Europe’s Wake-Up Call
In late 2010, a Tunisian street vendor set himself on fire and sparked an uprising across the Arab world, known as the Arab Spring. It toppled authoritarian regimes across the region, but it also gave rise to war, instability, and mass population displacement. Take, for example, the Syrian civil war, which began in 2011 and became one of the deadliest conflicts of the 21st century. Millions of Syrians sought refuge in Europe, overburdening the continent’s asylum systems and triggering what is now known as the 2015 migration crisis.
In recent years, Europe has again experienced a growth of asylum applications. But unlike in 2015, this is not a short-term spike followed by a drop. The number of asylum seekers continues to fluctuate at high levels, and asylum seekers now come from a much broader range of countries, including Afghanistan, Venezuela, Turkey, Morocco, and Somalia. In other words, intensifying conflicts, climate change, and economic hardship in regions like North and Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia continue to push people northwards.
While public frustration grows and governments are confronted with increasing political pressure, the EU has tried to find a fragile compromise between national sovereignty and collective responsibility. So, what exactly is the EU doing to manage migration, and why is it so hard?
Why the EU Struggles with Migration
The EU’s migration and asylum system has mostly changed under pressure of crises rather than as a result of a long-term strategy, rendering the system ineffective. For example, in response to the 2015 migration crisis, the EU developed emergency mechanisms and funding tools, like the EU-Turkey Deal of 2016 which tried to reduce irregular flows coming through Turkey. However, most of the structural issues remained unresolved at the time. 
Today, managing migration to Europe requires addressing three major fronts: controlling who comes in and under what legal status, facilitating returns for those who are denied protection, and fairly distributing responsibility across EU countries. Let’s break down each of them.
1. Who Gets In? The Asylum Dilemma
EU asylum policy rests on two legal bases: the 1951 Geneva Convention and the EU’s own asylum acquis, which includes the Dublin Regulation and the Common European Asylum System (CEAS). These laws guarantee the right to apply for asylum and prohibit sending someone back to a country where their life or freedom is at risk, also known as the principle of non-refoulement. In practice, however, these guarantees create pressure points that make effective management of asylum claims difficult. Two main challenges stand out: the uneven implementation of the Dublin Regulation and the significant variation in asylum recognition rates across Member States.
The Dublin Regulation, a cornerstone of EU asylum law, assigns responsibility for examining an asylum claim to the country where the asylum seeker first entered the EU. This rule was made to streamline the process and avoid multiple applications, but in reality, it disproportionately burdens border states like Greece, Italy, or Spain, which often lack the capacity to process the large number of arrivals. At the same time, other Member States were not obliged to provide support, creating systemic imbalances and frustration.
Complicating this issue are the differences in asylum recognition rates. For example, in 2023, Afghan asylum seekers had a 93% chance of gaining protection in Germany but only a 12% chance in Bulgaria. These differences incentivise asylum seekers to move within the Schengen Area (where they can move freely without border checks) toward countries with more favourable outcomes. This pattern is known as “secondary movement” or “asylum shopping.” Just like the Dublin regulation, it also undermines the coherence of the EU asylum system and places additional strain on countries seen as more welcoming.
In response, the EU has proposed reforming the CEAS through the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, which aims to harmonise procedures and set up pre-entry screening at the EU’s external borders. This includes a common European border procedure for asylum applications considered less likely to succeed, streamlining decisions within 12 weeks. Frontex, the EU’s border agency, is also being expanded to support this screening, registration, and return operations.
2. Enforcing Returns: The Missing Link
For those denied asylum, returning to their country of origin is the legal expectation. But this often doesn’t happen. In the first quarter of 2025, only around 23% of people ordered to leave the EU were actually returned. Reasons vary: lack of identification documents, poor cooperation from origin countries, and logistical obstacles. If not returned, the asylum seekers often disappear into irregularity or get caught up in a legal limbo. Take Morocco: although classified as a safe country, it often refuses to accept returnees. Member States like Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands have tried to negotiate bilateral return agreements, but their limited leverage has produced uneven results.
To address this, the European Commission has pushed for more coordinated action. The EU Strategy on Voluntary Return and Reintegration promotes humane, sustainable return practices and creates reintegration support for returnees. More broadly, through the new Pact, migration is being integrated into the EU’s foreign policy. Brussels is increasingly offering development aid, investment, and visa facilitation in exchange for cooperation on border management and returns. This is the model behind partnerships with countries like Niger and Tunisia. Critics, however, question the ethics and effectiveness of outsourcing migration control to authoritarian governments.
3. Sharing Responsibility: A Long-Awaited Measure
Perhaps the most politically sensitive issue is how to share responsibility among EU countries. Since the 2015 refugee crisis, solidarity has been encouraged, but it was never legally enforced. Attempts at mandatory relocation quotas were met with fierce resistance, especially from countries like Hungary and Poland. Until recently, this lack of solidarity was not solved. For example, in 2023, Belgium registered over 35,000 asylum applications, while Portugal, a country with a similar population, recorded under 3,000.
As part of the 2020 New Pact on Migration and Asylum, the European Commission proposed a new and permanent solidarity mechanism to create a more structured and predictable system. Instead of imposing strict quotas, the mechanism allows Member States to choose from different forms of solidarity: relocating a share of asylum seekers, financing return operations, or contributing financially to support other Member States managing high numbers of arrivals.
What Lies Ahead
The migration issue is not temporary. Climate change, political instability, and demographic trends will continue to drive movement toward Europe for decades to come. Against that trend, ad hoc solutions are not enough.
The EU is slowly moving toward a more integrated system with the new Pact on Asylum and Migration which introduces better border coordination, strengthened return efforts, and more structured solidarity. Yet, to make these reforms credible, Member States must align their legal obligations with political will.
In sum, migration is a defining test of European integration. Can 27 countries with different geographies, histories, and political climates act together on one of the most polarising issues of our time? The answer will shape not only Europe’s borders, but also its identity.
