A mass crossing from Morocco to Spain\u2019s exclave of Ceuta on 30 July triggered a political and social media storm that overshadowed the deaths of over a hundred people. Other European governments and right-wing politicians hurried to attack Spain for supposedly being soft on migration. This reflects a Europe-wide normalisation of racism, with states competing to look toughest on keeping out and removing migrants, endorsed by the European Union in a harsh new regulation. Far-right forces are driving the discourse, mainstreaming extremism by scapegoating migrants for crime and economic hardship. Progressive forces need to speak to genuine economic and social concerns while holding the line on migrants\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n
On 30 July, an estimated 78,000 people attempted to cross from Morocco into Spain\u2019s exclave of Ceuta. Over 100 died, most while trying to swim across. Their deaths, the most visible human cost of Europe\u2019s intensifying hostility towards migrants and refugees, have been largely overlooked in the ensuing anti-immigrant furore, stoked via social media and capitalised on by politicians.<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
Members of the Spanish Army’s infantry forces watch a group of migrants near the border post of the Spanish exclave of Ceuta on 2 August 2026. Photo by Henry Nicholls\/AFP.<\/p>\n
Hate speech and disinformation<\/strong><\/p>\n The mass crossing appears to have been triggered by a wave of social media disinformation. Dozens of Instagram videos circulated claiming \u2018Spain was open\u2019, showing migrants strolling freely around Ceuta and promoting the sea route as safe. Some social media channels offered to sell tips<\/a> on navigating the route safely. Many of the accounts spreading these claims appeared to be based in Morocco.<\/p>\n The disinformation spread in the wake of a Spanish Supreme Court ruling barring authorities from summarily expelling migrants who swim to Ceuta or Melilla, Spain\u2019s other North African exclave. It hasn\u2019t stopped, and a second mass crossing attempt on 15 August was thwarted by strengthened security.<\/p>\n Ceuta and Melilla provide the European Union\u2019s (EU) only land border with Africa and have long strained relations between Morocco and Spain. Spain, a former colonial power over parts of Morocco, insists the two cities are integral parts of its territory, although special migration rules make it hard for migrants to use them as a gateway to the EU. Morocco considers them occupied territory and claims sovereignty. Because Spain depends on Morocco\u2019s cooperation to run a militarised border, Morocco has leverage, making migrants pawns in a geopolitical game.<\/p>\n Tensions spike further over Spain\u2019s relations with Morocco\u2019s rival Algeria, which Spanish Prime Minister Pedro S\u00e1nchez recently visited, and over the disputed territory of Western Sahara, which Morocco invaded in 1975 and largely controls. In 2021, Spain allowed the leader of the Polisario Front, Western Sahara\u2019s independence movement, to travel to the country for COVID-19 treatment. Morocco retaliated by loosening border controls, letting more migrants cross. A mass crossing into Melilla followed in June 2022<\/a>, leaving at least 23 people dead. Spain has since backed Morocco\u2019s plan to incorporate Western Sahara as an autonomous region, but some believe the Moroccan government, which has cultivated close ties<\/a> with <\/a>the Trump administration, let the latest events happen to further pressure Spain. Spain notably avoided criticising Moroccan border guards for failing to stop people.<\/p>\n Most of those who crossed returned quickly once they realised there was no chance of getting to mainland Europe and food and shelter were scarce. The few thousand who stayed, among them children, were left sleeping on the beach in appalling conditions, with civil society groups scrambling to provide humanitarian help<\/a>. On 16 August, they protested<\/a> to draw attention to their plight. The Spanish government has recently relented and said<\/a> it will allow 500 children stranded in Ceuta to come to the mainland.<\/p>\n While civil society mobilised out of compassion, Spain\u2019s far-right Vox party and right-wingers across Europe seized on events to attack Spain\u2019s centre-left government and others deemed too soft on migration. On 31 July, hundreds took part in an anti-migrant protest<\/a> outside Morocco\u2019s embassy in Madrid, some making Nazi salutes and carrying far-right flags. Right-wing influencers rushed to the region to file breathless reports of \u2018invasion\u2019, amplified by figures such as Elon Musk. The flames of online hatred were fanned by an apparently coordinated and rapid campaign<\/a> by Russian military-linked accounts. Russia benefits from political chaos in Europe and far-right politicians tend to support Russia.