The abandoned garden of European migration policy

"They're climbing again," shouted politicians, pushing algorithms, and even the neighbor from the adjacent entrance sighed. The crossing of approximately 72,000 people, who entered the territory of the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in North Africa for a few days, once again fully ignited the ring of fire of anti-migration sentiments.

For notorious shouters, footage of crowded beaches became an imaginary whip for the Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, Brussels, and all "welcomers." U.S. President Donald Trump described the situation as an invasion. His statement echoed words of former top European diplomat Josep Borrell from a few years ago. On the occasion of opening the European Diplomatic Academy, he told aspiring eurocrats a parable about Europe as a picturesque garden that needs caring for. A garden that, while flourishing with freedom, prosperity, and social cohesion, hides a jungle beyond the horizon, trying to penetrate into "our" paradise.

Although the situation at the Moroccan-Spanish border lasted only a few days, it starkly highlighted the unflattering state of European migration and foreign policy. The Union is not facing an alleged invasion, but its policy has been persistently decaying for several years.

Invitation via TikTok

In the first six months of this year, the Frontex agency recorded 49,000 attempts to cross European borders, representing a 37-percent decrease compared to the same period last year. So how can we explain the events at the end of July?

Currently, it is still impossible to identify a single driver of the mass crossing. Many critics of Sánchez point fingers at – from their perspective – Spain's lax migration policy. The Prime Minister's cabinet introduced an ordinance in April aimed at legalizing the status of irregular migrants who already live and work in the country – but without the necessary documentation. Nearly one million people applied for temporary residence, significantly exceeding expectations. Applicants are now undergoing rigorous checks. The ordinance does not apply to those who entered the country after the end of 2025.

In connection with Ceuta, a certain role was probably played by a ruling of the Spanish Constitutional Court. It decided that persons detained by border patrol during a voyage in the Mediterranean Sea cannot be automatically, immediately, and without proper asylum procedures deported. This decision became the basis of a disinformation campaign that began spreading not only in Morocco but also in Algeria and Tunisia. Videos from anonymous TikTok and Instagram accounts promised open doors to Spain and the fulfillment of dreams to work and live in Europe. Groups on Facebook and WhatsApp emerged to organize logistics for crossing the borders.

The opacity of the situation from the beginning led to speculation about foreign influence or intelligence operations behind the scenes. However, there is still no evidence of involvement by third parties. Critics of the Spanish government for its stance on human rights and genocide in Palestine, or for its reluctance to cooperate with the United States in military escapades in the Middle East, saw Ceuta as a provocative material for own propaganda.

United in hatred

Slovak Chief of Staff, Minister of Defense Robert Kaliňák, blamed Brussels directly for the unprotected border, claiming that the situation was "not read" properly. However, intervention by Frontex without Spain's consent would be a gross violation of European treaties. Responsibility for the external border of the Union primarily lies with the member states themselves, which the EU Defense Minister should be well aware of.

Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, in her reaction, called for the temporary exclusion of Spain from the Schengen area. However, this form of punishment is not legally feasible. The only step that individual EU member governments can take is to temporarily introduce border controls at their own borders. Leaders of the far-right party Brothers of Italy have gradually been joined by officials from other countries. Despite this, Spanish territories beyond Gibraltar are not part of Schengen, and passport control was and remains a necessary condition for crossing from Ceuta into continental Europe.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also did not hold back criticism. His tough stance on migration is not only a way to differentiate himself from former German Chancellor Angela Merkel but also stems from the mistaken belief that he can slow the growth of radical political competition in Germany. The situation was quickly exploited by Alice Weidel of the far-right AfD, who without any evidence labeled Germany as a designated destination for tens of thousands of people from Ceuta.

Twenty-two European leaders sent an open letter to top EU officials. They appealed to the collective duty to strengthen the protection of the Union's external borders and to avoid policies that could "attract" people to Europe.

