Subcommittee on Human Rights Ordinary meeting
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
DROI European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 5
The rapid increase in size also raises questions about the insufficient training of the staff. The situation in Minnesota has de-escalated. Nevertheless, the consequences are still noticeable in the spot, as well as in the US Congress. Democratic leaders have called for the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to be removed. A partial government shutdown is underway as federal funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE and Customs and Border Protection operations, expired on January 31.
However, both ICE and CBP are funded throughout the year by the tax bill adopted last July, and so are not affected by the shutdown. Lawmakers are now increasingly demanding new constraints on immigration enforcement, more oversight of DHS, and accountability from the administration when abuses of power happen. Democrats especially have insisted that federal agents wear body cameras and not wear masks, get judicial warrants before raiding people's homes, stop raids on sensitive sites such as churches and schools, and adhere to a new code of conduct similar to state and local police before they can agree to new funding for the Department of Homeland Security. Importantly, in the election year, the US public approval of Donald Trump's immigration policy fell to the lowest level since his return to the White House. Am I amid signs he's losing support among American men on the issue, according to a Reuters Ipsos poll published last week?
Just 38% of respondents in the poll said that Trump was doing a good job on immigration, a priority issue for the administration. The rating was down from 39% in a January poll and as high as 50% in the month shortly after Trump returned to power. Immigration enforcement will remain important for the political development in the United States, but also for the policy choices here in Europe. So, I'm therefore looking forward to today's exchange, and I want to thank again the chair of the DRA committee for this opportunity.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Brando, for those introductory comments. I'd like to hand the floor straight away to Mrs. Parker, who is online. You have the floor for 10 minutes.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Human Rights Watch appreciates this subcommittee's attention to the situation of immigration crackdowns in the United States and the risks that these pose to human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. What we are witnessing in the United States is not a separate trend from what the Trump administration is doing in its foreign policy. Internationally, the Trump administration is redefining human rights as conditional rather than universal, attacking international accountability mechanisms, prioritizing coercive military power over problem-solving, and embedding racialized narratives into migration and security policy. At home, here in the United States, those same dynamics are mirrored in the hollowing out of civil rights enforcement, the recasting of advocacy groups as security threats, the deployment of military force in US cities, the targeting of migrants and voters of color, and the expansion of executive power at the expense of institutional guardrails.
A United States that emboldens rights abuses at home will continue to embolden them abroad, including through its allies and partners. Human rights backsliding is not just an internal domestic issue. It is a structural challenge to the transatlantic human rights system itself. European countries should also be fully aware of the risks that their own nationals face, particularly persons of color, when traveling, studying, living, and working in the United States under the current conditions that I'll outline for you today. As has already been noted, during the first two weeks of 2026, the world watched in horror as federal agents in Minneapolis shot and killed two American citizens, Renee Goode and Alex Preti, who were observing immigration enforcement operations in their community.
But let us be clear: the Minnesota killings are part of a broader pattern of immigration officers' use of excessive violence and often military-grade weapons during enforcement operations. In Minneapolis, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, and many more communities across the US, federal immigration enforcement agents swarm individuals, break car windows and front doors, snatch children, hurt people, and operate masked without visible identification. This is part of a national campaign of terror. These operations rely in large part on arresting and detaining people on the basis of their perceived race, ethnicity, or national origin. While there is a legal challenge ongoing, the US Supreme Court has allowed law enforcement to continue using ethnicity and perceived national origin as factors to justify arrest.
Some immigration enforcement actions are accompanied by National Guard deployments. In Los Angeles and Chicago, law enforcement responses violated free speech and assembly rights and involved excessive, and in many cases, entirely unwarranted use of force. The integration of National Guard troops into these operations raises concerns for Human Rights Watch and many others across the United States that these tactics could be used during elections to chill other political rights, including the fundamental right to vote. As a result of these abusive tactics, the number of people skyrocketed to 70,000 by January 2026, which is the highest number in ICE's 23-year history as an agency. 70,000 people are locked up in immigration detention centers in the United States.
Detention conditions are inhumane. At Chrome in Florida, which is an ICE detention center that we investigated, people were held shackled for prolonged periods on buses without food, water, or functioning toilets. Women were sometimes held in a male-only facility without access to showers or medical care. During one incident, officers made men eat while shackled with their hands behind their backs. One said we had to bend over and eat off the chairs with our mouths like dogs.
Human Rights Watch has spoken with several European nationals who have endured these conditions nationwide, including, for example, a French citizen and a British citizen whom we interviewed in Florida. Dangerously substandard medical care in ICE detention facilities is nothing new. Since January 2025, access to medical care has worsened. In Florida, we identified detained people with diabetes, HIV, asthma, and other chronic conditions who were denied essential medications. The Trump administration has also completely undermined the international standard of providing asylum and protecting people from being deported to dangerous situations.
