The large-scale regularisation initiative announced in Spain, which according to publicly cited estimates could affect around 500,000 undocumented migrants, represents a measure of exceptional scope. It is not a routine administrative adjustment, but a structural intervention capable of producing effects well beyond Spain’s national legal order.
From a UK perspective, the quantitative dimension is decisive. Regularising a population of this size is comparable to granting legal status to a city the size of Liverpool or Bristol. The initiative has emerged in the context of a legislative process supported by civil society actors, who themselves estimate approximately 500,000 potential beneficiaries, as indicated in their public communications available at https://regularizacionya.com. This figure defines the legal and systemic relevance of the measure.
The core issue is not Spain’s political right to regularise migrants. Under European Union law, immigration status remains primarily a national competence. The problem lies in the technical design of the regularisation itself. As presented, the measure does not appear to impose binding integration conditions, either as a prerequisite for regularisation or as an obligation following the grant of legal status.
No enforceable requirements relating to stable employment, language proficiency, civic participation or a structured integration pathway are foreseen. Legal residence is granted largely on the basis of physical presence. From a legal standpoint, this converts the residence permit into a purely administrative recognition, detached from any substantive integration project.
For a British audience, the implications become clearer when considering how the Schengen system operates. Although the UK is no longer part of the European Union or the Schengen Area, it is directly affected by developments within it. Under Article 21 of the Schengen Implementing Convention, a residence permit issued by one Schengen State automatically allows its holder to travel freely for short stays throughout the Schengen Area. This effect is automatic and not subject to control by other states.
As a result, a national mass regularisation produces cross-border effects by design. When residence permits are issued without integration requirements, they effectively function as mobility documents, granting access to a large part of continental Europe. Individuals regularised in Spain acquire the legal capacity to circulate across multiple EU states, even though no meaningful integration has been required in the issuing country.
This creates a structural imbalance. The decision is taken at national level, but the consequences are borne collectively. Other Schengen States must absorb the indirect effects of a policy over which they had no influence. From a governance perspective, this raises issues of accountability and systemic coherence.
European migration law has traditionally sought to mitigate this risk by linking legal stability to integration. Enhanced residence statuses are built on duration, stability and the possibility for states to require integration measures. The underlying logic mirrors principles familiar to the UK legal system: rights are accompanied by duties, and legal certainty depends on compliance with clearly defined conditions.
Spain’s regularisation initiative departs from this logic. By removing integration as a legal condition, it introduces a model of unconditional regularisation. This approach stands in contrast to the paradigm of “Integration or Return”, which treats lawful stay as conditional upon demonstrable integration. In this framework, integration is not symbolic or aspirational; it is the legal justification for remaining. Where integration does not occur, return is not punitive but consistent with a rules-based system.
The absence of integration requirements has broader implications. It weakens the function of legal status as a tool for social cohesion, shifts the burden of non-integration onto other jurisdictions, and undermines mutual trust within shared mobility frameworks. For the UK, which places strong emphasis on border control, legal certainty and conditional residence, this model highlights the structural weaknesses of a system where national decisions generate supranational consequences without corresponding obligations.
In the context of ongoing European efforts to reinforce migration governance and system sustainability, a mass regularisation without integration conditions appears misaligned with the broader trajectory of European policy. It prioritises administrative inclusion over legal responsibility.
In conclusion, Spain’s mass regularisation does not raise a question of formal legality, but of systemic coherence. Regularising approximately 500,000 individuals without binding integration requirements empties legal status of its substantive purpose and transforms it into a de facto mobility instrument. Without integration, regularisation does not produce stability. It creates a critical precedent for the Schengen Area, with implications that extend beyond the European Union and are of clear interest to the United Kingdom.
Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law (Italy)
Registered EU Transparency Lobbyist
ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento