For years, Brussels has repeated the same promise: Europe needs a deep reform of its migration policy. The 2015 crisis exposed a system incapable of managing large inflows, and since then, pressure on the EU’s external borders has continued to grow.
The new Pact on Migration and Asylum was born precisely with that declared ambition: to reorganize the system, strengthen control, and distribute responsibilities more effectively among Member States.
However, when one looks at the actual content of the reform and, above all, its practical implications, the impression is quite different. The pact introduces administrative changes, redefines certain procedures, and reorganizes some responsibilities, but the foundations of the model remain largely untouched.
In many respects, rather than a genuine transformation, the result resembles an old political formula: changing the narrative so that the system continues functioning exactly as before. Gatopardism.
Controls that should have existed from the beginning
One of the points Brussels presents as progress is the introduction of faster border procedures. In theory, these will make it easier to determine who has the right to apply for asylum and who should be returned.
The idea sounds reasonable. The problem is that this kind of control does not represent a radical innovation. In reality, these are measures that many governments have been demanding for years and that should have been part of the system from the beginning.
For too long, Europe has operated with a model in which thousands of people entered EU territory and remained there for long periods in a kind of administrative limbo.
Slow procedures, endless appeals and an overwhelmed system meant that many expulsion decisions were simply never carried out.
The new pact tries to speed up that machinery. But accelerating a system does not necessarily mean making it work better.
The main problem: returns
One of the weakest points of European migration policy remains the real capacity to return those who have no right to remain on the continent.
In theory, the system provides for expulsions. In practice, a large proportion of them never materialize. Returns almost always depend on the cooperation of countries of origin or transit. And that cooperation does not always arrive.
Official European statistics have shown the same pattern for years: a significant share of return orders is never executed. The result is a growing number of people who remain in Europe with an unresolved legal status.
The pact promises faster procedures. But it cannot force third countries to accept the return of their nationals. That is a political decision, and very often also a diplomatic one.
And even when there is political will, there is another obstacle: judges who have been ideologized for years to block any reform, as has been the case in Belgium or Italy.
External borders under constant pressure
Spain’s case illustrates the tensions within the system particularly well. The Atlantic route towards the Canary Islands has become one of the main entry points into Europe. In recent years, the number of arrivals has increased significantly, pushing the archipelago’s reception capacity to its limits.
Images of overcrowded centres or improvised camps have become a recurring scene. Each new wave of arrivals forces emergency solutions and reopens the debate over how migrants should be distributed within the country.
This outlet recently published a must-watch documentary on this issue to understand the hidden reality of the islands.
Beyond the technical details, the pact avoids addressing the real problem: what migration model Europe actually wants.
The reforms focus on procedures, burden-sharing mechanisms and administrative improvements. But the debate about the scale of immigration, its social impact or its long-term integration remains uncomfortable for many institutions.