For years, Europe has described its migration crisis as a problem of scale. Too many arrivals. Too much pressure. Too little solidarity among states. But this narrative misses the real issue. Europe’s migration crisis is not primarily about numbers. It is about state failure.
The European Union has built one of the most complex migration governance systems in the world. Detailed procedures. Shared databases. Allocation mechanisms. Border screening. Accelerated asylum processes. Return policies. On paper, it looks like a technocratic success. In practice, it has exposed a deeper weakness: the inability of the state to define, enforce, and sustain the conditions of lawful and stable presence.
The EU’s new Migration and Asylum Pact doubles down on procedures. It focuses on who enters, how quickly decisions are made, and how efficiently people can be relocated or returned. What it does not address—deliberately—is what happens after admission. There is no coherent framework explaining who is expected to become part of European society, under what conditions, and with which obligations. Integration is mentioned, but never structured. It is treated as a downstream social issue, not as a pillar of state authority.
This omission has consequences. When integration is not defined as a duty, it becomes optional. When it is optional, it stops functioning as a stabilizing force. The state can regulate entry, but it cannot govern presence. Over time, this produces parallel societies, legal ambiguity, and loss of institutional credibility. The result is not inclusion, but fragmentation.
From an American perspective, this should sound familiar. The debate in the United States often focuses on border control versus humanitarian access. Europe shows what happens when you win the procedural battle but lose the civic one. You can process claims faster. You can expand databases. You can increase returns. But if you never establish integration as a condition of staying—clear, enforceable, and measurable—the system erodes from within.
Europe did not lose control because it was too open. It lost control because it stopped demanding integration as a condition of permanence. Work alone became the implicit test of legitimacy. As long as someone was economically useful, deeper questions of language, civic loyalty, legal culture, and social norms were postponed indefinitely. This economic shortcut proved politically and socially unsustainable.
The predictable reaction has been political backlash. As integration failed silently, insecurity grew visibly. Trust in institutions declined. Immigration became a catalyst for polarization rather than cohesion. Governments responded by tightening procedures even further, reinforcing borders and returns—treating symptoms rather than causes. The cycle repeats.
This is why Europe should not be seen as a model to emulate, but as a warning to study. Migration systems fail not when states are compassionate, but when they are ambiguous. A functioning system requires more than efficient processing. It requires state authority exercised through clear expectations: who may stay, why, and under which obligations.
Integration is not a moral slogan. It is a governance tool. When states abandon it, they do not get openness—they get instability. Europe’s experience demonstrates a hard truth: without integration as a binding condition, migration policy becomes reactive, brittle, and politically explosive.
For the United States, the lesson is simple but urgent. Border security matters. Legal pathways matter. But without a clear integration framework grounded in civic obligation and rule adherence, even the most sophisticated system will fail. Not because it is too strict or too lenient—but because it no longer governs.
Fabio Loscerbo
Attorney at Law – Policy Advocate
EU Transparency Register ID 280782895721-36
Lascia un commento