Can migration [of refugees to Europe] be controlled ?

"Is it possible to control immigration [of refugees to Europe]?"

Die Zeit (12 June, 2025, pp. 4-5, in German, subscription required) 

poses this question, as part of its series, "Great Questions of Our Time,"

["Lässt sich Migration Steuern? Wer kommt und wer bleibt. Was Europa jetzt änderen könnte"

von Paul Middelhoff und Heinrich Wefing."]

Summary:

During the European refugee crises of the past decade and half, populist politicians have garnered increased popular support from a widespread "feeling" that their national governments are unable to control "who can come, and who can stay," even if (when) some of those governments want that control or try to deploy it (e.g. in addition to governments who use the "tangle of national and international legalities" in the EU as an "excuse for doing nothing" in the first place).

A sizable minority (if not plurality) of the 10 million seeking asylum in EU countries since 2010, have had applications rejected but have not yet been persuaded or compelled to return to their origin countries (or elsewhere outside Europe). Yet (it is argued that) this migration could be much more effectively controlled, as for example in Japan, China,  Saudi Arabia, and more recently the USA: where illegal migration apprehensions have dropped 94% over the past year.

Opportunities emerge from recent declines in numbers of asylum-seekers, and recent regime changes in Europe (notably the new German government headed by Chancellor Merz) that improve prospects for policies which "protect core humanitarian principles" yet achieve stricter overall control of immigration. A "clever combination of diverse policy instruments," better coordinated at the ground level, between the various countries, could restore public confidence and improve workability of arrangements to handle refugee inflows. Particularly so in Germany: where opinion polls indicate that a "majority favor a middle way" consisting of lower "irregular" immigration, while still upholding the fundamental individual right to asylum," for people with a well-founded fear of persecution if returned to their origin countries.

Comments:

The question is salient and timely because, in practice, most immigration policies historically (and today) have aimed at regulating or managing rather than strictly controlling immigration flows. The distinction between "political" and "economic" migration is, however, undiscussed in this piece by Die Zeit, despite being relevant to the large minority of asylum applicants who are denied yet manage to remain in Europe. Undoubtedly a large majority of migrants from the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, to Europe, like most would-be-refugees anywhere, are motivated by both political and economic reasons. It is easier to steer through an obstacle course on a bicycle than on a unicycle.

The recent large drop in illegal immigration at the US southern border does not per se prove that a policy which combines strict controls over asylum-seeking migrants with strong protection of the UN-convention-guaranteed right to asylum is in place, and if so, sustainable long term. Migration flows, of refugees, or job-seekers or other causes, have often fluctuated for a variety of reasons. After the 2008 financial crash, migration from Mexico to USA dropped by over 100%, because the poor job market not only decreased the number of incoming migrants coming from, it also increased the number of migrant worker returning to Mexico. Even the recent drop in migration from Mexico, in 2025, is not entirely attributable to stricter policies of the current presidential administration. Some of the drop reflects migrants rushing to get across before the policy changes, some of which also occurred already in the later part of 2024.

Finally, for the EU, the lack of an independent central authority, such as the US federal government, seriously encumbers major policy changes. Even back in 1889, when a US investigative commission concluded that "enforcement of acts designed to regulate immigration should be entrusted to the Federal Government and not the States," - a recommendation fulfilled by the opening of the Ellis Island immigration station three years later ("a policy that worked") -  this new regulation only needed concurrence from the two houses of the US Congress and the US president. It did not require legislative action or a popular referendum from every one of the then forty-odd individual US states.