the United Kingdom via the English Channel nearly halved, with about 9,900 attempts recorded. This figure includes both those who successfully reached the UK and those stopped from leaving French shores.
Number of deaths remains high
Despite the headline figures, both Frontex and the International Organization for Migration issued a consistent warning. The decrease in crossings has not led to a reduction in deaths. According to the IOM, over 1,200 lives have been lost in the Mediterranean during the first four months of 2026 alone. Frontex observed that smuggling networks continue to send people on perilous crossings in overcrowded and unseaworthy boats, regardless of weather conditions. The agency also highlighted that instability in the Middle East, especially in Lebanon, poses ongoing risks of further displacement towards EU borders.
Frontex Executive Director Hans Leijtens, commenting on earlier data in the year, said that the decrease in numbers demonstrated that cooperation between states and with partner countries outside the EU could achieve results, but he added that it was not an invitation to relax.
Sources and methodology
This article relies on preliminary data published by Frontex on 15 May 2026 covering the first four months of 2026, as well as earlier Frontex monthly reports for January to February 2026 and the full year of 2025. Death toll figures are sourced from the International Organization for Migration's Missing Migrants Project. Frontex notes that its detection figures refer to crossings rather than individual persons: the same individual may be counted more than once if they attempt to cross at different locations.
* A note on terminology
This article uses the term irregular migrants, in accordance with the language of the European Union, the United Nations, and agencies such as Frontex and the International Organization for Migration. It refers to individuals who cross a border outside an official entry point or without the required authorisation. It does not imply criminality nor does it describe a person's legal status once inside a country: someone who enters irregularly may subsequently be granted asylum and acquire full legal protection.
Undocumented migrants is a related term, more common in American usage, which refers to people who are already residing in a country without valid status, whether because they entered irregularly or overstayed a visa.
Illegal migrants or illegal immigrants is the term used by some politicians and media outlets. The Immigrant Times does not use it. Under international law, including the 1951 Refugee Convention, seeking asylum is a legal right regardless of how or where a person enters a country. Describing a person as "illegal" on the basis of their manner of entry misrepresents both their status and their rights.
​​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
BRITAIN
Net migration to the UK drops to its lowest level since Covid
New Office of National Statistics (ONS) and Home Office data published on 21 May show the sharpest and most sustained fall in net migration in the UK, reaching a record low, driven by a significant drop in work and study visas. Asylum claims also decreased, although they remain significantly above pre-pandemic levels.
May 2026: Net migration to the United Kingdom dropped to 171,000 in the twelve months to December 2025, nearly half the 331,000 recorded in the previous year, according to data published on 21 May by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). The figure is the lowest since early 2021, when the new post-Brexit immigration system was being introduced and pandemic travel restrictions remained in place. From a peak of 944,000 in the year to March 2023, net migration has now decreased by 82 per cent.
The main cause of the decline was a sharp reduction in the number of non-EU nationals coming for work-related reasons, which fell by 47 per cent in 2025. The ONS mainly attributed this to the impact of successive policy changes: the closure of the overseas care worker recruitment route, increases in salary thresholds for skilled worker and family visas, and restrictions on student dependants introduced under the previous Conservative government and extended by the current Labour administration.
Separately, the Home Office published its quarterly immigration statistics covering the year up to March 2026. These showed that 252,775 work visas were granted across all categories, down 17 per cent on the previous year and 59 per cent below the peak reached in late 2023. The sharpest decline was in the Health and Care visa route: 110,725 Skilled Worker visas were granted in total, 76 per cent below the December 2023 peak, with the care sector accounting for most of the reduction.
Of those arriving in the UK in 2025, the ONS estimated that 47 per cent came for study-related reasons and 23 per cent for work. Asylum applicants made up 14 per cent of arrivals. There was a net outflow of both EU and British nationals, with more leaving the UK than arriving in each group.
Asylum claims dropped to 93,525 in the year ending March 2026, a 12 per cent decrease compared to the previous year. The number remains more than double the level seen in the years immediately before the pandemic. Just over half of claimants entered through irregular routes, including small boat crossings, while 39 per cent had previously held a valid visa. The backlog of asylum decisions decreased significantly: 48,758 people were awaiting an initial decision at the end of March 2026, a 55 per cent reduction from the same point in 2025, reaching the lowest level since September 2019.
