The global asylum system, originally established to protect the most vulnerable populations fleeing persecution, has in recent decades been increasingly entangled in geopolitical agendas and ideological activism. At the center of this controversy are certain non-governmental organizations (NGOs), which—under the banner of humanitarianism—have become instrumental in promoting a model of open-border advocacy that, critics argue, distorts the core principles of international protection. Far from merely assisting the displaced, some NGOs have been accused of advancing a veiled political agenda, often in alignment with funding sources in Brussels and Washington, while operating under the permissive gaze of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
This article seeks to examine how the politicization and instrumentalization of asylum by certain NGOs has led to the erosion of the legitimacy of international protection frameworks, the fueling of xenophobic backlash, and the degradation of humanitarian ethics in migration governance.
NGOs and the transformation of asylum into a political tool
The post-World War II international protection regime—anchored in the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol—was designed to offer sanctuary to those fleeing war, persecution, and grave human rights violations. However, in the 21st century, the lines between refugee, asylum seeker, and migrant have increasingly blurred, particularly in public discourse. NGOs have played a central role in this shift.
Organizations operating in migration hotspots such as the Aegean, the Central Mediterranean, and the Balkan route have extended their missions beyond humanitarian assistance. Many now openly advocate for policy changes, engage in political lobbying, and frame migration as a universal right rather than a conditional legal status (Sunderland, 2021; Fassin, 2011). Critics argue that this expansion has allowed some NGOs to assume quasi-political roles, using legal activism and strategic litigation to challenge state sovereignty and migration controls.
Moreover, funding structures further complicate the picture. NGOs often receive grants from the European Union, U.S. development agencies, and private foundations with explicit ideological leanings. As migration researcher Lorenzo Vidino notes, “the financial dependency on Western liberal institutions encourages alignment with a pro-mobility narrative that may not necessarily reflect the legal or humanitarian realities on the ground” (Vidino, 2019).
The evolution of NGOs into such influential actors did not occur overnight. In the post–Cold War era, especially following the 1990s Balkan conflicts and the Rwandan genocide, the international community increasingly outsourced humanitarian responsibilities to non-state actors (Barnett, 2005). This delegation expanded further after 9/11, when state capacities were redirected to counterterrorism, leaving NGOs to fill governance gaps in crisis zones (Weiss, 2013). As their operational scope widened, so did their influence—often blurring the line between service delivery and policy shaping. What began as neutral humanitarianism gradually evolved into activism by proxy.
UNHCR and the erosion of oversight
The UNHCR, as the custodian of the asylum regime, bears significant responsibility for overseeing the practices of actors involved in refugee protection. However, there has been growing concern that the agency’s oversight has been weakened by its own entanglements with NGOs and donor politics.
While UNHCR continues to provide essential support in refugee camps and emergency zones, its relationship with NGOs in Europe and North America sometimes resembles a partnership of convenience. This has led to insufficient scrutiny of NGO practices, particularly when they involve controversial activities such as intercepting migrants at sea or facilitating irregular crossings (Moreno-Lax, 2018).
This symbiotic relationship between UNHCR and operational NGOs, though often pragmatic, can lead to a dilution of accountability. In practice, memoranda of understanding and joint programming agreements sometimes insulate NGOs from rigorous performance evaluation. Field operations become governed by mutual interest—expedited outcomes and donor satisfaction—rather than strict compliance with protection mandates. As legal scholar Cathryn Costello observes, “institutional interdependence between UN bodies and NGOs may prioritize operational continuity over legal fidelity” (Costello, 2016). This dynamic makes it harder to address abuses or mission drift, especially in politically sensitive environments where UNHCR seeks to avoid jeopardizing the cooperation of host states or the continuity of donor funding.
Alexander Betts, on the other hand, warns that this permissiveness risks delegitimizing the international protection regime itself: “When NGOs act as both service providers and political actors without effective oversight, they risk undermining the principles of impartiality and neutrality essential to the refugee system” (Betts, 2015).
A notable example includes operations off the coast of Libya, where NGO vessels—such as those run by SOS Méditerranée or Sea-Watch—have repeatedly clashed with EU and local authorities. Although these NGOs claim to rescue migrants in distress, critics allege that such operations may act as a “pull factor,” encouraging more crossings and inadvertently sustaining the smuggling economy (Cusumano & Villa, 2021). Investigations by Italian prosecutors, particularly in the Iuventa case involving Jugend Rettet, have suggested informal communication between some NGO crews and traffickers, though legal proceedings have struggled due to jurisdictional complexity and the sensitive political climate (Gatti, 2017; Tondo, 2018). While courts have not confirmed deliberate collaboration, the suspicion alone has had a chilling effect on humanitarian maritime missions and intensified the policy divide across the EU.
Instrumentalization of asylum and the rise of polarization
One of the most damaging consequences of the politicization of asylum by NGOs is the creation of a climate of polarization in host societies. In countries such as Greece, Italy, and Germany—nations with deep-rooted traditions of hospitality and migration—the overextension of asylum frameworks has provoked sharp public reactions.
The use of legal loopholes and expansive interpretations of refugee law has, in many cases, led to perceptions of abuse. Asylum is increasingly viewed not as a protective mechanism for the persecuted but as a backdoor route for economic migrants. This perception, fueled by media coverage and political rhetoric, has in turn triggered a surge in anti-immigrant sentiment and xenophobic backlash (Dennison & Geddes, 2019).