Unfortunately, the co-option of the far right does not end with rhetoric and open letters. The long-term acceptance of a mental framework of a clash of civilizations by the European political center has recently translated into concrete policies that are in stark contradiction not only with declared European values but also with basic humanity. The author modestly reminds that he warned about deepening cooperation with the far right at the European level already after the 2024 European Parliament elections.

A new majority

The aforementioned tendencies are also supported by several European documents. In June, the Migration and Asylum Pact came into force. It is a sad result of a decade-long inability to update European legislation to meet the needs of migration driven by war conflicts, climate change, and humanitarian crises. Despite some positive changes, the Pact introduced measures that, according to the human rights organization Human Rights Watch, expose people coming to Europe to serious risks.

The EU plans to maximize the number of asylum procedures conducted directly at borders, raising fears of a return to so-called hotspots, where asylum seekers live in inadequate conditions. Authorities can hold them there for more than a year. Member states also gained the right to further complicate or suspend the entire process in case of a "crisis caused by mass arrival." The legal definition of this term is vague, offering broad possibilities for (mis)interpretation. The rights of applicants are, on the other hand, limited, especially by the problematic legal fiction of non-entry. In practice, this means that although a person is physically present in a country, under the law, they are treated as if they had not yet entered.

The second key piece of European legislation is the Return Regulation. It was passed with a comfortable majority in the European Parliament, with not only far-right conservatives but also part of the liberal Renew Europe joining. This faction includes also Progressive Slovakia, and none of its MEPs voted against. However, public attention was mainly drawn to a media-highlighted video in which dozens of far-right representatives in the plenary chant: "Send them back."

But the regulation itself is much more serious than racist chants. Its goal is to create so-called return hubs. Until now, a person without documentation could only be deported to the country of which they are a citizen; to another country only with explicit consent. Under the new rules, a legally non-binding agreement between a member state and any third country will suffice for deportation. An unwanted person can thus find themselves in a place they have never set foot in, overnight.

The controversial regulation in many ways draws inspiration from Trump's brutal migration policies. Security forces are given broader powers to restrict personal freedoms for the purpose of identifying and detaining irregular migrants. Raids in homes and open violence on the streets may soon become common practice in Europe as well.           

Externalization of migration and the necessity of violence

Deportations, border processing of asylum claims, and return hubs are part of a broader agenda that seeks to externalize migration and asylum policies. Its fundamental premise is that problems associated with migration should primarily be addressed where we – white Europeans – do not see them.

The externalization process began as early as 2016, when the Union signed a readmission agreement with Turkey. In exchange for taking over more than three million asylum seekers, the EU paid Ankara nearly ten billion euros over ten years. Similar agreements were also concluded with other North African and Middle Eastern countries.

At first glance, it may seem like a pragmatic solution. If refugees do not reach Europe, the problem does not concern us. In reality, however, we are merely shifting responsibility to other states that lack the capacity to effectively manage the situation. The question remains how the Union plans to deal with the cognitive dissonance caused by externalization. It is hard to see itself as a moral exemplar in the world while simultaneously exposing millions of lives to direct danger as a bribe. Externalization of migration inevitably involves violence.

Third countries often cannot or do not want to provide adequate conditions for refugees and migrants. They thus become victims of forced labor, sexual violence, torture, or trafficking by local authorities or criminal groups. The absence of legal pathways to safety forces migrants to seek alternative routes. It is estimated that about a hundred people die trying to cross into Ceuta. Each year, several thousand lose their lives in the Mediterranean Sea in the Mediterranean.

The desire to keep migrants out of Europe also leads to securitization of migration flows. In international relations theory, securitization is when an actor redefines a political issue as an existential threat. Migration thus ceases to be a matter of human rights or economics and shifts into the realm of defense and security. The Union effectively relies on its neighbors to prevent people from crossing borders, even through force.