The administration's closure of the southern border, the firings of immigration judges, its seeking of third-country asylum agreements with unsafe countries, as well as its denial of due process for detained and nondetained immigrants, are only some of the obstacles that asylum seekers face. The administration has also worked to terminate temporary protected status designations for Afghanistan, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, South Sudan, and Venezuela, which threatens the legal status of thousands of people who cannot safely return to their countries of origin. At times, the US judiciary has correctly asserted the rule of law over these excesses. For example, a federal district court ordered the release of a 5-year-old boy who had been detained with his father in Minnesota. However, the administration has completely ignored, discredited, and defied legal precedent and court rulings.
For example, in what constituted enforced disappearance, the administration used the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law previously only invoked in the context of wars, to expel 252 Venezuelan immigrants to a notorious maximum-security prison in El Salvador, where these people were subjected to torture and inhuman and degrading conditions. The US has also transferred third-country nationals to other countries, including Costa Rica, Panama, Ghana, Mexico, South Sudan, Eswatini, Rwanda, and Cameroon. This has happened under bilateral agreements that lack transparency and have included over $32 million in payoffs to some of the recipient countries. These transfers have been challenged in court, and we await final rulings. The US's rights-violative actions have included retaliation against perceived political enemies, expanded coercive powers of the executive, and neutered democratic checks and balances in the United States.
The cumulative effects of all of this underpin a decided slide toward authoritarianism in the United States of America. We urge the European Parliament to continue paying attention and to organize more exchanges like this one. The European Commission, the EU's external service, as well as the Council and member states, should give significant attention to the rule of law decline in the United States and its international implications. Human Rights Watch calls on all EU institutions to speak out about the rights violations happening now in the US, the rising political violence, and the explicit attacks on the right to vote, other civil and political rights, as well as attacks on democratic processes and institutions. We encourage EU member states to track their nationals arrested and detained by ICE.
Ensure that consular officials are trained to protect European nationals. Please catalog complaints of abuse, including physical violence during arrests and inhumane treatment in ICE detention. Please exercise oversight and end contracts between DHS, ICE, CBP, and European companies. Such European firms often work on physical security, data, digital infrastructure, and surveillance. We urge you to support international and independent rule of law initiatives inside the US, including the important work of the UN human rights mechanisms.
Please protect human rights defenders inside the US and local monitors who are working hard to document abuses. Please provide them with resources and diplomatic support. And finally, we urge you to stand ready to act if or when anti-rights policies reach a level of gravity that requires international action, including the use of the EU's human rights sanction regime on officials involved in serious human rights abuses. Thank you very much for this opportunity. I look forward to your questions.
Yes.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Mrs. Parker, for taking the time to be with us. But please stay connected, because there will be an exchange of views, so we'll look forward to your responses. I'd now like to hand the floor to Mr. Castro. You also have 10 minutes.
Speaker 6
Thank you, dear members. Thanks for the invitation. I will, following the title of this item in the agenda, try to cover three elements in my short introduction: the importance of upholding human rights in external action, our relationship in this regard with the United States, and, more concretely, to end the situation with ICE and migration. And to begin with, we as diplomats, but also you as politicians, say that we live in a dangerous and shifting world. We speak of disorder, and we underline, of course, always the importance of a rules-based international order, of international relations rather than norms, of international law, and of the UN Charter.
And I would like to say that this is not an abstract discussion. This is not about diplomatic jargon or neutral principles. What lies behind norms and rules are values. And this is therefore about who we are, about what we stand for, and about our freedoms. And I think today is fair enough to quote one of the US founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, who calls those self-evident truths that I think we can never take for granted: that we are all created equal, that we are endowed with inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And this is all to say that the point of departure for me and for all of us is, of course, Article 21 of the Treaty, which explicitly requires that the Union's external action be guided by the principles that have inspired its own creation. And you know them better than I do. Democracy, rule of law, universality and indivisibility of human rights, respect for human dignity, equality, solidarity, principles of the UN Charter, and International Law. Therefore, for the European Union and for our diplomacy, the universal respect of human rights applies to everyone, everywhere. Our diplomatic engagement, including in particular through our human rights dialogues, through our consultations, but also beyond with non-EU countries, is therefore an essential part of how we advance this agenda.
In 2024, we held 35 human rights dialogues, including with countries with whom we have more like-minded visions of human rights and with those we often disagree. We conduct these dialogues to lead to follow-up actions, joint initiatives, exchanges, and activities to implement the EU human rights policy. And, of course, we are also guided by the recent Council conclusions on the priorities of human rights in multilateral fora. And this brings me to the United States, which is a long-established democracy and a key partner of the European Union, which has participated decisively in developing the international legal framework on human rights. Our relationship is built on shared democratic institutions, constitutional government, the rule of law, and fundamental freedoms.
And, of course, strong constitutional checks and balances, an active civil society with protected human rights defenders, and a free and pluralistic media environment with courts and oversight mechanisms serving as central avenues for redress remain essential for the US democratic system. As part of our bilateral engagement, the European Union has held regular consultations with the US on human rights, the last one in 2024. And, of course, there are issues where we do not see eye to eye, for example, on freedom of expression, a shared cornerstone of US and European democracy, but where our legal traditions reflect different histories and, therefore, different constitutional balances; also, our approach to the International Criminal Court, the death penalty, or the practice of limiting foreign assistance based on issues such as gender or reproductive health. And we will continue to engage with the US as an indispensable partner in an honest and open way on issues of cooperation and disagreement, and this is what partners do. For instance, our EU Special Representative for Human Rights will travel to Washington, DC, next week as part of this regular engagement and relationship.
