Listen to the article
European migration measures continue to stir controversy as EU member states grapple with a divisive new approach to handling irregular migration, deportation policies, and financial burden-sharing.
Recent claims circulating on social media have misrepresented the European Parliament’s position on migration policy. Contrary to viral posts on X suggesting that the EU Parliament has approved a “Migration and Asylum Pact” forcing member states to accept irregular migrants or face fines, no such legislation has been formally adopted.
On December 8, EU interior ministers did endorse a set of tougher migration measures in Brussels, but these have not yet received European Parliament approval. The measures, which could potentially come into force in 2026 if approved, focus primarily on accelerating the deportation of irregular migrants—those without valid residence permits.
The proposed “Return Regulation” aims to increase return rates across the EU for individuals without proper documentation. It updates previous European Commission proposals by introducing stricter controls on migrant arrivals and removals, including extended detention periods for those refusing to leave EU territory.
A key feature of the plan would allow asylum seekers to be sent to “safe” countries other than their own, as designated by the EU. The proposal also establishes a common list of safe countries of origin, including Bangladesh, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kosovo, Morocco, and Tunisia. EU candidate countries like Turkey and Georgia are also considered safe under this framework.
Danish immigration minister Rasmus Stoklund highlighted that “the deal will make it possible for both the EU and one or more member states to make an arrangement or agreement with a third country on return hubs,” referring to centers located outside EU borders for migrants whose asylum claims have been rejected.
The plan’s “solidarity fund” has become a particularly contentious element. This mechanism would allow member states to support countries facing high migration pressure through either relocation of asylum seekers or financial assistance. The European Commission has specifically identified Cyprus, Greece, Italy, and Spain as countries experiencing significant migration pressure.
Hungary’s response to the proposal has been particularly vocal. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán criticized the solidarity fund on X, claiming Brussels is “forcing Hungary to pay even more or take migrants in.” He declared the plans “unacceptable” and maintained that Hungary “will not take a single migrant in, and will not pay for other migrants.”
This is not Hungary’s first collision with EU migration policy. In June 2024, the European Court of Justice ordered Budapest to pay €1 million daily, plus a one-time €200 million fine, until it complied with EU asylum application regulations.
Balázs Orbán, the Prime Minister’s political director, has characterized the European Commission’s approach as politically motivated rather than objective, suggesting that “only those who comply with Brussels’ agenda receive support.”
Hungary’s exclusion from the list of countries eligible to receive solidarity funds may be explained by migration flow data. According to the International Organization for Migration, the countries most affected by first-arrival migrants in Europe during 2025 are Italy, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Malta—which collectively received 145,592 migrants that year.
European Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration Magnus Brunner expressed disappointment over Hungary’s position, stating he was “saddened that Hungary was not supporting the pact, as it would improve the situation for all EU Member States.” Brunner emphasized that while “solidarity is flexible on the one hand but mandatory on the other,” the proposed measures must be “viewed collectively” rather than in isolation.
As the European Parliament prepares to consider these measures, the debate highlights the continuing tensions between national sovereignty and collective EU migration policy, particularly as pressure from right-wing and far-right parties across the continent intensifies.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
The EU’s approach to irregular migration is an evolving and controversial issue. While tighter deportation policies may be effective, it’s important to consider the humanitarian implications. A balanced solution that addresses root causes and provides legal pathways would be ideal.
The EU’s approach to irregular migration continues to evolve. While tougher deportation policies may be controversial, improving return rates could help address concerns. Curious to see how this develops and whether a balanced solution can be found.
Divisive issues like irregular migration require nuanced solutions. While the EU’s proposed measures focus on deportation, I hope they also consider addressing the root causes and providing legal pathways for those in need. A balanced approach is key.
I appreciate the EU’s effort to address irregular migration, but the details will be crucial. Accelerating deportations could be effective, but it’s important to ensure fair procedures and protect the rights of those involved. Curious to see how this is implemented.
This is a complex and politically charged topic. While the EU’s proposed measures aim to address irregular migration, the details will be crucial. Ensuring fair procedures, respecting human rights, and finding a balanced solution should be the top priorities.
This is a complex and sensitive topic. I’m glad the EU is taking steps to address irregular migration, but the details will be critical. Ensuring fair processes, respecting human rights, and finding a balance between security and compassion should be the priority.
Irregular migration is a challenging issue for the EU, and I’m glad to see the bloc taking steps to address it. However, the proposed measures seem to focus heavily on deportation, which raises concerns about the protection of human rights. A more comprehensive approach may be needed.
The proposed “Return Regulation” sounds like an attempt to streamline the deportation process, but the extended detention periods are concerning from a humanitarian perspective. Finding the right balance between security and human rights will be critical.
Irregular migration is a challenging issue for the EU, and I appreciate the effort to find a solution. However, the proposed measures seem to focus heavily on deportation, which raises concerns about the protection of human rights. A more comprehensive approach may be needed.
Interesting to see the EU grappling with the complex issue of irregular migration. While tougher deportation policies may be controversial, improving return rates could help address concerns about uncontrolled arrivals. Curious to see how this unfolds and what the final policy looks like.