In collaboration with Hazel Mulkeen
A major feature of the Pact is the new EU-wide “Safe Countries of Origin” list, covering states such as Bangladesh, India, Morocco, and Egypt. While intended to prioritise people fleeing war, it risks oversimplifying reality. These countries may be “safe” on paper, yet millions still face forced labour, exploitation, gender-based violence, and trafficking. Such national categories fail to capture individual experiences of danger.
There is also a contradiction: the EU can reject asylum claims from these countries while benefiting from the very economic inequalities that push people to migrate.
The Pact is an important step toward clarity and fairness, but it highlights a central tension, between efficiency and the complex human realities behind migration. My own experience shows why systems must remain compassionate as well as practical.
Source: Unsplash
Immigration and the 2026 EU Pact: A Personal Perspective
Right now, every EU member state handles asylum differently. Some countries process applications quickly, others slowly; some accept many applicants, others almost none. To address this, the EU has created the EU Migration and Asylum Pact, which will come into effect starting from 12 June 2026. Its goal is to standardize asylum rules across the EU, ensuring that everyone follows the same procedures, while introducing unified entry systems, shared responsibility for high-arrival states, common data and screening mechanisms, minimum living standards, and the ability to fast-track or reject claims from “safe countries.”
As an immigrant who fled Syria in 2013 due to the civil war, I have lived firsthand the difference that a secure environment can make. My refugee status allowed me to access education and opportunities, experiences that would have been impossible if I had been deported back to Syria or sent to another country in the region. Through programs like the JA Company Programme and various debate competitions, I was able to grow my skills, confidence, and ambitions.
This demonstrates a broader truth: immigrants are hardworking and motivated, but they need safety and opportunity to thrive. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is relevant here, only when people have their basic necessities met (food, water, shelter, safety, and belonging) can they reach self-actualization. Treating asylum statistics or legal procedures as abstract numbers dehumanizes real people, mothers, fathers, youths, and families with ambition. With the right opportunities, they can contribute meaningfully to society and pursue their potential.
At the same time there are concerns. Some countries, particularly smaller or densely populated ones like Malta, cannot take in unlimited numbers of asylum seekers without financial strain or social challenges. The Pact aims to address this by distributing responsibility more evenly and creating minimum standards, which could prevent situations where one country bears a disproportionate burden.
EU List of Safe Countries of Origin: Lack of Nuance
One of the most significant new elements of the 2026 EU migration reforms is the EU List of Safe Countries of Origin. This list establishes the first-ever EU-wide set of countries that are presumed to be “safe.” Applicants from these countries , initially including Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, and Tunisia , can be fast-tracked into accelerated procedures. They may also face greater barriers to protection, making it easier for member states to reject their asylum applications.
On paper, these countries are considered safe because they are not in war or famine. By categorizing them this way, the EU is explicitly prioritizing asylum applications from people fleeing conflict or extreme danger over those coming from more stable countries.
I understand the reasoning behind the list, but I see both opportunities and challenges in practice. In principle, this approach could allow the EU to focus resources and attention on refugees from truly unsafe regions, such as Ukraine, Syria, or other war-torn countries. That makes sense from a humanitarian and logistical perspective: protection should go to those who need it most.
However, “safe” on paper does not always reflect individual circumstances. People from these countries may still face persecution, discrimination, or threats that are not captured in official safety assessments. Rejecting their asylum claims purely based on a country-level assumption risks overlooking real human suffering.
At the same time, this does not mean people from these countries should be entirely blocked from entering Europe. They can and should access other legal pathways, such as work visas, student visas, or family reunification. The key, in my view, is that EU resources allocated for asylum and refugee protection should be prioritized for those fleeing immediate danger, rather than spread evenly across all migrants. In short, the Safe Countries list reflects an attempt at efficiency and fairness in resource allocation, but it also raises questions about the balance between legal presumptions and lived realities.
“Safe” Countries Are Not Safe in Practice
The EU’s 2026 Safe Countries of Origin list categorizes countries such as Bangladesh, Morocco, India, and Egypt as “safe” for asylum purposes. On paper, these nations may not be experiencing war or famine, but the lived realities of many people in these countries tell a different story. Economic, social, and gendered vulnerabilities mean that safety cannot be measured merely by the absence of armed conflict.