And needless to say, this is also an issue that is part of the EU-US Justice and Home Affairs ministerial framework to address our priorities and dialogue in terms of migration, security, and the fight against organized crime. We will, therefore, continue to cooperate and seek the support of the US in upholding democracy and human rights around the world. And this leads me to the point on ICE and migration and recent developments in Minneapolis, where I can only reiterate what Commissioner Cadi said in the European Parliament plenary debate less than 2 weeks ago: that we deplore the loss of life, and that we express our deepest condolences to the families of Renee Goode and Mr. Alex Priti. We trust that the US judicial system and law enforcement will take all the necessary actions to ensure that justice is served and that human rights and the rule of law are respected. And I want to note, in this regard, that the US Department of Justice has opened a civil rights investigation into the fatal shooting of Mr. Alex Priti by federal immigration agents, as announced by the US Deputy Attorney General on January 30.
And on the topic of migration more broadly, it has been said that we must all acknowledge that migration governance is complex, but also that human dignity is not conditional. Every sovereign state has the right to control its borders and enforce its immigration laws. The European Union itself grapples daily with the challenges of managing migration in a humane and orderly manner, but sovereignty does not absolve any state, neither European nor non-European, from compliance with international human rights obligations. The European Union advocates, and will continue to advocate, a human rights-based approach that focuses on people in vulnerable situations, including migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, and stateless persons, in line with human rights obligations under international law and standards through our existing policy and legislative frameworks. And finally, just stating the obvious, as a diplomat, I can only say that if we expect our partners to meet higher standards wherever we look on the map, we must continue improving our practices, our own self-scrutiny, and accountability.
And I want to mention, for instance, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights and its 2025 fundamental rights report, which draws particular attention to migration and asylum at the EU's external borders as an area of concern where challenges continue to raise fundamental rights issues. The credibility of the European Union, and I finish, in human rights advocacy depends, therefore, on constant effort, self-scrutiny, and alignment between our words and our actions. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 8
Thank you for what you've just told us. This debate is fully warranted for a simple reason. We have traditionally admired American democracy greatly. That's why we are so terribly disappointed with what happened under the current circumstances. Alex de Tocqueville, one of the greatest European philosophers, went to the US in 1832 and said, "I came to the US to look at the future of Europe."
He wanted to predict the future of a democratic Europe, expecting that Europe would become democratic in the wake of what happened in the US. We hope that somebody visiting the US today won't try to predict the future of Europe in the same fashion because America is becoming autocratic. The US is still a democracy, institutionally speaking. It has a strong civil society, which raises its voice. It has a strong press and strong media.
There is clearly freedom of expression. That's still in place. And most of civil society in various sectors, the universities, and the world of the arts have said that they are dead set against what's happening. That is worth emphasizing. But the situation is serious.
This means that a democracy can backpedal. That's one of the major lessons we can draw from everything that is ongoing in the US. There is a tangible risk of democratic backsliding. Now, this gives us food for thought. This could happen here in Europe.
We should find ourselves wondering if this is not already happening in certain European countries. This is a disturbing thought. What's happening in the US means we should give further thought to the crisis being undergone by democracy here. I'm looking at the US currently, and I also think we should look at what's going on in our own backyards.
Thank you.
Speaker 11
You, Mister Mathieu Vallee. For the Patriots. Thank you, Chair. Well, what I would like to say is that we're importing tensions and drama from third countries. Now, I was born in France, and we are looking at our situation there.
Speaker 9
Now don't forget, Tocqueville talked about what he said about America, that it was an excellent model for democracy. And we've got to take things in a balanced way. Now, ICE has 20,000 federal agents, and they're not just fighting against irregular immigration voted on and approved by the American Congress, but they also fight human trafficking and drug smuggling. So, it's a very complex, layered issue. So, I wouldn't like to simplify this regarding the use of arms.
Now, if the American Justice Department will certainly clarify this, I think that there have been independent studies carried out on this. We're very much attached to this, and we have got to forget that; we have got a very good ally in the United States. We don't talk about Syria. We don't talk about Turkey or Iran when we're talking about the flouting of human rights. And often, these situations are instrumentalized in order to take to task a certain institution, and ICE this time.
And this federal agency was set up with a certain task. Now, obviously, we need to have clarification over these incidents, and we've got to also see what the politicians do. But I think that we've got to do more than just distribute. We've not just got to assign black marks, but also good marks. We've got to take it into work.
Speaker 10
We've got to have a balanced view. And we've got to try to push for improvements, but I think we've got to encourage people to improve rather than just demolish them. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
Speaker 13
Thank you very much, Chair. I just want to say that our debate is somewhat one-sided, and we're not looking at the broader context in which Donald Trump's administration sits. Now, in Mexico, there is virtually a civil war going on. And under pressure from the narcotics cartels, there's all this pressure. And for decades, they have been putting pressure on America.