This erosion of public trust is not confined to electoral politics but has deeply impacted integration policies on the ground. In many European municipalities, public frustration with non-transparent or poorly communicated asylum procedures and perceived abuses of the system has created grassroots resistance to refugee settlement programs. This resistance, often portrayed as xenophobic, is in fact frequently rooted in concerns about fairness, social cohesion, and the long-term sustainability of welfare services (Collier, 2013). In areas struggling with unemployment and limited public resources, the sudden influx of asylum seekers—coupled with media portrayals of bureaucratic mismanagement—has made it more difficult for even genuine refugees to secure housing, employment, and community acceptance (Betts & Collier, 2017).
Rather than merely being a top-down phenomenon driven by so-called populist or far-right parties, this backlash often reflects broader public discontent that cuts across political lines. While some political actors may amplify these concerns for electoral gain, they also give voice to sentiments that many ordinary citizens view as common sense rather than extremism (Goodwin, 2021). When mainstream institutions fail to address legitimate worries—such as the lack of distinction between refugees and economic migrants—it opens the door to reactive, and sometimes harsh, policy shifts (Dennison & Geddes, 2019). In this sense, the polarization around asylum is not simply the product of political opportunism but a reaction to years of perceived overreach and a vacuum of credible, pragmatic governance.
Victimhood undermined: The human cost of activist overreach
Perhaps the most tragic irony in this dynamic is that the very people NGOs claim to help—the truly persecuted—are often those most harmed by the discrediting of the asylum system. When broad categories of migrants are granted de facto asylum or humanitarian residency based on loose criteria, it dilutes the legitimacy of claims by those who meet the stringent requirements under the 1951 Convention.
Real-world consequences of this dilution can be seen in cases like the Syrian Yazidi refugees, many of whom have faced prolonged asylum delays or outright exclusion in Europe despite clear evidence of genocidal persecution. Their legitimate claims are sometimes lost amid mass influxes that prioritize volume over vulnerability. Meanwhile, NGOs focused more on border advocacy than casework triage often lack the tools or incentives to give priority to the most vulnerable. As political scientist Ruud Koopmans (2020) notes, “systems overwhelmed by poorly filtered asylum applications inevitably function less fairly, disadvantaging those with the strongest protection needs.”
For instance, individuals fleeing genocide, state-sponsored violence, or religious persecution now find themselves lumped together with economic migrants, trafficked persons, and even opportunistic actors exploiting humanitarian loopholes. The result is a form of bureaucratic chaos that overwhelms asylum systems and forces governments to adopt restrictive measures.
As sociologist Didier Fassin (2011) has written, “The moral economy of asylum is being undermined by a politicization that does not distinguish between the need for protection and the aspiration for migration.” This erosion, in turn, has led to longer wait times and more rejections—punishing the most vulnerable rather than protecting them.
Toward a reaffirmation of principled humanitarianism
The NGO sector is not monolithic, and it would be unjust to cast all organizations in the same light. Many continue to perform essential, lifesaving work under difficult and dangerous conditions. However, the critique here is not about humanitarianism per se, but about the misuse of humanitarian platforms for political agendas that, while ideologically motivated, risk undermining the very foundations of the asylum regime. To restore integrity to the international protection system, it is crucial to establish a clearer distinction between NGOs that focus on service provision and those engaged primarily in political activism. Strengthening oversight by the UNHCR to ensure that field operations adhere strictly to legal definitions and protections of refugee law is also essential.
Additionally, funding mechanisms must become more transparent to minimize political influence over humanitarian missions. Ultimately, the focus should be recalibrated toward safeguarding the rights and needs of those genuinely persecuted, rather than broadening asylum frameworks in ways that politicize and dilute their original purpose.
Disclaimer
This article reflects the personal views of the writer and in no way expresses the official policy and administrative practices of the Hellenic State, Greek Authorities and EUAA.
References
- Barnett, M. (2005). Humanitarianism transformed. Perspectives on Politics, 3(4), 723–740.
- Betts, A. (2015). The global refugee regime in crisis. Foreign Affairs.
- Betts, A., & Collier, P. (2017). Refuge: Transforming a broken refugee system. Penguin.
- Carrera, S., & Guild, E. (2017). An EU ‘Safe Harbour’? The NGO search and rescue dilemma. CEPS Policy Insights.
- Collier, P. (2013). Exodus: How migration is changing our world. Oxford University Press.
- Costello, C. (2016). The human rights of migrants and refugees in European law. Oxford University Press.
- Cusumano, E., & Villa, M. (2021). Sea rescue NGOs: A pull factor of irregular migration? European University Institute.
- Dennison, J., & Geddes, A. (2019). A rising tide? The salience of immigration and the rise of anti-immigration parties in Western Europe. The Political Quarterly.
- Fassin, D. (2011). Humanitarian reason: A moral history of the present. University of California Press.
- Gatti, F. (2017). The NGO smuggling scandal. L’Espresso.
- Goodwin, M. (2021). Values, voice and virtue: The new British politics. Penguin.
- Koopmans, R. (2020). Immigration and the decline of the welfare state. Oxford University Press.
- Moreno-Lax, V. (2018). The EU humanitarian border and the securitization of human rights: The “rescue-through-interdiction/rescue-without-protection” paradigm. Journal of Common Market Studies.
- Sunderland, J. (2021). The myth of the NGO “pull factor”. Human Rights Watch.
- Tondo, L. (2018). Crew of migrant rescue ship to face trial in Italy. The Guardian.
- Vidino, L. (2019). Funding European NGOs: An analysis of influence and dependency. Center for International Security.
- Weiss, T. G. (2013). Humanitarian business. Polity Press.
* Marios Kaleas is General Director of the Greek Asylum Service and Deputy Chair of the Management Board of the European Agency for Asylum (EUAA).