In the case of Ceuta, nothing indicates that the Moroccan government deliberately forced tens of thousands of people to cross. At the same time, it did not bother to prevent the situation from occurring. Ceuta experienced a similar crisis in 2021 when Moroccan border guards opened the passage again. The pretext for "punishing" Spain was a diplomatic dispute over Moroccan claims to Western Sahara. Similar situations have been observed in the Belarus-Poland or Turkey-Greece borders. There is a risk that if we label something as an existential threat, we will start considering measures that would otherwise be unacceptable – including shooting. People fleeing war, poverty, and hunger thus become mere pawns in a cynical geopolitical game.

Neighbors of the second category

Borders are not just barbed wire fences or customs officers with machine guns. Many people, even after being granted residence rights or temporary asylum, are continuously kept in uncertainty and tension. The legal status they obtain determines access to the labor market or social benefits. The European legal framework does not fully ensure equality among different population groups. Along with differences in national legislation, it creates a fragmented system where third-country nationals are considered less equal, and their rights depend directly on their status.

A separate category is the administrative labyrinth awaiting them when trying to extend their stay or reunify with family members. It often requires significant financial resources, a lot of documentation, and legal and often interpreter assistance in communication with local authorities. The most marginalized, who lost everything fleeing, face the threat of deportation for non-compliance with official demands.

The fight for a dignified life does not end with legalization of residence. Even if these people stay in Europe lawfully or even hold full citizenship, they and their descendants face ongoing societal othering by the majority. In housing, they are regularly subjected to direct discrimination. If a property owner does not like the person's skin color or name, they refuse them. The result is segregated communities leading parallel lives in work and society.

The anxiety associated with exclusion upon arriving in Europe is vividly illustrated by the documentary Love, Deutschmarks and Death. Director Cem Kaya, with melancholy and a certain dose of humor, maps the fates of Turkish workers, their children, and grandchildren in former West Germany, who through music cope with sadness about home, exclusion, and the rise of xenophobia.

More competencies are not enough

For at least the last ten years, we have been witnessing the failure of European migration and foreign policy. The dysfunctional asylum system, tens of thousands of deaths, and millions of people in designated communities on both sides of the Mediterranean cannot be solely attributed to a lack of solidarity from "bad member states." The aforementioned Migration and Asylum Pact and Return Regulation are broad codifications of a policy based on fear, hatred, and violence at the European level, with broad consensus. The solution cannot simply be to transfer more competencies to Brussels under the pretext that they "know better" at the center.

The current state should serve as a stimulus to seek alternative frameworks. For example, a human rights-based approach to migration, which has a tradition not only in academia but also as part of strategic recommendations by the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Based on this approach, protecting the integrity of the individual should be a core pillar of any migration policy. The existence of legal and especially safe pathways, along with transparent asylum procedures in accordance with international law, will help prevent preventable deaths and provide safety to the most vulnerable.

At the same time, we need to find ways to better integrate those already in Europe into society. Of course, this requires willingness on both sides. But pretending that individual unwillingness has consequences comparable to systemic marginalization of entire communities is a sign of dull arrogance.

Finally, we must focus on the root causes of migration. War, hunger, and worsening climate crises are daily realities of a world we do not want to be bothered by in Europe. Foreign and defense policy plays a key role in solving these problems.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen recently called for abolishing the requirement of unanimity in this area. The EU's ability to act beyond its borders has been paralyzed since its founding – also due to the veto right – by cumbersome decision-making processes. The problem is that more flexible mechanisms, like those in migration, do not guarantee better policies. Especially when they are driven by feelings of superiority, maximization of economic gains, and unwillingness to show solidarity with partners.

Ceuta was not an invasion attempt, as many try to convince us. But with increasing pressure on large parts of the population to move, it will not be an isolated phenomenon. The European Union would like to become a model for the rest of the world. However, the Garden of Eden is an illusion. It more resembles a wasteland that we are currently persistently fertilizing with salt.

The author specializes in European and foreign policy

The text is part of the PERSPECTIVES project – a new brand for independent, constructive, and multiperspective journalism. The project is funded by the European Union. The expressed opinions and positions are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union or the European Education and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA). The European Union and EACEA do not accept any responsibility for them.