They terrorize their own citizens, and they also export terrorism and violence linked to drugs. Now, in the first instance, what Trump's administration wants to do is to arrest these people who are connected to the cartels and to deport them. However, obviously, this is politically inspired as well. You've got these protests, which have been well organized by Sharish's Open Society. And there is also propaganda flowing from other political parties, which tries to undermine anything that the Trump administration does.
And I'd like to refer to other things concerning ICE. The Democratic governor of Minnesota called ICE today's Gestapo. Now, we in Poland knew what the Gestapo was when it murdered millions of people in my country and elsewhere in Europe. And no one talks about the Gestapo or any relics of the Gestapo being in the European Parliament. We also heard from the mayor that ICE is terrorizing its citizens.
Speaker 14
Now, we are not children. We shouldn't be naive. And we ought to also be aware that some of these issues are part of political campaigns, and let's not use them as part of that campaign. Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 16
You. I would ask you to forgive me. I have just joined rather late because I was involved in the preparations for the meeting next month between the Russian opposition and the European Parliament, which is a very important subject, obviously. So, just joining now, let me tell you off the cuff what I think. Now, it's true that ICE was created as a public digital institution.
Speaker 15
But over the last year, its budget has been increased far too much. And completely untrained bad actors are being recruited. And ICE has basically turned into a militia, which is working in the service of a political trend, actually within the Republican party. And if you look at the situation of what's been happening since the judgment of the Supreme Court last Friday, it's perfectly clear, and all you have to do is look at the American press to realize this. But it's perfectly clear that President Trump is entering a weaker phase, and he is not man enough to relinquish some of this power, which he considers to be absolutely his.
He's obviously worried about losing the elections. Now, you know, the polls aren't 100% reliable, but he's certainly not going to relinquish power. And he's creating tension; he's a master at this. And within this atmosphere, ICE will be an instrument and continue to be an instrument at the service of his administration, where he wants to hold on to power. He'll invoke emergency powers, and this is what he tried to do last time when he tried to organize a coup. So there's absolutely no reason for him not to try the same coup this time.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Chair. Myself and many colleagues in this European Parliament have used our position as members of Parliament to uphold and promote human rights internationally. And in doing so, we've been critical of many governments from Azerbaijan to the Philippines, Nigeria, Cambodia, Guinea Bissau, Pakistan, Indonesia, Israel, Tanzania, Haiti, Thailand, and Colombia, and I would be here all afternoon if I kept naming them all. So why would we ever choose to be silent about the United States of America just because they are a partner of ours? That would have been hypocritical.
Why would I have ever chosen to be silent about the inhumane detention conditions, the deportations without due process, the detention of children as young as five years old like Liam Ramos, and about the crackdown on protesters, including mass arrests and the use of force against demonstrators who were just exercising their rights to peaceful assembly? What would have kept me from speaking out the names of Renee Goode and Alex Preti, shot and killed by ICE agents during protests? And while we're at it, the names of Luis Caceres, Geraldo Campos, Victor Diaz, and many others who have died in detention in ICE facilities. The criminalization and dehumanization of both migrants and protesters in the United States is absolutely horrifying, and I'm very glad that this European Parliament is taking a stance on it today by holding this meeting. And so, I'd like to turn to our speakers. First of all, Miss Parker, thank you so much for your brilliant and brave presentation.
We have seen that in many places, like Minneapolis. Thousands of people have taken to the streets, and many others are also working behind the scenes to protect their immigrant neighbors. You mentioned the need to support human rights defenders in the US. How do you see the EU doing that? How can we cooperate with those fighting for rights in the US?
And you also mentioned the human rights sanctions regime that might one day be adequate to use against those high-ranking officials in the US. When do you foresee such a thing being a necessary measure? And quickly to Mister Castro, thank you for reminding us of the words of Thomas Jefferson: the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We are reminded of it. I hope the American friends are reminded of it as well.
Speaker 19
Can you maybe expand a little bit on what you said about how our two nations view freedom of expression very differently? Thank you.
Speaker 20
A lot of people are not aware, but we do have ICE. It's called Frontex. It's a structure that makes migrants their target. This European coast and border guard tramples on the most basic human rights. They pursue vessels at sea.
They fire at these vessels. They finance countries known for undermining human rights, and many shipwrecks and deaths are the result of the fear of many vessels. They are afraid that Frontex will stop them and return them to Libya, Egypt, or Tunisia, where the people on board can be thrown in jail, enslaved, or slaughtered. The US is terrorizing its population. When we're talking about poor people and black people, people do not deem this to be terrorism.
Frontex and ICE receive a hell of a lot of dough, billions over the past few years. They are not held accountable when it comes to trampling on people's rights. It acts like a private company. In the US, there seem to be police on every corner, racially profiling people just because they are black, criminalizing people because they are black. There is indeed a right to asylum on paper, but the new EU deportation regulations allow things like what Meloni did in Albania.
Trump is trucking out on a clear course. Thirty people were slain by ICE last year. Thousands of people were locked up. These are the scapegoats of an extreme right campaign. Millionaires and the friends of Epstein are still getting off scot-free and continuing to do what they do.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. Would you like to take the floor? No? Well, as you hadn't yet spoken, you had the priorities.
