This chapter explores how humanitarian values influenced the broadening of the personal scope of asylum and compassionate grounds relate to protection grounds, such as refugee status and subsidiary protection. In the last couple of decades, a number of states have introduced the possibility of granting residence permits to non-nationals with a reference to humanitarian or compassionate reasons. These categories are generally not considered to have received ‘asylum’, but receive leave to remain or temporary residence permits. It is frequently claimed that humanitarian status is significantly different than refugee status and even so-called subsidiary protection and that its legal and conceptual basis is different. The phenomenon of admitting, or refraining from returning, persons crossing an international border because it would be contrary to humanitarian values is, however, not new and what are currently considered as compassionate, or humanitarian, grounds for admission or non-expulsion have throughout times been considered grounds for asylum or protection.

The chapter contains an overview of the main strands of philosophy and schools of thought that have influenced contemporary immigration policies, including the perception of a duty to admit persons who are in a vulnerable situation. Are there moral obligations that would qualify a state’s absolute sovereignty in deciding who should be admitted? Humanitarianism, as a norm, but also as an ideology in itself, has increasingly become a recognized part of state policies domestically as well as in foreign policy. Theories relating to assistance to those in need in foreign lands, including medical humanitarianism, have merged with domestic policy goals. The norm that often competes with humanitarianism is that of the national interests of states in terms of maintaining political and economic stability of their countries and concerns in regard to foreign policy.

The humanitarian argument, although it has proven to be very steadfast, is ultimately discretionary and therefore not guided by the qualities associated with the rule of law, such as accountability and transparency. The practice of inhibiting returns or allowing persons to remain on humanitarian grounds starting with ad hoc amnesties and regularization programmes has evolved in many countries into individual assessments of needs based on pre-determined criteria. The case law of the Strasbourg Court has contributed the to harmonization of the criteria of some of the categories previously receiving humanitarian protection through an inclusive interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This chapter discusses whether the current protection mechanisms are sufficient or whether a tertiary protection status should be considered.

The increase in the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees in the world over the last couple of years has created an unprecedented battle between values and pragmatism, between humanitarianism and immigration control. The dichotomy between states’ interests and individuals’ rights has never been more striking. It has shown that the humanitarian aspect of immigration control goes beyond rhetoric, it can even put states’ legitimacy and self-image at stake. But, also the values of its constituents became a matter for self-scrutiny; what values do we want to possess and exhibit as human beings and do our states represent those values?

Categories traditionally accorded residence permits on humanitarian grounds are medical cases, unaccompanied children, persons with ties to a country, such as family or long-term residence. The chapter discusses whether these categories are entitled to human rights or humanitarian protection.

During the summer of 2015, Europe faced an unimaginable situation. UNHCR had earlier in the year reported that the number of displaced persons of concern to the organization had reached unprecedented levels with close to 60 million forcibly displaced persons globally, of whom 20 million were refugees and 2 million asylum seekers. The massive displacement remained, however, abstract to most people in the West, even though fundraising campaigns were organized in support of the millions in encampments in the countries surrounding Syria, and horror images were shown on television of the atrocities committed by the black-hooded men of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

This chapter examines categories that are not traditionally considered as vulnerable because there is a recognized protection need, but residence permits on humanitarian grounds become a practical solution where there is not clarity about the type of permits they are entitled to. The chapter examimes the humanitarian and the rights-based justifications to grant residence permits to these categories.