not gender neutral and has disproportionate effects on women and girls and gender-diverse people. Some of these effects include heightened risks of sexual and gen­der-based violence and difficulties in reporting, limited access to reproductive health services and a lack of gen­der-responsive water, sanitation and hygiene facilities and products. Migrant women’s experiences in immigration detention are also affected by multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, family separation(including from their children) and inadequate protection and gender-­responsive services 16 . “Crimmigration” The increased criminalisation of migrants and migration in Europe, with the expansion of detention being one of its symptoms alongside externalisation of borders, push­backs, forced returns and the criminalisation of solidarity affecting those who support migrants, is closely related with the rise in populism in Europe. Policy making on mi­gration is increasingly based on symbolic politics rather than on evidence of what works or doesn’t work for migra­tion governance purposes. This is resulting in the scapego­ating of migrants and refugees for political purposes and in the framing of migration as a crisis. Yet, far from being a threat, migration is a normal and increasingly necessary part of public and economic life. Ample evidence shows that Europe can’t function without migration to maintain its economy and its welfare systems in the context of an aging society. The regression of rights-based migration governance, including the expansion and normalisation of immigra­tion detention in Europe cannot be understood in isola­tion from broader geopolitical dynamics. The second Trump administration’s enforcement-first immigration policies have exerted measurable influence on Europe­an and broader global discourse, including on more na­tionalist policies. A 2025 analysis by the Real Instituto Elcano documents how Trump’s anti-immigration poli­cies have left a“trail” across Europe, shifting political positions in multiple Member States 17 . The Council of the EU’s negotiating position on the Return Regulation has been characterised by legal scholars and civil socie­ty organisations 18 as reflecting“Trump-inspired ap­proaches” 19 . Simultaneously, Europe is witnessing the growing confla­tion of immigration control with criminal law enforce­ment, a trend scholars have termed“crimmigration” 20 . This dynamic reinforces the expansion of detention by in­creasingly using immigration status as a trigger for puni­tive treatment. Furthermore, the Council of Europe has found that conditions and safeguards for immigration de­tainees are often worse than for those held under criminal law, despite most immigration detainees not having been convicted of any criminal offence 21, 22 . The Case for Alternatives to Detention Against this backdrop of expanding detention and increas­ing criminalisation, rights-based, community-centred, non-custodial alternatives to detention(ATD) emerge as a viable and necessary response. The case for ATD is firmly grounded in international and regional human rights law. The right to liberty is enshrined in the International Cove­nant on Civil and Political Rights(Article 9), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights(Article 9), the European Convention on Human Rights(Article 5) and the EU Char ­ter of Fundamental Rights(Article 6), establishing that de ­tention must be lawful, necessary, proportionate and not arbitrary, and that it should always be a measure of last resort. The UNHCR’s Detention Guidelines establish that detention should normally be avoided and that states must consider alternatives to detention first 23 . The prohibi­tion of child immigration detention has been established with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the UN Committee on the Protection of Migrant Workers 24 , recognising a“fundamental right” to“freedom from immi­gration detention”. They further stipulate that the last re­sort principle does not apply to children in immigration proceedings 25 . While the trajectory described above resulting in the ex­pansion of detention is deeply concerning, the EU Pact also leaves room to develop and implement rights-based, com­16  https://idcoalition.org/publications/experiences-and-challenges-faced-by-migrant-women-affected-by-immigration-detention/ 17  Bermejo, R.(2025). The trail of Trump’s(anti-)immigration policies in Europe(ARI 39/2025). Real Instituto Elcano. https://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/en/analyses/the­trail-of-trumps-anti-immigration-policies-in-europe/ 18  https://picum.org/blog/european-parliament-endorses-far-right-backed-deportation-agenda/ 19  Peers, S.(2025). The Council of the EU’s position on the Return Proposal: Trump-inspired approaches dominate. EU Law Analysis. https://eulawanalysis.blogspot. com/2025/12/the-council-of-eus-position-on-return.html 20  Stumpf, J. P.(2006). The crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and sovereign power. American University Law Review, 56(2), 367–419. https://digitalcommons.wcl.amer­ican.edu/aulr/vol56/iss2/3/ 21  Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.(2010). Resolution 1707: Detention of asylum seekers and irregular migrants in Europe. https://assembly.coe.int/nw/ xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-EN.asp?fileid=17813&lang=en 22  PICUM.(2025). Criminalisation of migration and solidarity in the EU: 2024 report. https://picum.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Criminalisation-of-migration-and-soli­darity-in-the-EU-2024-report.pdf 23  United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.(2012). Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention of Asylum-Seekers and Alternatives to Detention. https://www.refworld.org/policy/legalguidance/unhcr/2012/87776 24  https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CMW%2FC%2FGC%2F4&Lang=en 25  https://docs.un.org/en/CRC/C/GC/23 Community-Based Alternatives to Immigration Detention 3