So I've got 8 speakers on my list now. We have a little bit of time left, and you will all be able to speak as long as, of course, you respect the speaking time. I'll give you a minute. Well, maybe with a couple of seconds' margin, so please respect the time. Let's start with the socialists.
You'll be able to speak, but who is going to start? Go ahead.
In a few minutes.
Speaker 23
I'll be talking to Mr. Palaio. Next. Indispensable partners, checks, and balances, they say, but nothing is shifting. We're talking about inertia. This is an appeasement policy.
Speaker 24
Trump is being treated as something temporary, but he will not be. But what is really concerning here is the sigh of relief people gave in Davos, Switzerland. Because Trump has said, "Look, I won't invade Greenland." The people gave a sigh of relief, but nobody is expecting anything from Costa, Carlos, or Oslo von der Leyen. Meloni and Marco Sanchez are seen as references, and the Prime Minister of Canada is better representing European citizens than our very leaders in Brussels.
That's the upshot of a policy of appeasement. If we don't do anything about this, we will not be lending an ear as we should to European citizens, and they will not want to listen to us.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Who else would like the floor? We'll try and alternate. We'll try and switch between groups. Missus Hassan, did you want the floor?
Go ahead.
Yes, the floor is mine.
Yes.
Speaker 22
Okay, thank you. No, thank you so much to the speakers. And I think this is a really important opportunity to have an exchange of views also on what is going on in the U. S. When it comes to upholding human rights,
Basically, I just have two questions for Alison Parker from Human Rights Watch. One is her view on exactly the first question on the U. S. Upholding human rights in its external dimensions and external relations, if she has anything to add on the external policies in developing countries, for instance, how that is developing, and how the EU could be instrumental in upholding human rights there, where we partner a lot with the U.S. S.
On development cooperation. And also, a question on how the situation is to work as an NGO with these kinds of increasing pressures on those who have criticism towards the government. Are you feeling that you can express yourself freely? So, that was a question to Alison Parker. Thank you.
Thank you.
Speaker 25
You. I don't know which one. Madam Gomez, Lopez, or Rivelli? Thank you, Chair. We're here to talk about crimes committed by ICE in the United States and the total absence of response from the European Union.
Speaker 26
Now we're not casting the stone at you personally, but we've got to be aware of this. Now let me just list some of the things that they've done. They have seized parents on their way to the crèche. They've seized people in the streets. They've shot people at point-blank range, like in Minneapolis, and it's good in Alex Preti and Rachel Good.
Speaker 25
And then there are these huge detention centers in these industrial zones. So you've got what the director of Rice has called Amazon Prime, but with criminals. And there has not been one single response, one single tweet even, or press communique that condemns these actions. So, to go back to what Goethe said, to recall some of the most somber moments of our history, I just recall the words of the lady from Human Rights Watch who just said, "Well, we could have sanctions against the people working for ICE." At least, we could prevent any of them from coming into the European Union.
I mean, there were some people who were present at the Olympics, and they should be prevented from entering the European Union. So this lack of action from the European Union shows how Mrs. Vonderlein is absolutely enthralled by the Americans. Mister Maelstrom, you've asked for the floor. And as your group has not yet spoken when we did the round of coordinators, if you go a little bit above one minute, I won't hold it against you. Go ahead.
Thanks.
Speaker 27
Sir. I'm a political refugee. I got asylum in Germany, and I'm dismayed at how the European Parliament is treating the fate of us refugees to feed into the political agenda of right-wing parties and right-wing lobby groups. It starts with the choice of speakers. Alice Parker, where does she come from?
Speaker 29
She has no democratic legitimacy. She represents an NGO. She was not voted for. I've quickly looked her up. This NGO gets $100,000,000 from the Open Society Foundation under Soros.
Speaker 27
Why is the European Parliament platforming these people? There was an official policy under the Biden administration regarding illegal migration. People were legalized, but that is in the past. The new US security strategy says that the time of illegal migration has passed, and the US is entitled to make its own decisions. It has a democratically elected government.
So this lobbyist claimed that there was a human right to migration. That's arrogant nonsense. There is no human right to migration. Yes. We'd all like to toddle off to Miami and have a nice apartment there, but we are not entitled to that.
The US is fully entitled to protect its borders. They are fully entitled to set up an institution like ICE to stop illegal migration out of the country, and that's precisely what they're doing. The implementation of the law has meant, regrettably, that some people have lost their lives. Comments off mic from the chair. No microphone for the chair.
Please.
Have.
Speaker 27
Do I get a bit more speaking time? Please draw your conclusions. I'll round it off. This is the epitome of hypocrisy, moaning about what's happening in the US. Charlie wasn't entitled to a minute of silence.
What's that all about?
Okay. So.
Speaker 2
You're not a member of this committee, and you're not used to our working methods, but there's something I do not tolerate: our speakers being attacked. And we did not appreciate your comments regarding Mrs. Parker. No. I'm not going to give you the floor.
