The following is a revised and edited version of the speech by Daniele Scalea, President of the Machiavelli Foundation, delivered at the MCC-MRI Summit on the 10th Anniversary of the European Migration Crisis, held in Szeged, Hungary, on September 24-25, 2025.
The Failure of European Migration Policy
Let’s cut to the chase and ask the critical question: has European migration policy worked, or has it failed?
To answer, we first need to define the purpose of a migration policy. Unless you’re an advocate for open borders, you’d likely say it’s about safeguarding the identity, unity, and order of the host nation. In other words, keeping a nation true to its roots while managing who enters and how they integrate. But looking at Europe today, it’s hard to argue that’s happening. A quick glance at many European cities makes that clear. And the data backs it up.
Demographic studies are stark. In many Western European countries, projections suggest that in 50, 100, or maybe 150 years, depending on the country, the native population will no longer be the majority. This isn’t just about numbers — it’s about the very essence of what makes a nation, a nation. When ethnic and cultural composition shifts so drastically and rapidly, the shared identity that holds societies together erodes.
We’re already seeing it. Across Western Europe, divisions are growing. In some areas, there are communities that don’t connect with the broader national culture. Sometimes, they openly clash with it. These places, often called ethnic enclaves, feel like separate worlds. This isn’t immigrant integration — it’s the fragmentation of our own societies. Social cohesion is crumbling, and the tensions are obvious.
We see it in rising insecurity, too. Immigration is clearly linked to serious issues. We’ve witnessed Islamic terrorist attacks across Europe — attacks that wouldn’t have been possible without mass migration. They’ve almost become routine. Crime rates show correlations as well. Certain offenses, like violent crimes and sexual assaults, are disproportionately committed by people of foreign origin, particularly from specific regions of the world. One striking impact is on women’s rights: unchecked immigration without integration is leading to a regression in gender equality, making life less safe and less free for women, even those who aren’t migrants.
Why the Failure?
So, when we look at identity, cohesion, and security, it’s impossible to call European migration policies a success. They’ve largely failed. Why?
The first reason is ideology. For too long, European migration policies have been shaped by people who believe in open borders or multiculturalism. These are individuals who see national identity as outdated, even problematic. Some seem to outright disdain our civilization and want to replace it entirely. The result? Policies that don’t protect the interests of host nations. Things are starting to shift, though. Public pressure is forcing leaders to change their approach — or risk being replaced by new ones. But these changes are still in their early stages, and the road ahead is long.
The second reason for the failure is more complex: our laws. Many of the rules governing migration in Europe — national laws, EU regulations, international treaties — are inadequate. The newer ones were written by the same open-borders, multiculturalist advocates, designed for everything but defending our nations’ interests. The older ones date back to a time when no one imagined millions of people crossing continents in a matter of years. Those laws were meant to protect a small number of refugees, like political dissidents fleeing persecution. Today, they’re exploited by economic migrants.
Look at the numbers: according to Eurostat, in 2022, only 15% of asylum seekers in the EU were granted refugee status. That means the vast majority don’t meet the legal definition of a refugee — someone fleeing persecution or war. Yet many stay in Europe, either because the EU grants other forms of protection or because the system makes deportation difficult. This shows how outdated laws are being used for purposes far removed from their original intent. Fortunately, some leaders are waking up. In Italy, for example, Interior Minister Matteo Piantedosi is pushing to update national and international laws. Italy, along with other countries, is calling for a reinterpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Is it a bold move? Absolutely. But it’s also overdue. These changes should have happened years ago.
A Wind of Change
So, where do we stand? European migration policies haven’t delivered what most people want: a system that welcomes genuine refugees and talented individuals without undermining our societies or upending our way of life. Instead, we have policies that have led to division, insecurity, and a sense that our countries are slipping out of our grasp. The reasons? Ideology — leaders pushing for open borders — and outdated laws that can’t handle modern migration flows.
But there’s hope. More and more people are voting for change. There’s growing momentum to update the legal framework. It won’t be easy, though. It will take courage to challenge entrenched ideas and rewrite laws that have been in place for decades. Resistance from certain societal factions and the judicial system will be fierce. But if Europe wants to preserve itself, this is a challenge we can’t avoid.
What Needs to Change
In the short term, the most promising approach is to expand and enforce “safe country” lists. These lists make it easier to reject unfounded asylum claims and speed up deportations. But this must go hand in hand with agreements with countries of origin to prevent them from obstructing returns. The EU should impose sanctions on non-cooperative countries.
This might bring some relief in the short term, but to truly tackle the challenge, deeper structural reforms are needed. We’ve seen how the judicial system has created problems for initiatives like the UK’s Rwanda plan or Italy’s Albania centers. The legal framework that hinders the exercise of national and democratic sovereignty must be dismantled.
For example, the EU has established humanitarian protection, which effectively allows large numbers of non-refugees to enter and access benefits. Eliminating humanitarian protection wouldn’t be inhumane or apocalyptic — it would mean strictly adhering to the Geneva Convention, where obligations apply only to genuine refugees. But let’s be clear: we can’t eliminate humanitarian protection without dismantling the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Withdrawing from the ECHR and removing its provisions embedded in EU law would make deportations much simpler and allow for collective pushbacks: if a group of irregular migrants is intercepted coming from a safe transit country, they could be sent back without excessive bureaucratic delays.
Detention and assessment centers should be established in those transit countries. Since most asylum seekers don’t qualify but simply want to set foot in Europe, this would act as a strong deterrent, discouraging dangerous journeys (and preventing tragic sea crossings where many lose their lives) while allowing genuine refugees to be welcomed and protected.
EU directives impose overly generous minimum standards for migrant reception. We should prioritize a principle where “advanced” services — like public housing or family subsidies — are reserved for citizens, not foreign residents. Many migrants are drawn by the prospect of benefits; they’re welfare tourists. It makes no sense that, when allocating something as significant as public housing, a citizen whose family has been in the country for generations is treated the same as a recently arrived foreigner. It’s illogical that if a state provides family allowances to boost its native birthrate, those benefits are also given to foreigners, sometimes only temporarily residing in the country. Shockingly, the EU Court of Justice has even ruled that family allowances must be granted to foreigners even when their children live outside the country providing the benefit!
We also need to shift the current mindset that host societies must adapt to make newcomers feel comfortable. It’s the newcomers who must adapt. States shouldn’t spend resources accommodating immigrants’ customs or beliefs, like special diets or religious practices. This isn’t about creating a hostile environment — it’s about avoiding being seen as a sanctuary for migrants who refuse to integrate and thrive in their new country, preferring to live as they did back home while relying on the host country’s welfare system.
This approach would not only reduce the pull factors drawing migrants to Europe but could even encourage voluntary remigration by those who don’t love Europe and can’t — or won’t — become European.