The number of asylum seekers housed in hotels continued to decline, reaching 20,885 at the end of March 2026, a 35 per cent decrease year-on-year.
The ONS noted that its migration estimates carry significant uncertainty and are subject to revision. The 2024 net migration figure has previously been revised downward by 20 per cent since it was first published. The current figure of 171,000 for 2025 may similarly be revised in subsequent releases.
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
POLAND / BELARUS
Poland is proud of its draconian border regime, but rights organisations warn of breaches of the law
May 2026: At the start of 2026, Poland's Prime Minister Donald Tusk called on Europe to emulate Poland on migration. His government could cite real figures: irregular crossings, mainly involving Afghan refugees at the Belarus border, had dropped by almost 96 per cent compared to 2022. Meanwhile, nearly a million Ukrainian refugees had found shelter in the country, more than anywhere in the EU outside Germany. Prime Minister Tusk portrayed this as a collective achievement. Critics view it as two very different stories.
Poland suspended the right to seek asylum at its border with Belarus in March 2025. What began as a 60-day emergency measure has since been renewed by parliament multiple times, and is now over a year old. The law, adopted on 21 February 2025, was introduced as a response to what many believed was Russia’s and Belarus’s deliberate use of migration as a destabilisation tool.
Warsaw accused Minsk of issuing visas to third-country nationals, mainly Afghans, Syrians, and Iraqis, and facilitating their movement to the Polish border as part of what the European Union has called a hybrid warfare strategy. The accusation is not without basis: the pattern has been documented by EU institutions and independent researchers, and Brussels has acknowledged the security aspect.
The numbers support Warsaw's claim of success. According to Poland's Ministry of the Interior and Administration, in the first quarter of 2026, just 158 attempted illegal crossings were recorded at the Belarus border, compared with 3,306 in the same period in 2022, a fall of almost 96 per cent. The government credits a 5.5-metre steel fence topped with razor wire, electronic surveillance, and the asylum suspension law itself. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has argued that the security risks at the border justify the measures, and the European Commission, though clearly uncomfortable, has not yet pursued formal infringement proceedings.
However, the law's scope has proved much broader than its stated aim. In reality, it now applies not only at the border but also to any migrant found anywhere in Poland whom authorities suspect entered via Belarus, a reach that has effectively shut the asylum system to a large portion of the Afghan community in the country. Since almost every Afghan travelling through Europe passes through Poland via Belarus, the suspension functions as a near-total ban.
The human consequences are becoming visible. Rights groups say Afghan migrants are being deported without their individual claims being assessed, in breach of the Geneva Conventions and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
The Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights, Michael O'Flaherty, wrote to the Polish government in early April 2026, expressing concern that asylum applications are being suspended in every case in which border guards consider that the person has crossed the Poland-Belarus border irregularly. His letter noted the recent removal of Afghan nationals who had not been given the opportunity to lodge applications. Even Frontex, the EU border agency, pulled its monitors from a government-organised deportation flight after learning that the asylum applications of those being deported had not been properly assessed.
The UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, has warned that the law could breach the principle of non-refoulement, which bans the return of individuals to places where they face persecution. Amnesty International has called the measure blatantly unlawful, arguing it conflicts with Poland's constitution, EU law, and the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which, with some irony, Warsaw is simultaneously refusing to implement.
Poland's interior minister stated in March 2026 that compliance with the pact's solidarity mechanism was impossible. The European Commission has warned of legal action against member states that hinder the pact's implementation, which is set to come into force in June 2026.
Sources and methodology: This article draws on reporting by the Associated Press (April 2026), data from Poland's Ministry of the Interior and Administration (April 2026), and documentation from the UNHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and the Council of Europe's Commissioner for Human Rights. Statistical figures on border crossings are sourced from the Polish government and the EU Council's migration tracking data.
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
FRANCE / BRITAIN
Britain and France sign a new Channel-crossing deal that critics say does not address the root causes
April 2026: Britain and France have signed a new three-year border security agreement under which the United Kingdom will pay France up to £660 million to enhance enforcement against asylum seekers attempting to cross the English Channel in small boats. The deal was signed in Paris on 23 April 2026 by British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and French Interior Minister Laurent Nunez.