In Bangladesh, forced labour remains widespread across sectors including fish processing, shipbreaking, aluminium, brick-making, tea production, and especially the garment industry. Despite reforms following the 2013 Rana Plaza building collapse, mistreatment persists. Female workers are particularly at risk, facing threats, harassment, intimidation, and sexual violence. Conditions deteriorated further during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a 2022 study revealed that 86% of workers in the informal garment sector met the criteria for forced labour, disproportionately affecting women and internal migrants.
Children are similarly exploited. They are forced to work in brick kilns, domestic labour, fish drying, and drug production or transport. A 2022 study (Modern slavery in Bangladesh | Walk Free ) across eight low-cost settlements in Dhaka found that over two-thirds of 764 children reported abuse or exploitation in the workplace, including verbal, physical, and sexual abuse — effectively a form of modern slavery.
Rohingya refugees fleeing persecution in Myanmar are also highly vulnerable. Women and girls are trafficked from refugee camps into domestic work and fish processing under false job promises, while men face coercion into agriculture and construction. Boys are forced into informal labour as shophands, fishermen, construction workers, and rickshaw pullers. Beyond Bangladesh, citizens are trafficked internationally to countries in Asia, Africa, and the Gulf, often trapped in debt bondage resulting from recruitment fees and travel costs. Both licensed and unlicensed brokers exploit workers by providing misleading or false information about employment opportunities.
Forced commercial sexual exploitation compounds these vulnerabilities. Women and girls are coerced into sex work in legal and illegal establishments, hotels, and households through false job offers and fake debts. In 2020, Bangladeshi authorities arrested traffickers who had sent hundreds of women aged 18–25 to Dubai for sexual exploitation under fraudulent pretenses. Children are also trafficked domestically and abroad for sexual exploitation, often trapped for years and kept in exploitative conditions, with corrupt officials facilitating the abuse through bribes or forged documents.
Child and forced marriage remain significant issues, particularly among girls. Although the rate of child marriage has declined from over 90% 50 years ago to just over 50% in 2020, Bangladesh still has one of the highest rates in the world. Child marriage is closely linked to sexual exploitation, with girls being trafficked or sold after marriage. Women from ethnic minority groups and Rohingya communities are also targeted for forced bride trafficking to countries like China and Malaysia.
Despite these challenges, Bangladesh has made significant efforts to address modern slavery. The government has one of the strongest responses in Asia and the Pacific, including ratifying the 2014 Protocol to the Forced Labour Convention (1930) and launching national action plans to end child marriage and human trafficking. These initiatives show progress since the 2018 Global Slavery Index (GSI). However, gaps remain in identifying and supporting survivors, ensuring criminal proceedings are trauma-informed, and enforcing labour laws consistently. Vulnerability is largely driven by discrimination against minority groups, displacement, violence, and limited monitoring, and the pandemic has further exacerbated risks in high-risk sectors such as garments.
Data underscores the scale of the problem: the 2023 GSI estimates that 1.2 million people were living in modern slavery in Bangladesh in 2021, a prevalence of 7.1 per 1,000 people, placing Bangladesh among the top ten countries globally by total numbers of people in modern slavery and ninth in Asia and the Pacific.
These realities illustrate a fundamental irony: the EU can reject asylum claims from countries deemed “safe” while simultaneously benefiting from the structural inequalities and exploitation within them. European companies often profit from low-wage labour, unsafe working conditions, and exploitative recruitment practices, contributing directly to the vulnerabilities that make migration necessary in the first place. The Safe Countries list, therefore, oversimplifies safety and ignores the complex economic and social pressures affecting millions of people.
The 2026 EU Migration and Asylum Pact represents a historic effort to unify and streamline asylum procedures across Europe, creating a fairer and more predictable system. From my perspective as an immigrant, the value of safety and opportunity cannot be overstated, having a secure environment allowed me to grow, contribute, and pursue my potential. Yet the new system’s reliance on concepts like “safe countries” highlights the tension between legal efficiency and human reality.
Sources:
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/pact-migration-and asylum_en