You were addressing me. My criticism, well, I wasn't attacking our guest speaker. I wanted to set that straight. Off mic from the chair. I'm criticizing your choice of invitee.
Speaker 30
Comment still off mic from the chair. The chair's microphone is not working. Can.
Speaker 31
Someone, switch it on or off? Thank you, Chair. I think that your microphone...
Speaker 32
I think your microphone wasn't quite working there. That's what I heard in my ear. Just bear in mind that the chair's microphone wasn't working. That aside, thank you for giving me the floor. First and foremost, to be honest, I wanted to address Ms.
Parker, I'm intrigued to know what she thinks about an independent organization since you're from one. You only get private donations, and you've put your head over the parapet here because you are standing up for vulnerable people, children, boys and girls who are being arrested by ICE. I'd like to gauge your view on this god-awful situation. It's no coincidence that the US is the only UN country that has not signed up to the human rights and children's rights conventions. They are trampling on children's rights. They are arrested, and they are left forsaken.
They have no access to their parents. Migration policies can never justify stamping on the rights of children. You might be entitled to PC One Migration Policy, but there is still a right to dignity, health, and protection of children. This is part of a clear detention strategy. ICE is going to nurseries, kindergartens, and schools.
Children and babies are being denied breastfeeding. People and children are having breathing problems because of pet breeds. One girl took her own life because her colleagues at ICE threatened to detain her parents. The US is clearly not a country to live in for children, and I'd like Miss Parker's view on this.
Thank you.
You, Mr. Takinho.
Thanks.
Speaker 33
Chair. I'll keep it brief. Look at where we started this debate. The U.S. S.
Being a reflection of the future, that's very worrying. We need to let this sink in. I don't think, as things stand, Frontex is equivalent to two ICE, but we're certainly barking up the wrong tree here. We're heading in the wrong direction. If we take our cue from ice, then people will go to so-called safe third countries such as Nicaragua.
Speaker 34
And what would be the consequence of that? That's very unfortunate. We think we're in a safer position now, but soon we will be mired in misery and suffering. That's where we might be heading.
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you very much. I think everybody has had an opportunity to express their views. Nobody else is asking for the floor. So, I would like to hand the floor now to the members of the panel so they can respond to and reply to the points.
Mrs. Parker.
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I do appreciate the comments and questions posed by the members. I'll do my very best to respond to each of them, and my apologies if I forget anything that was posed. One member did ask about ways for the EU to support human rights defenders and civil society in the United States. Of course, I appreciate this question. It's essential.
My first response to this important question is simply to please always speak out and speak up when the kinds of abuses that we have witnessed recently in Minneapolis occur. Also, I would urge the members and everyone in Europe to correctly characterize the activities of civil society in the United States. For example, we have seen a dangerous distraction being promoted in the press and in other quarters between people who are exercising their right to free speech, to free and peaceful assembly, and criminality. This is ludicrous. This is inappropriate, and we must hold firm to these fundamental rights.
At the same time, several members have pointed to the courageous actions of civil society in places like Minnesota. My own organization, Human Rights Watch, and my colleagues investigated that situation for many weeks. What we determined is that, in many cases, there are neighbors helping neighbors. We have people giving rides to children so they can attend school because their parents are too frightened to drive them. We have people standing quietly in the cold winter air, simply observing what is happening with ICE agents and their neighbors.
These are not people in these cases, not that there would be anything wrong with that, but these are not people who are protesting or exercising their freedom of speech. They are simply helping their neighbors. So I do urge the members to speak with accuracy about what people are doing in the United States and why it's important, including when people are assembling and exercising their right to free speech. I also think, regarding the members' question about what could be done further to help human rights activists and civil society in the US, it's really no different from what the EU does all over the world in supporting human rights defenders and activists. One thing, and it's probably a semantic point to say, as EU members, is to look at how to lend support to the United States. Often, the United States does not call its human rights vendors "human rights vendors."
So remember to look at civil rights defenders, immigration legal practitioners, and those who protect the rights of children. We have different ways of talking about this work, but it's all about human needs work in the United States. And all of these digital and legal activities.
Speaker 35
There is a problem with your Internet connection, so we can't actually hear you. The sound is very broken up.
Speaker 1
French is not good enough to understand what the chair has said, and the translation is not coming through in English.
Speaker 2
Can you hear the interpretation now, Mrs. Parker? The chair was just saying that there is a problem with your Internet connection. Well, we can't hear you. Well, there is a problem with your internet connection. So, I shall take the floor away from you for the time being.
I'll ask Mr. Castro will take the floor, and perhaps we can solve your Internet connection problem in the meantime. Then, we can get back to you.
Speaker 6
And let me thank you and this committee for organizing this debate and for all the contributions. I will just make three points. The first one is on what I said about principles, their applicability, and validity, and how, for the European Union, we must respect human rights for everyone, everywhere, starting with ourselves, continuing with our partners, and applying them to everyone, including, of course, the United States. And secondly, regarding migration, as I said earlier, no matter how difficult the management of migration is and its governance for everybody in keeping with our sovereignty, human dignity is not conditional for anybody. And I think those two principles are important, and I said them very clearly in my opening.