Some £500 million of the total will be allocated to strengthen enforcement on the beaches of northern France, including the deployment of nearly 1,100 law enforcement, intelligence, and military personnel, a rise of more than 50 per cent from the current figure of around 700 officers. An additional £160 million will be released only if the new strategies are deemed effective. The performance-related component reflects ongoing British frustration that previous funding arrangements have not led to a lasting decrease in crossings.
Surveillance measures under the deal include drones, two helicopters, and enhanced camera systems. France will also deploy a new vessel and over 20 extra maritime officers to intercept boats at sea. The agreement also involves the deployment of riot police on the beaches of northern France.
The deal replaces a previous three-year arrangement agreed in 2023 under the Conservative government, under which the UK paid France €541 million. The new agreement reflects a significant increase in British financial commitment. London insisted it would only renew the Sandhurst Treaty, first signed in 2018, extended in 2023, and set to expire this year if it could impose conditions on how the French government uses British taxpayers' money.
The situation remains one of persistently high crossings despite years of enforcement efforts. Approximately 41,000 people crossed the Channel to England in small boats in 2025, close to the record of 46,000 set in 2022. Small boats now make up about 89 per cent of all detected arrivals in the UK without authorisation, and nearly all those arriving this way go on to claim asylum. Crossings in 2026 are happening at one of the highest early-year rates on record.
The British government argues the deal will disrupt people-smuggling networks and states that joint efforts with France have already prevented more than 42,000 attempted crossings since Labour took office in July 2024. The existing "one in, one out" pilot scheme, under which the UK returns some small boat arrivals to France in exchange for accepting an equal number of asylum seekers with family ties to the UK, continues to operate alongside the new agreement.
Refugee organisations have sharply criticised the deal. Sile Reynolds of Freedom from Torture said the agreement meant paying "for police boots and batons to be wielded indiscriminately against men, women and children on the beaches of northern France for the crime of seeking safety," and described the French riot police as a force that the UN committee against torture has previously criticised for excessive use of force. The Refugee Council argued that by fixating on small boats, the British government was attacking the symptom rather than the cause, and that no level of enforcement would resolve a crisis driven by conflict, persecution and the absence of safe legal routes to the United Kingdom.
Sources: Reuters; UPI; House of Commons Library; Freedom from Torture; the Refugee Council.
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​
GERMANY / MEAT INDUSTRY
Investigation finds exploitation of migrant workers in the German meat industry
April 2026: A television investigation by Monitor, the long-running ARD current affairs programme produced by WDR (Westdeutscher Rundfunk), has found that migrant workers in the German meat industry continue to face systematic exploitation, despite legislative reforms passed five years ago which were intended to put an end to the worst abuses.
The Monitor report, broadcast on 21 April 2026, found that large meat companies such as Tönnies and Westfleisch rely on a steady supply of inexpensive labour recruited through employment agencies. Many workers now come from India, China, and Vietnam. They often pay several thousand euros to recruitment agencies in their home countries to secure work in Europe, accumulating significant debts in the process. In Germany, the Monitor found, the reality often differs considerably from what was promised: harsh working conditions, low wages, and little legal protection. Workers who fall ill or raise complaints risk losing their jobs and are left with their debts and no recourse.
The investigation identified what it described as legal loopholes in German law which allow the system to continue, and examined what has become of political promises to improve conditions in the sector.
The Monitor findings come five years after Germany passed the ‘Occupational Health and Safety Inspection Act’, known in German as the Arbeitsschutzkontrollgesetz, which came into force in January 2021. The law was enacted in response to a mass Covid outbreak at the Tönnies plant in Rheda-Wiedenbrück, in which more than 1,500 workers tested positive, forcing a regional lockdown. It banned subcontracting in core meat production areas, required electronic time recording, set minimum standards for company housing, and increased workplace inspections.
Further research by the Hans Böckler Foundation confirmed that the law had led to genuine improvements. Around 35,000 workers who were previously subcontracted were directly employed by meat-processing firms, workplace accidents decreased significantly, and the most severe forms of exploitation associated with obscure subcontracting chains were notably reduced.