<\/p>\n Italy\u2019s right-wing government led the charge. With Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni facing a threat from an even more anti-migrant party<\/a>, National Future, in next year\u2019s election, her Brothers of Italy party seized the opportunity to attack the Spanish government on social media. Italy suspended the Schengen Agreement \u2013 a free-movement treaty that covers much of Europe \u2013 for Spanish citizens. Several EU states backed Italy\u2019s call to suspend Spain from the Schengen Agreement and most signed its letter demanding an urgent meeting of interior ministers to address what it called \u2018pull factors\u2019 drawing people to the EU. Donald Trump and the Israeli government joined the attacks, seeing an opportunity to repay Spain for condemning Israel\u2019s genocide in Gaza and opposing the war in Iran. Spain retaliated with new border checks on visitors from Italy.<\/p>\n Chiara Catelli is Project and Advocacy Officer at the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants<\/a>, a civil society network of over 160 organisations that works to ensure human rights and justice for undocumented migrants.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n Politicians have framed recent events in Ceuta in a way that misses the point entirely. What\u2019s urgently needed are safe, regular pathways for migrants to seek work or protection in Europe.<\/p>\n That would mean people aren\u2019t forced into desperate, dangerous journeys, even when, as in Ceuta, they\u2019re driven by disinformation or false promises.<\/p>\n Instead, governments are using any excuse to increase sanctions and repression, without questioning the EU\u2019s model of paying countries such as Libya, Morocco and Turkey to intercept migrants. This leaves Europe diplomatically and politically exposed and, more importantly, does nothing to address why people move in the first place.<\/p>\n An issue that could be resolved more easily ends up being driven by political competition over who can look toughest on migration, rather than by evidence of what works or approaches that protect everyone\u2019s fundamental rights.<\/p>\n The answer shouldn\u2019t be more repression or more externalisation. Outsourcing migration responsibilities to non-EU countries doesn\u2019t solve the problem. Ceuta shows the opposite is true. For us, the answer needs to be more regular and safe pathways into the EU to seek both protection and work.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n This is an edited extract from our conversation with Chiara. Read the full interview here<\/a>.<\/p>\n EU turns for the worse<\/strong><\/p>\n Events in Ceuta have come as migrants\u2019 rights are experiencing regression at the EU level, with racism and hostility towards migrants increasingly normalised. In June, when the European Parliament approved a new return regulation that gives states enhanced powers to deport migrants, its usual polite, procedural manner gave way to something ugly. Right-wing parliament members celebrated<\/a> the vote with chants of \u2018send them back\u2019. Language once confined to racist fringe groups was now heard at the heart of a democracy of some 452 million people.<\/p>\n The regulation, expected to become law in September, implements aspects of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which entered into force in June. It will let EU states detain migrants for up to two years and send them to deportation centres outside the EU, extending the trend of wealthy states subcontracting poorer ones to manage migration. Civil society groups have warned<\/a> it could bring routine US-style immigration raids, increased surveillance and racial profiling, while United Nations human rights experts have stated<\/a> that the regulation may breach several international human rights commitments EU states have made.<\/p>\n These changes reflect the European Parliament\u2019s rightwards shift. At the last election<\/a> in June 2024, far-right parties from Austria, France and Germany made significant gains and established centre-right parties did better than centrist and green ones. Across Europe, mainstream centre-right and centre-left parties have hardened their line on immigration in response to the successes of right-wing parties that have relentlessly focused on the issue. Firewalls that once kept established parties from cooperating with extremist ones haven\u2019t survived calculations of political convenience. The mainstream centre-right European People\u2019s Party group, parliament\u2019s largest, voted alongside far-right parties to push the return regulation through.<\/p>\n Further regression lies ahead. When EU ministers met following the events in Ceuta, they agreed to improve early warning systems, including through stronger social media monitoring. Migration control and surveillance go hand in hand.