I was asked about the issue of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, and the differences in approach or tradition. Let me explain this very directly because freedom of expression and speech is, of course, paramount in both systems but in different ways. The US First Amendment, if I can put it like that, offers very far-reaching protection to speech. By contrast, in European law, including Article 10 of the European Convention and Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, our freedom of expression, which is paramount, is reinforced and balanced with responsibilities to protect the rights of others and democratic pluralism. And that is not a coincidence.
It's because of our legal and democratic history, and how our democracies were built. And I think that is absolutely respectable. And maybe finally, Chair, taking this opportunity of being in the European Parliament. And, of course, we, in the EAS and in the European Union, will continue to do our work through all the relevant channels, public and private as well. But I would like to encourage and underline the importance of parliamentary diplomacy, including on these issues, because this has been a debate, let's say, among ourselves, among members of the European Parliament.
But I think the usefulness of this debate is to take it forward with members of the US House and Senate, using, of course, the transatlantic legislator dialogue and the US delegation, because I think that you, as politicians and representatives of the European citizens, can engage in ways that diplomats and officials can't. Take forward this dialogue and pull across how we, as Europeans, also work in terms of our self-scrutiny, in how we work in terms of accountability, and in how we do their reporting on the rule of law and the breaches of the rule of law. And I think engaging with the U.S. S. Congress on these issues would also be a very important way to take forward this debate. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Castro. Missus Parker, you are now connected, which will allow us to hear you properly.
Speaker 1
Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will attempt again to respond to some of the questions that were posed to me. Thank you, all the members, for your comments and questions. Some of the members asked about Human Rights Watch as a human rights organization, and about my own ability to speak freely and to do my work.
I will be truthful and say that civil society in the United States is under attack. We are feeling the pressure even in large human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch. The threats include a systematic attempt to use lawsuits, tax laws, and other forms of pressure on those organizations that may be exercising their right to investigate, document, and speak freely in ways that the current administration does not agree with. This is, of course, very problematic. There is also a tendency now, I've noticed, to basically refrain from speaking out publicly, as I'm doing here today, to show one's face publicly in association with the work that one is doing because of fear that, while it may not be the administration itself that is engaged in attacks, the atmosphere in the United States is normalizing a kind of vigilantism against some people.
And this is a major concern when we need the rule of law and freedom of speech to ensure that fundamental human rights are protected. I appreciate the members' mention of the fundamental rights of children, which are under attack in the current administration. The regime of ICE enforcement, as the member correctly noted, is harming children. Families are continuing to be separated, although the means are different from what they were under the first Trump administration. And this is a serious problem for children's human rights.
Children are also being detained by ICE, which is, again, another problem for children's human rights. And, as the member rightly mentioned, in ICE detention, conditions are not appropriate for children, especially for children who may still be breastfeeding, and there have been instances when breastfeeding infants have been separated from their mothers. I think it's important to conclude by explaining that this trajectory we're seeing in the United States, with a slide towards authoritarianism and attacks on fundamental human rights, requires the EU and this committee, for which I am extremely grateful, to continue to pay attention to these issues in the US. I would urge that there be additional similar sessions before the summer recess. I will conclude my comments here.
Thank you so much for the opportunity to address this subcommittee.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. We have had an exchange of views on what is happening in the United States. We started that today in today's debate, and I hope we can continue it. But there seems to be a bit of a dual measure, a double yardstick here. When Mr. Trump seemed to want to take over Greenland by force, there was a majority position to complain about his stance and denounce what he was doing.
Obviously, there are various issues. I mean, ICE, if this was something happening in another country, we wouldn't have shirked from criticizing it. So, obviously, we have to listen carefully to what's happening and talk about it so that we know what is happening and see what kind of consequences it could have. And the capacities of that country are not the same as those of others. Just before this debate, we were talking about the ICC and penalties against European judges.
So, obviously, what we see from the United States is not simple at all. And I hope we can pick this up over the coming weeks. So, for the concluding remarks, I shall hand the floor to Mr. Benny Fay. I'm not going to get it; it's not about the debate.
Speaker 9
It's about me; I'm a coordinator. It's about the way this is working. The MEPs who come from other committees obviously have to respect the rules of the way we work. So, you're right. And when it comes to the NGO representative, yes, she is funded by private funds.
They carry out these missions with funds. And when it comes to bans or that kind of thing, well, obviously, I don't know whether she may share similar views with the socialists and the Greens, but I would encourage what the commissioner said. Although I am the chair of the committee, I said that we have a debate and respect different people's comments and positions. And I obviously respect you as an intellectual. Well, yes.
Speaker 2
We have to be able to debate everything in the committee with mutual respect. Obviously, we have been elected. We have different ideas and different opinions that we may not agree with, but we have to preserve what is at the heart of democracy and try to convince others of our opinions. Mister Beneffe?