However, the same research found that the industry remained a distinctly low-wage sector. Two-thirds of workers are still not covered by collective agreements, and many continue to earn only slightly above the statutory minimum wage. Attempts to negotiate a new industry-wide collective agreement in 2025 were unsuccessful.
The shift in the origins of the workforce, highlighted in the Monitor investigation, is itself significant. Where migrant workers in German slaughterhouses were once mainly from Eastern Europe, Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria, they are increasingly recruited from Asia.
Workers now come from Ukraine, Georgia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Vietnam, the Philippines, African countries, India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and China. Romanian recruitment agencies have become intermediaries, sometimes recruiting workers from Nepal and sending them to German plants. The pattern indicates a treadmill effect: as living standards and expectations improve in one sending country, the industry moves on to find a cheaper, more vulnerable workforce elsewhere.
The wider situation across Europe is similarly alarming. The European meat industry employs roughly one million people in a sector valued at about 220 billion euros. In the largest plants in the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany, migrants constitute the majority of the workforce. A deputy secretary-general of EFFAT, the European federation of food and agriculture trade unions, has called the system sick across Europe, based on cheap meat prices and labour exploitation.
Sources: Monitor/WDR/ARD; Hans Böckler Foundation (WSI); Social Europe; ORF(Austrai); The Immigrant Times. Monitor is a WDR production for ARD. The full report is available at monitor.de.
​
Further reading from The Immigrant Times: Foreign nationals in German states and cities ||
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​
ITALY
Italy’s legal profession is furious over the government’s migrant bonus scheme
April 2026: The Italian government's latest security decree has triggered an angry response from the country's legal profession after the Senate approved a clause that would pay lawyers a financial bonus for each asylum seeker or irregular migrant they successfully persuade to return voluntarily to their country of origin.
The measure was inserted as an amendment during the Senate debate on Decree-Law No. 23, a sweeping security and immigration package adopted by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s government on 24 February 2026. The decree covers public order, police operations, investigative powers, and immigration management. Having passed the upper house, it is now before the Chamber of Deputies, with a conversion deadline of 25 April 2026, after which it would automatically lapse if not passed into law.
The contentious clause would channel funds through Italy's National Bar Council, the Consiglio Nazionale Forense, to compensate lawyers who assist foreign nationals in Italy's existing assisted voluntary return programmes, provided the client actually leaves the country. The incentive is estimated at approximately €615 per completed return. The government has allocated €246,000 for 2026, rising to €492,000 per year thereafter.
The reaction from the legal profession has been fierce. The National Bar Council stated that it was never consulted and demanded that any reference to its involvement in administering the incentives be removed. The Organismo Congressuale Forense and the Union of Criminal Chambers have both declared the measure incompatible with professional ethics. At the core of the objection is a fundamental principle: a lawyer's duty is to act in their client's exclusive interest, not to deliver results that serve the state. Tying payment to a successful return, critics argue, turns that relationship on its head.
The University of Padua's Human Rights Centre has noted that the Italian Constitution, in Article 24, establishes that the right to a defence is inviolable at every stage of legal proceedings, and that the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees an effective remedy to anyone whose rights are violated. Lawyers, it argues, are the guarantors of those rights. Offering them compensation for facilitating a government policy, even at the expense of their clients' interests, implies either a poor regard for lawyers' ethical integrity or a belief that such safeguards may be relaxed in the case of migrants.
The controversy has drawn scrutiny from President Sergio Mattarella, who is closely monitoring the file. Although Italian presidents typically sign legislation once it reaches their desk, Mattarella has the power to refuse promulgation or return the text to parliament if he identifies serious constitutional problems. Institutional sources indicate that without a revision sufficient to neutralise the provision, the president could withhold his signature, creating a significant institutional standoff.
Opposition leader Elly Schlein of the Democratic Party accused the government of attempting to turn lawyers into "executors of political will," thereby undermining the constitutional right to a defence. Even within the governing majority, discomfort has surfaced, with Enrico Costa of Forza Italia proposing a parliamentary motion to address the issue, though that has not yet satisfied the legal profession's concerns.