<\/p>\n The EU\u2019s preoccupation with looking tough on migration is eroding its human rights principles, including when it pays repressive states to help control migration, granting them political leverage. Another troubling development came in June, when EU officials held an unprecedented meeting with Taliban representatives to discuss deporting Afghan migrants with rejected asylum claims. The Taliban have never been recognised as Afghanistan\u2019s government, but the meeting risks normalising<\/a> their rule even as they pass further laws erasing women\u2019s rights<\/a>. To deport asylum seekers who\u2019ll likely face danger, the EU is downplaying systematic violations of women\u2019s fundamental rights.<\/p>\n We spoke with an anonymous member of the Afghan section of the Women\u2019s International League for Peace and Freedom<\/a>, a global membership-based feminist peacebuilding organisation.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The meeting came as shocking news for women\u2019s rights defenders inside and outside Afghanistan. With Afghan women\u2019s rights deteriorating under Taliban rule, it\u2019s hard to understand why European and regional governments would deepen ties with them. It\u2019s particularly troubling that governments with human rights and feminist foreign policies are sidelining Afghan women and handing the Taliban international platforms.<\/p>\n Together with others, we have documented the failings of Taliban laws, including the recently introduced Criminal Procedure Code<\/a> and the Code on Judicial Separation of Spouses, drawing on consultations with women on the ground and religious scholars inside and outside Afghanistan. We shared our findings with EU governments to raise concerns about the meeting and used social media to voice our opposition.<\/p>\n As a result of this mobilisation, the EU said the meeting would focus only on asylum seekers. Yet political considerations must not take precedence over women\u2019s rights. Taliban policies, including the latest marriage and divorce decree, should serve as a warning to the international community.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n This is an edited extract from our conversation. Read the full interview here<\/a>.<\/p>\n National-level regression<\/strong><\/p>\n Some EU states are leading this race to the bottom. If it seems cruel, that\u2019s the point. Even though irregular migration numbers are falling<\/a>, performative toughness is the intention, communicating to voters that governments are acting on an issue relentlessly pushed by extremist politicians and social media accounts. For migrants and refugees, the result is a denial of rights. As legal routes close, they take more dangerous ones, risking criminalisation, violence and, as seen in Ceuta, death.<\/p>\n In June, Sweden\u2019s parliament approved laws<\/a> that remove any path to permanent residency for people granted asylum, allow authorities to cancel residency permits on broadly defined grounds of \u2018bad behaviour\u2019 and require many public sector employees to report suspected undocumented migrants. The bad behaviour provisions apply retroactively, potentially leaving many migrants at risk of deportation for minor past offences. The reporting requirement could lead to de facto racial profiling, subjecting Black and Brown people to suspicion white people don\u2019t face and turning public servants who joined their profession to help people into unofficial border police. As a result, migrants may stop using vital services, such as healthcare, to avoid suspicion, or opt out of protests for fear of being arrested. The result will be a two-tier system, including for civic freedoms.<\/p>\n Sweden says it wants to have the most restrictive asylum laws in the EU, and it\u2019s no coincidence that the latest changes have come ahead of a September election in which migration is a key issue. The centre-right government relies on the far-right Sweden Democrats party, which is hoping for further gains. This brings the risk of a contagion effect. Other EU governments are watching how Sweden\u2019s new laws are applied with a view to copying them.<\/p>\n Neighbouring Denmark, which stood squarely beside Italy in condemning Spain, offers another grim example. The coalition led by the centre-left Social Democrats stayed in power following the March election<\/a>, having adopted increasingly strict asylum restrictions and dismantled protections for migrants and refugees, framing its decisions as a defence of the welfare state. Its policies now closely mirror those of the far-right Danish People\u2019s Party.<\/p>\n Time and again, the strategy fails. When mainstream parties adopt far-right positions, they don\u2019t win back voters, but legitimise far-right narratives, and many voters trust a party that has always championed anti-migrant policies over one that has opportunistically adopted them. Denmark\u2019s Social Democrats hung onto power, but with their worst result in over 120 years, while the Danish People\u2019s Party tripled its seats.