Chronicle by Isaac Hammouch
For more than a decade, European migration policy has oscillated between two contradictory imperatives: preserving a humanistic tradition rooted in the right to asylum while responding to growing political pressure caused by increasing migration flows. The adoption in 2024 of the European Pact on Migration and Asylum, which is expected to fully enter into force by 2026, marks a significant turning point in this evolution. Behind this reform lies a political reality that is difficult to ignore: the European Union appears to be implicitly acknowledging that the migration strategy pursued since the 2015 crisis has failed to deliver the expected results.
The migration crisis of 2015 represents the starting point of this transformation. That year, more than one million migrants and refugees arrived in Europe, mainly through the Eastern Mediterranean via Turkey and Greece, but also through the central route connecting Libya to Italy. The scale of the phenomenon brutally exposed the limitations of the European asylum system. The Dublin Regulation, which assigns responsibility for asylum applications to the first country of entry into the Union, quickly collapsed under the pressure of mass arrivals. Countries located at the EU’s external borders, particularly Greece and Italy, found themselves overwhelmed, while several Central and Eastern European states categorically rejected the idea of mandatory redistribution of asylum seekers. The European Union thus discovered that its migration policy, built on a fragile balance between national sovereignty and European cooperation, was not designed to handle a crisis of such magnitude.
Faced with this situation, European institutions gradually adopted a strategy that would shape migration policy for years to come: the externalization of migration control. The idea was to prevent migrants from reaching European territory by shifting the migration border toward countries of transit and origin. In other words, it meant entrusting states in North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa with the responsibility of limiting departures and controlling migration routes.
This strategy was accompanied by massive financial commitments. In 2015, the European Union created an Emergency Trust Fund for Africa designed to finance programs aimed at addressing the root causes of irregular migration. This fund mobilized billions of euros to support economic projects, strengthen border control capacities, and combat smuggling networks. At the same time, the EU established a much broader financial instrument with a budget of approximately €79.5 billion for the period 2021-2027, intended to finance cooperation with neighboring regions and African countries, with a significant portion devoted to migration management.
Migration partnerships quickly multiplied. Turkey signed an agreement with the European Union in 2016 to retain Syrian refugees on its territory in exchange for several billion euros in financial assistance. Similar cooperation frameworks were developed with Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Mauritania, Egypt, and several Sahel countries. Morocco received hundreds of millions of euros to strengthen border surveillance and fight human trafficking networks. Tunisia has received more than €3 billion in European aid since 2011, a significant share of which relates to migration cooperation. In 2023, a new European cooperation program allocated more than €600 million to support Moroccan public policies, including migration management and border security. Mauritania also signed a migration partnership with the EU accompanied by funding exceeding €200 million aimed at strengthening surveillance along Atlantic migration routes.
If one adds together the various European financial instruments devoted directly or indirectly to migration management, the total amounts to tens of billions of euros mobilized over the last decade. The declared objective was twofold: to reduce departures toward Europe and to stabilize countries of origin in order to address the structural drivers of migration.
Yet the results of this strategy remain widely debated. Migration flows toward Europe have never truly stopped. Instead, they simply shift from one route to another depending on border controls and regional crises. When the Turkish route partially closes, crossings increase in the central Mediterranean. When controls intensify in Libya, departures move toward Tunisia or toward the Atlantic route linking West Africa to the Canary Islands. In 2023, more than 97,000 migrants arrived in Italy after departing from Tunisian coasts, a dramatic increase compared with previous years. The Canary Islands also recorded a significant rise in arrivals from Mauritanian and Senegalese shores.
This phenomenon illustrates a well-known mechanism among migration specialists: closing one migration route does not eliminate migration, it merely redirects it toward alternative and often more dangerous paths. At the same time, smuggling networks rapidly adapt to new constraints and develop new strategies to circumvent controls. European migration policy thus becomes a continuous race between authorities and transnational criminal networks.
Moreover, the strategy of externalization has raised growing concerns regarding human rights. Several international organizations have documented serious abuses in some partner countries cooperating with the European Union. In Libya, migrants intercepted at sea and returned to detention centers have been subjected to violence, extortion, and extremely harsh detention conditions. In Tunisia, reports have described collective expulsions and violent treatment of sub-Saharan migrants. In Mauritania and other Sahel countries, arbitrary arrests and forced expulsions have also been reported following the implementation of migration cooperation agreements with Europe.
These developments raise a fundamental question: how far can the European Union delegate the management of its borders without undermining the legal principles that form the foundation of its political order? Europe was built upon a system of norms recognizing the right to asylum and prohibiting the return of individuals to countries where they risk inhuman or degrading treatment.
Within this context, the reform adopted in 2024 through the Pact on Migration and Asylum appears as an attempt to regain control of a fragmented and often ineffective migration policy. It also reflects a deeper political transformation. Migration has become one of the most sensitive issues in European public debate and a key factor behind the rise of populist and nationalist political movements across the continent.
Some observers have drawn parallels between the evolution of European migration policy and the approach taken in the United States. Across the Atlantic, the agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement, widely known as ICE, embodies a highly securitized approach to migration management. This federal agency possesses extensive powers to arrest, detain, and deport undocumented migrants throughout U.S. territory.
However, the comparison between Europe and the United States must remain cautious. The American system operates within a federal state equipped with a centralized administration capable of implementing a unified migration policy. The European Union, by contrast, remains a hybrid political structure in which member states retain significant authority over immigration and asylum. The European agency Frontex, responsible for coordinating external border surveillance, does not possess the same enforcement powers as a federal agency like ICE.
The difference is therefore structural. While the United States relies on a centralized migration apparatus, Europe functions through a complex system of cooperation between European institutions and national administrations. This fragmentation partly explains the difficulties the Union faces in establishing a coherent migration policy.
Nevertheless, the new European migration pact clearly signals a tightening of the Union’s approach. The emphasis is now placed on deterrence, faster procedures, and the return of rejected asylum seekers. In certain cases, asylum applicants may be transferred to third countries considered safe in order to process their claims outside the European Union.
This development raises a profound moral and legal dilemma. How can the fundamental right to seek asylum within a rule-of-law framework be reconciled with the practice of sending migrants to countries where protection systems are weak or nonexistent? How can an individual requesting protection under a legal order founded on human rights be transferred to environments where those guarantees are uncertain?
Europe therefore faces a complex dilemma. On one hand, it must preserve the legal and humanistic principles that define its political identity. On the other, it must respond to growing concerns among its citizens who perceive migration as a challenge to economic, social, and cultural stability.
In reality, the European migration pact is unlikely to provide a definitive solution. International migration is a structural phenomenon closely linked to global economic inequalities, regional conflicts, demographic transformations, and the consequences of climate change. As long as these factors persist, migration will continue regardless of the policies implemented to control it.
The current shift in European policy therefore reflects less the emergence of a miracle solution than an attempt to adapt after a decade of costly and often disappointing experiments. Europe is now searching for a new balance between defending its values and regaining control over a phenomenon it has never truly succeeded in mastering.
(*) Isaac Hammouch is a Belgian-Moroccan journalist and writer. Author of several books and opinion pieces, he focuses on societal issues, governance, and the transformations shaping the contemporary world.
