The European Pact on Migration: a crisis management instrument or a tool for legalising mass migration?

Great, below you will find an extended, full critical version of the article on the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, now extended to about 1500 words and without references to sources or links:

The European Pact on Migration: a crisis management instrument or a tool for legalising mass migration?

The EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, officially adopted in 2024, is advertised by the European Commission as a breakthrough in border management and asylum. It is expected to offer order, solidarity and a "fair sharing of responsibility" between associate States. But behind this smooth language is something much more serious: a fundamental change in European migration policy, which, as the critics warn, can lead to permanent, organization beginning of borders.

Although the Commission claims that the Pact will supply more control over the influx of people from outside, many of its provisions and applicable effects point to the opposite. In fact, under the cover of harmonising procedures and strengthening the asylum system, a model is being implemented that systematically simplifies access to the European Union for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people outside the continent. And all of this without the consent of citizens and without real national debates.

The Pact includes a mandatory solidarity mechanics in which associate States will gotta participate in the relocation of migrants or, if they refuse, pay a "solidation penalty" of €20,000 for each individual not admitted. This amount, although it sounds like compensation, is de facto an ad hoc for the ability to keep any control over its own migration policy. Countries that do not accept the automatic admission of migrants are placed against the wall – either pay or stay silent and follow Brussels' instructions.

Supporters of the Pact stress that the fresh rules will let for more effective deportation of those who have been denied asylum. but the experience of the past 2 decades shows something else. Deportations are seldom effective and return mechanisms have remained inefficient for years. Most migrants, even after receiving a negative decision, do not return to their country of origin. He disappears, goes into the grey area, settles illegally. EU bureaucracy is helpless and fresh procedures do not change this. However, any asylum procedure initiated, even if manifestly unfounded, is simply a fewer months – and sometimes years – of legal residence in the EU.

Moreover, the Pact assumes equal access to procedures for all applicants. Whether they arrive from Syria, Eritrea, Bangladesh or Senegal, everyone is to be entitled to full, multi-step proceedings. This means that even people from countries where there is no persecution will be able to benefit for months from rights, assistance, accommodation and public funds. specified an "equality of procedures" is in practice an invitation to abuse.

Another controversial point is the planned resettlement – according to the Pact, up to 30,000 people a year are to be relocated from the countries of the first admission, mainly from Italy, Greece and Spain. This limit looks good on paper, but in a collision with reality it is completely unrealistic. In 2023 alone, the number of illegal border crossings exceeded 1 million. Resettlement of 30,000 people is just a drop in the sea. In practice, the Pact does not solve the problem but preserves it, perpetuating a situation in which Europe becomes the mark of an uncontrolled influx of people.

Financing the fresh strategy besides raises questions. The European Commission has announced EUR 3 billion to support host countries, of which a large proportion will go to border countries and those already facing a exile crisis. But that money is not an investment in security. It is an incentive to proceed accepting, providing accommodation, training, social assistance and integration – regardless of whether the persons afraid have any reason to remain. The strategy finances itself: the more migrants, the more funds. economical logic becomes an ally of uncontrolled migration.

The most worrying, however, is that the Pact undermines the fundamental right of all country to decide who can be in its territory. Countries specified as Poland and Hungary, who voted against the Pact, warned from the beginning that this paper violates the rule of sovereignty. It introduces quasi-must of relocation, financial sanctions and, in practice, political and media pressures on countries that effort to lead a restrictive migration policy.

It is besides worth noting that the paper is created under severe geopolitical tensions. Regimes specified as Belarus and Russia already usage migrants as weapons – throwing them across the borders of the Union in a hybrid war. However, alternatively of strengthening the protection of external borders, the Union is creating interior mechanisms for "management of the movement of the population" – as if the problem was not the scale of the inflow, but the administrative arrangement of the inflow. It's wishful thinking, disconnected from reality.

Governments of countries specified as Germany, France and the Netherlands argue that migration is simply a necessity – due to ageing societies and shortages in the labour market. But this argument is little convincing to citizens who are struggling with expanding crime, ghettoization of districts, housing crises and cultural conflicts. Social acceptance for further migration is dropping rapidly, yet Brussels is making further improvements.

In October 2025, the Commission is expected to print a final assessment of the implementation of the Pact. But no substance what the study says, 1 thing is clear today: the Pact will not halt migration, will not improve deportation and will not reconstruct border control. On the contrary, it will make migration something systemic, legally secured, financially motivated and politically forced.

It cannot be overlooked that the paper besides introduces cultural pressures. Through soft action – education, integration programmes, the promotion of alleged "European values" – it is tried to convince the public that migration is not a problem but an opportunity. That multiculturalism is inevitable and should be adapted to it. That opposition to relocation is not reason, it's xenophobia. This approach marginalises criticism and suppresses public debate.

This is not about rejecting all form of humanitarian aid. Europe has a moral work to aid those who are actually fleeing war or persecution. But the strategy cannot be open to everyone. It cannot act in the interests of smugglers, border mobs and regimes that export their own problems. This is what the current construction of the Pact leads to.

In practice, we are dealing with formalisation of migration chaos. Europe, without the courage to say “enough”, is trying to manage the influx of people who are no longer in control. And even though we do not know what we call fresh procedures, fresh bodies, fresh regulations, this does not change the fact that the basic questions stay unanswered. How long will European societies be able to absorb further waves of migration? erstwhile there's no housing, no means, no patience? What will happen to the cultural scenery of the continent?

The European Pact on Migration and Asylum was to be a consequence to the crisis. Meanwhile, he becomes his own tool. If it is not revised, it can lead to a deep division within the Union – not only political, but social, economical and civilizational.