<\/p>\n John Stauffer is legal director and deputy executive director of Civil Rights Defenders<\/a>, a Swedish civil society organisation that acts as a civil rights watchdog at home and supports human rights defenders in repressive contexts worldwide.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n The good behaviour law means we are no longer all equal before the law. Something a Swedish citizen can say or do without any legal consequence can cost a residence permit holder their right to stay.<\/p>\n What makes this worse is that nobody knows exactly where the line falls. Legal scholars have described these laws as very broad, vague and difficult to apply in practice, so people have no way of telling in advance what might be used against them.<\/p>\n That uncertainty produces a chilling effect on people\u2019s willingness to use their rights. Permit holders who are not citizens are withdrawing from public debate. They stop voicing their views and stay away from protests, because they fear that joining a pro-Palestine march or climate action, for example, might cost them their permit. We are, in fact, creating a two-tier system where the lives of non-citizens will be characterised by uncertainty and limited access to rights, while citizens enjoy full rights.<\/p>\n The government has been building a narrative that connects migration to rising rates of violent crime. Using that as a justification, it has tried to build strong support for stricter migration policies and at the same time has pushed more repressive policies to combat crime, including greater possibilities to revoke residency permits for migrants who have committed crimes, including less serious crimes.<\/p>\n As we approach the September election, it remains to be seen whether people truly support this model. The largest opposition party, the Social Democrats, have, however, supported many of the new immigration policies.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n This is an edited extract from our conversation with John. Read the full interview here<\/a>.<\/p>\n Brighter moments<\/strong><\/p>\n The trend isn\u2019t in one direction. Civil society continues to mount coordinated resistance, including by physically obstructing deportations, providing essential services and taking legal action against regressive policies. Many of its successes are defensive, holding the line on rights that are under attack, including by winning case-by-case reversals of deportation orders.<\/p>\n Some victories have wider implications. Following a campaign supported by over 700,000 signatures, last year the Spanish government opened a scheme<\/a> to grant residence and work permits to many undocumented migrants. Over a million people<\/a> applied. But the move has helped fuel the backlash against Spain. Even though the application period has closed, EU states and the bloc\u2019s migration commissioner criticised the scheme in the wake of events in Ceuta, identifying it as one of the \u2018pull factors\u2019 Europe should eliminate.<\/p>\n In June, Swiss voters rejected a proposal by a far-right party to cap the country\u2019s population at 10 million. Borrowing the language of sustainability, the anti-migrant Swiss People\u2019s Party claimed the measure was needed to protect housing, infrastructure, the natural environment and social support programmes. Such narratives are increasingly being used to justify anti-migrant policies. Had it passed, the measure would have meant strict limits on asylum places, residency permits and family reunification.<\/p>\n In Switzerland, such proposals must go to a referendum. While 45.2 per cent of voters backed the move, 54.8 per cent were against it. This doesn\u2019t necessarily mean a ringing endorsement of migration. Voters may have feared for non-EU member Switzerland\u2019s economically crucial access to the single market, had it ended its free movement agreement with the EU. Nonetheless, it shows normalisation of far-right anti-migrant discourse can be checked.<\/p>\n That discourse is pushing still further, normalising the prospects of forced removal under the banner of \u2018remigration\u2019. In response, progressive forces need to find new ways to separate genuine public concerns about rising costs, crime and deteriorating public services from the migration framing currently attached to them. Politicians offer cruel migration policies as deceptively simple solutions to complex problems, but the real answers lie in rebalancing economies: intervening when companies profiteer, housing markets fail and the super-rich dodge their contributions to the public finances. That path is harder, but the alternative is a race to the bottom with no floor.<\/p>\n\n