After the mass crossing into Ceuta in July 2026, thousands of migrants remain in the enclave. This Q&A explains who can be returned to Morocco, how "hot returns" work under Spanish law and why many people cannot be sent back immediately.
In late July 2026, an estimated 70,000-80,000 people, mainly young men, crossed from Morocco into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta within a matter of days, many swam and others entered through the land border. At least 100 deaths were confirmed, mostly from drowning. The crossing turned into one of the deadliest migration incidents in the region in recent years. According to Spanish authorities, most of those who entered were returned to Morocco within days, with many returns described as "voluntary".
A minority, however, remain in Ceuta, which has a population of around 84,000. They remain stranded because Spanish authorities must go through a specific process and first identify them, assess any asylum or protection claims, and, where there is no right to remain, follow ordinary return procedures that are slower and more legally constrained than the "hot return" regime. Overcrowded reception centers, limited housing and slow processing have left thousands living on beaches or in makeshift camps while awaiting decisions.
Read AlsoMorocco: Migrants caught between Ceuta dreams and reality
How many people remain in Ceuta?
Estimates range from 3,500 to 5,000 or up to 10,000, depending on the source and date. This group includes some sub‑Saharan Africans who refuse to go back, as well as hundreds of unaccompanied minors who enjoy special protection from deportation under Spanish and EU law.
Thousands of children and teenagers remain stranded in Ceuta, and girls report fears of sexual violence | Photo: Jan-Philipp Scholz/DW
Of these, 2,168 unaccompanied minors were recorded by Spain’s Interior Ministry as of August 18, while Ceuta’s own child‑protection services reported taking 1,385 into their care on the same date. NGOs and volunteer groups, however, estimate that the number of minors could be as high as 4,000-4,860, suggesting that many children remain unidentified or outside formal shelters. A defensible headline figure is therefore that thousands remain in Ceuta, including roughly 2,000-4,000 unaccompanied children, depending on whether official registration data or NGO estimates are used.
Read AlsoCeuta: Most arrivals have left, what happens to the child migrants who remain?
Where are the children from?
Most reporting describes the children as being predominantly Moroccan, with significant numbers also from Algeria, Tunisia and sub‑Saharan African countries, though precise nationality breakdowns for minors are not consistently published in the immediate crisis coverage.
Read AlsoUnaccompanied minors at risk of sexual assault in Ceuta
Can they be returned and how?
Spanish law distinguishes sharply between categories, which determines whether and how returns can happen:
- Adults who entered irregularly and do not request asylum
Under Spain's immigration law (Organic Law 4/2000), which governs the rights, freedoms and social integration of foreign nationals in Spain, people who attempt to enter illegally can be subject to a simplified return procedure, rather than a full expulsion file. This requires an administrative decision by the government delegate or sub‑delegate, and the person must be offered legal assistance, an interpreter and the right to appeal. If the return cannot be completed within 72 hours and detention is planned, a judge must authorize it.
- People who request asylum
Once someone formalizes an asylum application, they cannot be returned, expelled or removed while the application, or its admissibility, is being decided. Irregular entry itself is not sanctionable when the person meets conditions for international protection, but asylum is not a guarantee of stay: if the claim is inadmissible or rejected and no other residence title exists, return procedures may follow.
- Unaccompanied minors
Minors must be placed under child‑protection services; their stay is considered regular while under public guardianship. Spain may initiate repatriation, but only after investigating the family situation, assessing the best interests of the child, and ensuring individualized consideration, meaning they cannot be treated as a homogeneous group.
However, in practice, Ceuta's system is overwhelmed. The ordinary hosting capacity is 29 places, yet shelters are now holding around 1,350-1,385 children, prompting Madrid to plan transfers of around 500 minors to the mainland.
- Signs of trafficking or special vulnerability
Returns must be suspended where there are indications of trafficking, serious illness, pregnancy risks, or other vulnerability, triggering specific identification and protection mechanisms.
What are 'hot returns'?
"Hot return" or devoluciones en caliente in Spanish is a political and media term, not a standalone legal category. It refers to the Spanish practice of physically handing back to Moroccan authorities any person apprehended at the border demarcation on Spanish soil in the Ceuta or Melilla border zone, without the required procedure for formal removal, which must include identification, assessment of asylum grounds and vulnerability, and the right to legal representation, among other requirements.
