Fortress Europe or Shared Responsibility?

Migration is one of the most divisive topics in Europe today. The public debate often swings between fear and denial. But behind the noise lies a reality few politicians say out loud: Europe needs migration. Economically, socially, and morally.

We need both in Europe: legal pathways for workers and protection for those who flee violence, persecution or disaster. Today, neither system functions well. As a result, irregular migration fills the gap, creating frustration, and mistrust on all sides. The EU tried to answer this with the new Pact on Migration and Asylum, passed in June 2024. But the outcome is still far from what’s needed and many questions remain.

What’s missing is solidarity among member states, a functioning approach to resettlement and legal pathways that would allow for safer migration. Instead, what dominates is a logic of securitisation. Migration is framed as a threat, not a human reality.

THE NEW EU MIGRATION PACT

The EU Migration Pact includes faster asylum procedures, tougher border screenings, more returns, and flexible mechanisms for solidarity. Countries can pay into a fund instead of hosting asylum seekers. But there is no obligation for any country to take a specific number, a key demand especially from countries at the EU’s external borders. Without binding quotas or proper redistribution, the risk remains that countries like Italy and Greece continue to carry a disproportionate burden, while others contribute little as free-riders. Civil society organisations warn that instead of easing pressure on frontline states, the EU Migration Pact may increase human rights violations at the EU’s borders and shift responsibility to already overburdened countries outside of Europe.

The process to get to this agreement took seven years. Political fights in EU institutions, conflicting interests of member states and the legal complexity delayed the process again and again. While the outcome is legally binding after the two years implementation period by June 2026, its future remains uncertain. Several far-right parties have vowed to dismantle the EU Migration Pact, and even governments that supported it, like the Netherlands, have threatened to opt out of key elements.

The real question is not whether the rules are good, but whether they will be implemented. Past efforts failed not because of laws and regulations, but because of politics and the lack of political will.

THE NUMBERS IN THE EU

In 2024, around 900,000 people applied for asylum in the EU, a slight decrease from 2023, but still relatively close to the record numbers of 2015 and 2016. Germany received 25% of all applications, followed by Spain with 18% and Italy with 17%. At the same time, 13 of 27 EU countries received fewer than 5,000 applications. Almost half of asylum-seekers, 438,000 received protection, Syria (148,000), Venezuela (73,000) and Afghanistan (72,000) topped the list of countries of origin. Still, recognition rates vary widely across Europe.

That imbalance is one of the core challenges. Countries at the edge of Europe that are the country of entry, namely Greece and Italy, often feel abandoned. It is Germany, however, which receives a disproportionate number of asylum applications not because it is a country of arrival, but because people are moving onwards and the EU, despite its best attempts, has no working system to fairly redistribute responsibility or ensure that frontline states can offer adequate protection.

IMPROVING THE CURRENT SYSTEM

Europe has tried to reduce irregular migration by shifting responsibility elsewhere. One approach has been the outsourcing of asylum procedures. Italy’s deal with Albania, and the previously proposed and later abandoned UK plan with Rwanda, are examples of this strategy. These models aim to externalise asylum processing by sending people to third countries. But they raise serious legal and ethical concerns, and it remains unclear whether they are sustainable or compatible with European values.

In parallel, the European Commission now promotes what it calls “Team Europe” migration agreements. These go further than outsourcing. They are broader political deals that combine development aid, trade cooperation, and visa facilitation in exchange for commitments on border control and returns. The logic is to create partnerships but the risk is that aid becomes a tool of containment rather than solidarity.

WIDER ETHICAL QUESTIONS

Let’s take a step back and ask: Who gets protection and who decides? The 1951 Refugee Convention, often called the Geneva Convention, still sets the legal definition of a refugee, but it leaves many questions open. It does not address climate displacement, does not say who is responsible and does not define how long protection should last. Since the end of the Cold War in particular, the European Court of Human Rights has tried to fill some of these gaps for the European continent, especially by strengthening the ban on refoulement (the forced return of people to danger) and improving procedural standards. But in practice, decisions still vary widely across Europe.

It is also important to separate the refugee route from the labour migration route. At present, many people take the refugee path simply because no legal alternatives exist. The journey is dangerous and often traumatic. The Mediterranean has become a graveyard: according to the IOM, around 32,000 migrants have died or disappeared trying to cross it since 2014. This is not just a number, but it is a deep human tragedy. And it must not continue.

A CRISIS OF POLITICS, NOT NUMBERS

The migration challenge is not about numbers. It is about political will and policy design. Fragility is rising worldwide: from war and repression to climate impacts and food insecurity. People will keep moving. Europe cannot stop this. But it can prepare.