Speaker 5
I'd like to, first of all, thank again the draft subcommittee for this opportunity. I think it's interesting to maintain this dialogue. So maybe it could be a good idea to replicate this a bit later on because we are so close to the United States for various reasons that we cannot avoid looking into these kinds of situations when they deal with potential degradation of human rights at scale. I think it's something that we cannot avoid looking at and debating. And I agree that parliamentary diplomacy is crucial because I found, myself leading many missions to the US in this last year, a lot of diversity of opinions and also attention from various angles of US society to these kinds of ongoing processes, including the changes, politicization, and weaponization.
Speaker 2
And thank you very much to you. We have had an exchange of views on what is happening in the United States. We started that today in the debate. And I hope we can continue this. But there seems to be a bit of a dual measure, a double yardstick here.
Speaker 5
We could discuss a lot about the migration policies. So, I will be back as chair of the US, with other colleagues and the leadership of the delegation, in March for a visit to Congress. And so, I'm sure that, together with other crucial issues like those we discussed today in the special plenary on Ukraine. Also, the topic of today: what is the situation with the protection of fundamental rights in the US and the situation with ICE? I think it will be an important piece of the discussion with the colleagues when we are back in Washington. And so, thank you for this opportunity, and let's keep the dialogue open.
Speaker 2
When Mr. Trump seemed to want to attack Greenland by force. There was a majority position to complain about his position and denounce what he was doing.
Obviously, there are various issues. I mean, ICE, if this was something happening in another country, we wouldn't have shirked from criticizing it. So, we have to listen carefully to what's happening and talk about it so that we know what is happening and see what kind of consequences it could have. And the capacities of that country are not the same as those of others.
Speaker 5
I think it's important for us, but also for our American friends. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2
Just before this debate, we were talking about the ICC and penalties against European judges. So, obviously, what we see from the United States is not simple at all, and I hope we can pick this up over the coming weeks.
Before.
Speaker 3
I close the meeting. I'd just like to remind the members of our subcommittee that the next meeting will take place in March 2026. And, between now and then, have a lovely time. I'm quite sure we'll bump into each other somewhere. Have a pleasant evening.
Speaker 10
So, for the concluding remarks, I shall hand the floor to Mr. Benny Fay. I'm not going to get it; it's not about the debate. It's about me; I'm a coordinator. It's about the way this is working.
Speaker 9
The MEPs, who come from other committees, obviously have to respect the rules of the way we work. So, you're right. And, when it comes to the NGO representative, yes, she is funded by private funds. They carry out these missions with funds. And when it comes to bans or that kind of thing, well, obviously, I don't know whether she may share similar views with the socialists and the Greens, but I would encourage what the commissioner said.
Speaker 2
I, as the chair of the committee, said that we have a debate to respect different people's comments and positions. And I obviously respect you as an intellectual. Well, yes. We have to be able to debate everything in the committee with mutual respect. Obviously, we have been elected.
We have different ideas and different opinions. We may not agree, but we have to preserve what is at the heart of democracy and try to convince others of our opinions.
Speaker 5
Mr. Beneffy, I'd like to first of all thank the DRA subcommittee again for this opportunity. I think it's interesting to maintain this dialogue. So, maybe it could be a good idea to replicate this a bit later on because we are so close to the United States. For various reasons, we cannot avoid looking into these kinds of situations when they deal with potential degradation of human rights at scale. I think it's something that we cannot avoid debating about.
And I agree that parliamentary diplomacy is crucial because I found many missions to the US in the last year. There is a lot of diversity of opinions and attention from various angles of US society regarding these ongoing processes, including the changes, politicization, and weaponization of migration policies.
So I will be back as chair of the US with other colleagues, with the leadership of the delegation, in March for a visit to Congress. And so, I'm sure that together with other crucial issues, like today we discussed in a special plenary on Ukraine, also the topic of today: what is the situation with fundamental rights in the EU? S. And the situation with ICE, I think it will be an important piece of the discussion with the colleagues when we are back in Washington.
And so, thank you for this opportunity, and let's keep the dialogue open. I think it's important for us, but also for our American friends. Thank you very much.
Speaker 3
Before I close the meeting, I'd just like to remind the members of our subcommittee that the next meeting will take place in March 2026. And between now and then, have a lovely time. I'm quite sure we will bump into each other somewhere. Have a pleasant evening.
Speaker 37
At. Nine to five Google: we cover all things Google, Android, and Gemini, plus some fun stuff in between. If you love what we do and want to take things a step further, check out our channel membership, where our members get some pretty nice perks like exclusive wallpaper packs.
We just released the June 30th report. Which I think looks great, but there's a decent backlog as well if you want to see what we've released in the previous months. Check it out for yourself.
We would certainly love to have you.
Speaker 38
And getting right into it, let's take a look at the Pebblebee 500. Feet or 152 meters, for our friends who use the arguably inferior metric system. System, which I'm just kidding about, by the way. While the smaller tags have a range of 300 feet or 91 meters, both of the Chipolos top out at 100 feet or 30 meters.
Probably the biggest difference between the two, at least to me, is the ability to recharge the LB tracker. I think I talked about this a lot earlier, but the Chipolo battery cannot be replaced on the card, although their clip can be replaced. And, of course, the entire Pebblebee lineup can be charged either with USB-C or a magnetic charger.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.