The clause fits into a broader pattern in Italy's immigration policy under Giorgia Meloni. The same security decree has, separately, repealed a provision that previously allowed legal aid in expulsion proceedings, reducing the avenues available to migrants facing removal. The government has framed voluntary return as a humane alternative to forced deportation, but critics argue that incentivising the lawyers of asylum seekers to promote government policy crosses a line that cannot be defended in a state governed by the rule of law.
Sources: EUalive/FocusEurope.it; University of Padua Human Rights Centre (Italian Yearbook of Human Rights); Human Rights Watch; Consiglio Nazionale Forense.
​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​​​
EUROPEAN UNION
EU Parliament backs ‘return hubs’ for failed asylum seekers, but no country has agreed to take deportees
March 2026: The European Parliament has approved sweeping new deportation rules that would allow rejected asylum seekers to be sent to detention centres outside the bloc, but critics warn the move risks creating ‘legal black holes’ where rights cannot be guaranteed.
Members of the European Parliament voted 389 to 206, with 32 abstentions, in favour of a measure to ease the establishment of migrant detention centres outside the European Union, known as ‘return hubs’. The vote marks a significant step in a broader tightening of Europe's immigration architecture, though the regulation still faces a further round of negotiations before becoming law.
The Return Regulation would streamline the return process of rejected asylum seekers across the EU. Its most controversial element is the introduction of return hubs, detention facilities located outside of the EU's borders, designed to hold people whose asylum cases have been refused or who have been deemed unauthorised to remain in the EU. Under the current system, people without legal status are generally allowed to remain in EU territory until they are deported. Under the new law, people would instead be forcibly removed to facilities in non-EU countries whilst awaiting their final deportation.
The regulation also introduces stricter rules, including the fast-tracking of asylum claims from certain nationalities and extended detention periods of up to 24 months. The European Council, representing the EU national governments, overturned in December 2025 an earlier exclusion of families with children from being sent to return hubs, now permitting their transfer alongside adults.
The hubs would operate through bilateral agreements between individual EU member states and host governments, with no overarching EU-wide binding framework. Only about 20 per cent of people ordered to leave the EU are currently returned to their country of origin, a figure supporters of the regulation repeatedly cited as justification for the reform.
The committee vote confirmed a trend of the European People's Party (EPP) siding with the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and the far-right Patriots for Europe (PfE) and Europe of Sovereign Nations (ESN) on all migration-related files. The result was also supported by some members of the liberal Renew Europe group. Centre-left and left-wing parties, along with the Greens, largely opposed the measure, though some Socialists voted for or abstained.
The legislation deliberately leaves host countries unspecified, with arrangements to be handled through bilateral deals. Initial research by the Immigrant Times suggests that negotiations about the placement of ‘return hubs’ might involve the following non-EU countries.
Albania is the most established precedent. Italy has been routing arrivals to Albanian detention centres since striking a bilateral deal praised by Prime Minister Meloni as a model for Europe. However, the arrangement has faced legal challenges and seen slow uptake. EU interior ministers endorsed Albania as one potential hub location in December 2025, alongside Serbia and North Macedonia.
Uganda has been a focus of Dutch and German interest. A working group consisting of Germany, Greece, Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands has formed within the EU to establish joint return hubs, with Uganda among the locations repeatedly discussed.
Rwanda has also attracted attention. Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the now-abandoned UK scheme, though the status of those negotiations remains unclear. Rwanda has separately indicated openness to such arrangements, having agreed to accept deported migrants from the United States.
Tunisia is frequently mentioned as a candidate, though it carries serious caveats. The UNHCR's Director of International Protection has stated ‘serious protection concerns in Tunisia and Libya’, describing them as ‘not safe countries for refugees and asylum seekers right now’.
Libya has also appeared in press reports as a possibility, despite being a country in which torture and systematic violence against women, migrants, and opposition members are widely documented.
Denmark has additionally initiated talks on corresponding agreements with Ethiopia and Egypt, so far without concrete results.
​​​
COMMENT
​
FOLLOW
Instagram || TikTok || X(Twitter) || Thread || Facebook || BlueSky || Mastodon || LinkedIn ||
​