Right now, young and often male individuals take the risk. That is not because they are more deserving, but because they are more able to survive the journey. Is that the system we want? Where only those who are fit and lucky can make it? There are more humane, orderly alternatives. But they require foresight and investment.

THE IMPORTANCE OF RESETTLEMENT

Resettlement is one of the three “durable solutions” promoted by UNHCR. But it remains underused globally and in Europe in particular. In 2024, only 13,800 refugees were resettled to the EU. Germany led with 5,700, followed by France and Italy. This is far below what is needed. UNHCR estimates that over 2.4 million people require resettlement. In 2023, only 160,000 were resettled globally. That is just 7% of the need and EU countries only contributed 0.6%.

Migration expert Gerald Knaus argues that legal pathways are not about generosity. They are about making migration safer and more predictable. Without them, irregular migration will continue to dominate, fuelling chaos and inhumanity at Europe’s borders.

The EU Migration Pact includes a fourth pillar focused on legal pathways such as resettlement, humanitarian admission and sponsorships. But the plans are still vague and there is little attention on it. The European Commission is expected to make a proposal by mid-2026 but political backing from member states is weak. And yet, it is exactly resettlement that could bring back order into asylum policy. If the EU and its member states were to plan ahead, they could agree in advance how many refugees to take in and do so in a structured and fair way.

This is not just about numbers but about predictability and solidarity. A generous commitment could be made. The EU could commit to, e.g. resettling 450,000 refugees to the EU each year, which would correspond to as little as 0.1% of the overall population of the EU, with countries taking in people based on agreed quotas. Those countries that do not participate would need to support financially or technically. That could be a fair compromise. It also happens to be pretty much the same number of people who received protection in the EU in 2024, as discussed above, but without the need for perilous journeys. Resettlement in conjunction with UNHCR would allow for the same outcome with more dignity, safety and preparation.

ALLOWING FOR LEGAL MIGRATION

Next to the protection route, Europe needs to have clear pathways for migrants, those who want to work in Europe but have currently no legal ways to do so. One solution that could be promising is currently under development, the so-called EU Talent Pool. First introduced for Ukrainian refugees after the Russian military invasion of Ukraine in 2022, it is now discussed in the EU to be extended to other countries and could get passed legislatively by the summer of 2025 as a global instrument. This system would allow people to apply for jobs from their home countries. If done well, it could include language training and orientation in advance and allow for more orderly migration as skills are matched. To some degree, the EU would follow the successful Canadian model, although less ambitious and coherent because of the voluntary nature of member state’s participation. Still, it could offer benefits to all sides.

This becomes particularly relevant because many people applying for asylum today in the EU are not primarily seeking protection. Citizens from countries like Morocco or Bangladesh often come to Europe asking for asylum not because they are persecuted, but because they are looking for work. As legal migration pathways remain closed or dysfunctional, many resort to the asylum system, even if they have little or no chance of being recognised. That creates pressure on the system, undermines its credibility and pushes people into irregularity.

A functioning legal migration system would not solve everything, but it would take pressure off the asylum system, get the attention to those in need and offer real alternatives. More importantly, it would respect the dignity and aspirations of those who seek to contribute, and not escape.

The IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL INCLUSION

Getting asylum is only the start. What happens next is what shapes success or failure. Fast asylum procedures matter. So do language classes, civic orientation, housing and access to work. Refugees need to be included in communities. Faith-based actors and local initiatives play a key role to get to know each other, have the exchange on the human level. Schools, sports clubs and volunteer groups are often more effective than national governments.

Many refugees come from places where schools were bombed or closed. Some arrive without being able to read or write. That does not make them less worthy. But it does require support. There also needs to be a path to citizenship. Clarity, transparency and fairness are key. And people need to know their rights and their responsibilities.

A HUMANE WAY FORWARD

Migration has always shaped Europe. It is not new and it will not stop. The challenge is to respond in a way that reflects our values and shows a sense of direction. A more humane approach would mean investing in legal routes, strengthening resettlement, offering work permits and supporting integration. It would also require solidarity among EU member states in distributing refugees and giving more support to those countries that take in more people.

This is not a call for open borders, but for rules that actually work – not only for governments but for those seeking protection. While migration is a very complex issue, it ultimately comes down to whether we see people as threats or as future neighbours. Europe is at a turning point and migration should not be left to right-wing populists. The choice is not between chaos and control, but between fear and fairness. This choice will shape what kind of Europe we want to live in.