As the European Union prepares to release its first major assessment of the new Pact on Asylum and Migration this October, civil society groups are sounding alarms over deepening cracks in its implementation. The NGO Mediterranea Brussels reports that more than a year after the Pact’s debut, member states are applying it unevenly: some not at all, others behind a veil of opacity.
Irregular migration has become a central issue in European debates, shaping policies on border control, migration flows, and fundamental rights. Experts stress that the very notion of “irregularity” is not inherent to migrants themselves but the result of legal and policy decisions.
A legal construct
“The concept of the irregular migrant is first and foremost a legal construct, not an intrinsic characteristic of the person,” says Alessandro Ermini, a volunteer at Mediterranea Brussels. “This classification has historically led to the exclusion of entire categories of individuals, denying them fundamental rights and integration opportunities. States have a duty to ensure universal and full access to rights, regardless of legal status, and to provide coherent and homogeneous integration pathways, especially within the Common European Asylum System.”
According to Ermini, the MIrreM project, through its Handbook on Regularisation Policies, confirms that irregular migration is defined as movement or residence in violation of a state’s administrative regulations. “However, since the 1990s, European policies have focused on control and security, reducing opportunities for regular migration and criminalising those staying without permission. These policies, part of the ‘Fortress Europe’ concept, have often produced counterproductive effects. According to MIrreM, regularisation should not be seen as an exception, but as a structural component of migration governance.”
Policy objectives and narratives
Professor Anna Triandafyllidou, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration at Toronto Metropolitan University, highlights the gap between official policy goals and public narratives. “Often, public perception frames policies as solely aimed at expulsion, while in reality, more nuanced tools exist, such as regularisation, tolerance, or conditional permits.”
Blanca Garcés Mascareñas, Senior Research Fellow at CIDOB, adds that irregular migration is frequently criminalised in the media and political debate, particularly at Europe’s external borders, where irregular arrivals are presented as a permanent crisis. Yet, she notes, “the same narratives also highlight the exploitation and precarious conditions of migrant workers, as seen during the pandemic with so-called essential workers.” At the political level, she observes, hardline rhetoric can coexist with concrete regularisation measures, creating a striking misalignment between words and actions—an imbalance evident in countries such as Italy and Spain.
You might be interested
Concerns ahead of October
The upcoming EU Pact on Asylum and Migration implementation report is expected to reveal significant discrepancies in how member states are applying the framework. Mediterranea Brussels warns that the Pact risks becoming “a dysfunctional and costly legal framework, increasing the suffering of those seeking protection,” if these inconsistencies persist.
From the European Commission’s perspective, safeguarding rights remains a declared priority. “Fundamental rights, and the protection and promotion of the fundamental rights of anyone on EU territory, are non-negotiable and a priority,” says Mauro Gagliardi from the Cabinet of the European Commissioner for Home Affairs Magnus Brunner. “I would not agree with the narrative of an increasingly hostile environment, or of creating a hostile environment, at least in relation to the EU. Hostility and firmness are not the same. We have sufficient safeguards, and we are promoting them, to ensure that this element of firmness, which we politically consider necessary, does not turn into hostility toward migrants.”
Balancing firmness and fairness
Gagliardi stresses the diversity and complexity of European migration policies. Evaluations must consider the wide variation in national approaches, even within the same country. While the Pact seeks a coordinated framework, it must also ensure that political firmness does not undermine migrants’ fundamental rights. “The diversification of policy responses among member states, but also within a member state across different political spheres, is very important to always keep in mind to evaluate and determine how policies are implemented, designed, and enacted,” he explains. “If there is hostility, it is directed at traffickers, not at people arriving in the EU.”
Anna Triandafyllidou, however, cautions that intentions and outcomes do not always align. “The European Commission’s intention is good, but it is true that, on the ground, hostility is directed at migrants. This is also because traffickers are often untraceable, even if this is not the intention. And certainly, there is a tension between firmness and fairness.”