Although the practice resembles pushbacks, "hot returns" are permitted in limited circumstances under Spanish law. Spain’s constitutional court has held these border rejections are compatible with the constitution only when applied under strict legal conditions and with respect for fundamental rights.
People are typically returned through the same route they entered, e.g., the border fence they climbed, or through a gate directly to Moroccan Auxiliary Forces. In Spanish law, the wording used is rechazo en frontera, meaning "border rejection" under the tenth additional provision of Organic Law 4/2000, and is applicable only in the enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla.
Read AlsoCeuta leader demands quick assembly of deportation facilities after July events
When is border rejection lawful?
Border rejection can be applied only when all three conditions are met:
- the person is detected at the border line of Ceuta or Melilla;
- they are attempting to enter irregularly;
- and they are trying to overcome material border containment elements, such as fences.
If these conditions are satisfied, security forces can reject the person immediately, without opening an ordinary expulsion file, but must still respect human rights and international protection obligations.
Read AlsoMorocco: Families search for those missing after attempting to swim to Ceuta
What the Supreme Court changed (June/July 2026)
In Judgment 814/2026, the Supreme Court ruled that border rejection cannot apply to people intercepted at sea (for example, swimming or by boat) because the sea, cameras, drones or patrols are not "border containment elements". As a result, those intercepted at sea must go through the ordinary return procedure under Article 58.3 of the Organic Law. This includes identification at a police station, legal assistance, interpreter, possibility to claim asylum, and an administrative resolution.
Those who climb or breach the fence can still be subject to border rejection, provided individual safeguards (asylum, vulnerability checks) are respected. "Hot returns" are therefore not automatically legal for everyone who arrives; their legality depends on how and where the person is intercepted and whether protection claims or vulnerabilities are present.
Read AlsoUnderstanding Ceuta: A contested borderland in Europe’s African enclave
Why did so many people cross into the enclave?
Reporting points to a mix of structural pressures and perceived opportunity. Economic hardship and limited prospects in Morocco and neighbouring countries mean many young people spend years waiting for a chance to cross. A Supreme Court ruling in late June or early July 2026 clarified that maritime "hot returns" are illegal, a development widely interpreted on social media as “"he border is open". Closed WhatsApp groups, hashtags and posts then circulated messages such as "go to Spain, you will get papers, housing or Europe", alongside logistics and route advice.
Initially, Spanish and Moroccan authorities pointed to trafficking networks, but within hours, focus shifted to social media disinformation as a key driver. Morocco says it warned Spain after the Supreme Court ruling about the risk of a crisis; Spain and the EU have emphasized criminal networks and false promises online. This combination -- structural pressures plus a perceived legal opening amplified online -- helps explain the scale and speed of the crossings.
Read AlsoSocial media's role in the Ceuta crossings: From viral videos to deadly waters
How could similar situations be managed in future?
EU interior ministers have called for tougher action against smuggling networks, stronger returns policies and closer cooperation with non‑EU countries to curb irregular migration and prevent a repeat. The European Commission has proposed strengthening borders, increasing support for Morocco and improving early‑warning systems, while outlining five priorities: preventing irregular migration, reinforcing external borders, early warning, dismantling smuggling networks and boosting returns.
On the information side, the EU has treated online disinformation as a border‑management issue. Under the Digital Services Act, major platforms must assess and mitigate systemic risks to public security, including misinformation that could trigger dangerous movements of people. After Ceuta, the EU enlisted Meta and TikTok to combat "false promises" by criminal networks, activating crisis protocols and faster cooperation with fact‑checkers to flag and remove harmful content. Frontex and Europol are also monitoring social‑media rumors to detect potential new mass crossings earlier.
Physical and operational measures have been reinforced as well. Spain has installed additional barriers and buoys at sea off Ceuta, with similar plans for Melilla, to create the "material containment elements" that can lawfully support border‑rejection procedures. At the same time, human‑rights organizations and some EU actors stress that any future response must preserve access to asylum, individual assessment of vulnerabilities and protection for unaccompanied minors, rather than relying on blanket pushbacks.
The emerging model appears to be a mix of earlier intelligence and social‑media monitoring, tighter but rights‑compliant border controls, stronger cooperation with Morocco and other origin countries, and faster, more coordinated returns where there is no right to remain.
Read AlsoCeuta: A test of the EU’s new migration strategy and its internal solidarity