The gathering of over 100,000 people at the “Unite the Kingdom” rally in London in September — framed as a “free speech” protest and led by far-right figures — was a potential watershed moment for political discourse. These previously unthinkable scenes now play out across Europe.
Right-wing parties have enjoyed a resurgence on a wave of anti-immigration sentiment. As a result, governments across Europe are becoming increasingly hardline on migration. This leads to short-sighted responses that may temporarily reduce numbers, but often come at a high financial, human and ethical cost.
Just days after the rally on 15 September, the first “one in, one out” deportation flight — part of the new Franco-British migration deal — was set to take off. Under the scheme, the UK can return people who arrive by small boats in exchange for an equivalent number of asylum seekers already in France.
But no migrants boarded the flight. A last-minute court intervention halted the first deportation of an Eritrean man, with the ruling citing a potential trafficking claim. The “one in, one out” scheme sits uncomfortably between criticism from both human rights groups and right-wing commentators: the former for its perceived erosion of protection, the latter for being “completely inadequate” to address the scale of the challenge.
It is a familiar story. Like Italy’s attempt at offshore asylum processing in Albania or the UK’s now-defunct Rwanda plan, another “innovative” migration policy so far fails to deliver — even though by now a handful of people have left for France.
Yet, despite a near absence of tangible results, the push for “innovative solutions” remains strong. At the European Political Community Summit in Copenhagen in October, a group of 17 countries issued a joint statement committing to put “innovation at the heart of migration reform.”
The real reasons migration deterrence isn’t working
At the heart of the continuing migration policy failures are a number of misconceptions.
First, the illusion that we can act sequentially: that we must first stop irregular arrivals and increase returns, and only then expand regular migration. Real progress requires doing all three in parallel.
Second, policymakers frequently express a belief that we can “smash the gangs” and disrupt their business model through enforcement directed at smugglers alone. But tackling the supply (the smugglers) without addressing the demand for migration — which in the absence of legal pathways translates into demand for irregular migration — doesn’t work. A comparison with the war on drugs can be made: Many decades and many billions have been spent on fighting the cartels, but this hasn’t done anything to change the demand for drugs.
Instead of disrupting the business model, the current approach to smuggling is boosting their business model. Smugglers we interviewed in North Africa described exactly that dynamic: tighter European controls made the demand for their services increase and their work more profitable.
Third, we must abandon the false dichotomy between “open” and “closed” migration policies. Control and openness are not opposites. Allowing people to migrate legally, in an organised and transparent way, is control. It restores order, ensures vetting, and prevents smugglers from profiting.
Fourth, the eternal cycle of small-scale pilots, especially on regular and labour migration pathways, has to end. From legal migration schemes to cooperation agreements, we have spent years experimenting at the margins. The “one in, one out” deal, capped at 50 people per week, is emblematic of this smallness. If we are serious about reducing irregular migration, we must scale up — not pilot forever.
Learning from recent migratory experiences
Recent experiences have provided valuable learnings. When the EU activated the Temporary Protection Directive (TPD) for Ukrainians, granting millions immediate protection, as well as free movement and access to labour and education, it effectively carried out the largest anti-smuggling operation in history. Because there was a legal pathway, there was no market for smugglers.
In the United States, the Biden administration’s combination of significantly expanded legal pathways — both for employment and protection — and stricter border enforcement eventually brought irregular crossings down to less than a quarter of 2023 levels. The model worked, but too late, and without sufficient political ownership and public communication. Europe can and should learn from both successes and mistakes.
A blueprint for a workable European approach to migration
If the current approach and so-called innovative approaches continue to fail, a credible alternative would require the following five elements —to be implemented in parallel.
Migration “one-stop centres” must be established along key routes, providing humanitarian support, information on, and access to, legal migration options, return counselling and support, and opportunities for local integration. This would build on the “Safe Mobility Offices” model launched in the Americas, adapted and expanded for Europe’s context.
Substantially expanded regular labour migration pathways, matched to Europe’s identified labour shortages. This is not only humane but economically sound.
Implementation of fair, fast, and efficient asylum processing at Europe’s external borders, coupled with an effective relocation mechanism among Member States for those granted protection.
Strengthened resettlement programmes that become a genuinely viable solution for those in need of protection, not a symbolic gesture.
Finally, and crucially, ensuring that there are timely, efficient, scalable but fair and dignified return processes for those without a legal right to stay. Significantly expanding regular migration channels could also unlock cooperation from origin countries on returns – stressing again why this all needs to be done in parallel, not sequentially.
Together, these elements create a credible system that combines openness and enforcement — a balance that both voters and migrants can trust.
Reclaiming the narrative of control in migration
Ultimately, irregular migration is not only a policy challenge but a test of political leadership.
People do not just want fewer arrivals; they want order. Both legal migration and fair returns are part of that order. Allowing people to come through safe, legal pathways is taking back control — because it brings migration under the rule of law, not the rule of smugglers.
The task for Europe’s leaders now is to replace rhetoric with realism: to act collectively, communicate clearly, and scale up what works.
Because the real crisis is not one of numbers — it is one of credibility, protection and human dignity.
Sign up to The Parliament's weekly newsletter
Every Friday our editorial team goes behind the headlines to offer insight and analysis on the key stories driving the EU agenda. Subscribe for free here.