Europe appears poised to further intensify its restrictions on migrants. A significant revision, the new E.U. Pact on Migration and Asylum, scheduled for implementation next year, aims to streamline border processes, expedite removals, and address various other aspects.

U.S. President Donald Trump and his MAGA supporters assert that Europe has lost its grip on migration. However, the reality presents a different picture. Over the last decade, the continent has constructed a fortress—a strategy fraught with significant economic and moral perils. Member states have erected fences, forged agreements with transit nations such as Libya, Tunisia, Turkey, and Egypt, and deployed more border guards than ever before.

These efforts have indeed produced outcomes. Throughout the continent, undocumented border crossings have seen a significant decline since their peaks in 2015–2016, and again following the post-pandemic resurgence. Frontex, the E.U.’s border agency, indicates that the total irregular crossings in 2024 were 26% lower than the year before, with further reductions observed in the first half of 2025. 

European governments are also reacting to the rising influence of the far right by making legal migration more challenging—evidenced by Germany’s tightening of family reunification rules to Sweden’s stricter residency requirements. Consequently, migration has risen as a key electoral issue in 2024.

Initially, this might appear as a triumph, both politically and in terms of policy. European leaders are able to assure concerned citizens that they have “regained control” of their borders, all while upholding the continent’s humanitarian pledges and sidestepping the spectacle of images of masked ICE agents rounding up migrant children. Ostensibly, this permits them to assert moral high ground over the Trump Administration’s systematic flouting of both international and domestic legal standards, simultaneously—they anticipate—warding off the far-right’s menace.

Yet, the true situation offers less comfort. Europe’s recently established bulwark lacks robust economic or social underpinnings.

The initial concern is moral and humanitarian. Europe’s intensified enforcement has not halted human movement; it has merely rendered their journeys more extended, expensive, and perilous. More than 2,000 individuals died trying to cross the Mediterranean in 2024. Delegating border management to nations like Libya or Tunisia might decrease arrivals on European coastlines, but it also implies that Europe often turning a blind eye to human rights abuses. Officially, the E.U. has declared it would not condone actions such as illegal pushbacks; however, these practices persist in reality to curb arrivals.

Nevertheless, it is the economic and political inconsistency that will ultimately undermine this policy. Europeans are experiencing longer lifespans and lower birth rates, leading to an aging populace and a diminishing labor force. Germany requires approximately 400,000 migrants a year; Italy and Spain similarly need many more new workers. The OECD has consistently asserted that increased immigration levels are vital for tackling immediate labor deficits and fostering long-term economic expansion.

Administrations are fully cognizant of this situation. Italy’s far-right government has, somewhat ironically, quietly increased quotas for non-E.U. migrants, concurrently, Germany is liberalizing its points-based immigration system.

Yet, these practical measures are frequently overshadowed by the more vocal politics of dissuasion. European leaders are apprehensive that acknowledging the necessity for more migrants will empower the far right. This leads to a state of inertia: a continent that concurrently declares, “we need you” and “stay away.” Such a balance is improbable to be sustainable; it offers a false sense of control while accumulating political and economic challenges for the future.

What lies ahead then? Generally, Europe confronts three alternatives.

The first option involves upholding and strengthening the “fortress Europe” policy. However, this would inevitably undermine economic growth, burden public finances, and diminish Europe’s ability to finance its valued welfare state. The outcome will not be the marginalization of the far right, but rather providing it with additional leverage; this, in turn, will estrange Europe’s current population of migrant heritage and erode social unity.

The second alternative is Europe’s customary strategy: navigating challenges without a clear plan. Yet, the consequence will be an unpredictable blend of repressive measures, regulatory gaps, and emergencies. In this situation, irregular migration persists, fueled by desperation overseas and the demand for labor domestically. Europe reacts with impromptu agreements, urgent conferences, and moral anxieties. This approach is costly, inefficient, and inhumane. This also serves as an advantage to the far right.

A superior, third option exists. It begins with authorities recognizing Europe’s need for migrants. This necessitates creating more legal pathways for work and asylum, increasing investment in integration, and overhauling the asylum system to ensure it is prompt, effective, and compassionate. Regulated migration cannot eradicate unauthorized movements, but it can improve a challenging circumstance.

None of these solutions are straightforward. Even meticulously crafted systems encounter opposition during volatile economic periods. Overcoming the populist right will demand the revitalization of productivity growth and the elevation of living standards—and openness to immigration will be part of the solution. The underlying causes of migration will not disappear—and “open borders” is neither a politically viable nor a practical choice, implying that border enforcement and mandatory repatriations for those without a legal right to stay will always be essential.

However, feigning that migration can or ought to be halted is a perilous misconception.