By Abigail Harper, Intern at RSC
Migration has become the top political issue of the decade. Concerns about migration are often driven by perceived failures in cultural integration and by the economic impacts on employment, housing, and social resources. Across Europe, governments are pushing harsher policies in response to these concerns, attempting to appease their electorates by appearing tough on immigration. Parties of the centre – both left and right – increasingly use language traditionally associated with the far-right to try to persuade voters they are managing the issue.
In this climate of hostility, Spain’s Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s government has taken a radically different approach. In January, a new policy was announced that will regularise foreign nationals who do not have a criminal record and can prove they lived in Spain for at least five months before 31 December 2025. The measure will provide beneficiaries with an initial one-year residence permit, which can then be extended, and is expected to benefit at least 500,000 people. This announcement came as part of the implementation of a new immigration model based on integration and co-existence, compatible with economic growth and social cohesion.
The contrast with the rest of Europe could not be more stark. In May 2025, Italy and Denmark led a coalition of nine EU states – including Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belgium, and the Czech Republic – in signing an open letter to the Council of Europe demanding a new conversation on how the European Convention on Human Rights is applied, particularly in relation to migration.
Following this, in November 2025, the UK launched a new plan to overhaul its immigration model, based on the system introduced in Denmark – a country now seen as “a pioneer in restrictive migration policies” in Europe, according to Marie Sandberg, Director of the Centre for Advanced Migration Studies (AMIS). Standard policies allow authorities to confiscate asylum seekers’ jewellery and other valuables, with the deliberate intention of creating a hostile environment for prospective migrants. The British Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced the draconian plan to overhaul the immigration model, intended to tackle illegal immigration and prioritise migrants who “contribute to the economy and play by the rules”. The permanent settlement qualifying period for migrants will be doubled to 10 years, whilst low-paid workers, such as the 616,000 people and their dependants who came on health and social care visas between 2022 and 2024, would be subject to a 15-year baseline. Migrants reliant on benefits will face a 20-year wait for settlement – quadruple the current period and the longest in Europe, whereas illegal migrants and visa overstayers would have to wait up to 30 years to settle. These reforms will make Britain’s settlement system by far the most controlled and selective in Europe.
Elsewhere, Germany has acknowledged the urgent need for migration as it faces persistent shortages of skilled workers across multiple sectors. Despite this, it has tightened rules around the right to remain for certain refugee groups, linking this more closely to “successful integration and employment.’ In May 2025, Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt ordered increased border controls and authorised pushbacks of asylum seekers at the border. He has also called for a “tougher and harder line” European asylum policy – a line that underscores a more restrictive turn in Germany’s migration politics. A further disincentive comes from the fact that individuals holding protection status in Germany who travel to visit their home country lose this right, preventing refugees from checking property or visiting family there. Germany’s emerging migration model draws a clear line: skilled workers are being actively recruited, while more vulnerable refugees already in the country face tighter scrutiny over their right to remain.
Tough policies like these aim at control or deterrence, but they often trade short-term optics for long-term economic, social, and moral costs. They have been shown to lead to family separation, reduced access to essential services, and increased fear within affected communities. They also produce negative economic impacts, undermine public safety by eroding trust in institutions, and contribute to social polarisation. Migration is an issue. This is a fact. It would be foolish to expect European governments to ignore the problem, especially as far-right actors are becoming increasingly vocal, but perhaps Spain’s approach provides a more effective model than inhumane plans focused on restriction and exclusion.
The Spanish position is undoubtedly unique, as the European country closest to North Africa and one that shares a land border, it therefore has a self-interest in the development and well-being of the continent. This position is reflected in the distinctively positive focus on the importance of migrants to the country’s economy. Migration is crucial as it serves to fill workforce gaps and counteract an ageing population that could imperil pensions and the welfare state. Javier Díaz-Giménez, a professor of economics at the IESE Business School and an expert in pensions, says that a baby boom that lasted from the mid-50s to the late 70s has created a generation of Spaniards who are heading for pension age, and the “baby crash” that followed means there are not enough workers to replace them. A report by Spain’s central bank, published in April 2024, suggested that the country will need around 25 million new workers over the next 30 years.
Instead of forcing migrants to remain unemployed during lengthy application processes, asylum seekers in Spain are allowed to work six months after their arrival in Spain. Many Africans work in fruit and vegetable production, which is crucial to the Spanish economy, and employment is a crucial step in the integration process. “Providing rights is the answer to racism,” said Irene Montero, of the far-left Podemos party, and a former minister in a coalition government with the Socialists.
“Before they receive the authorisation to start working, we place great emphasis on them learning Spanish, as well as offering them training courses and classes on risk avoidance,” says Dolores Queiro, of the San Juan de Dios Foundation, the non-governmental organisation that manages the migrant centre in Villaquilambre. “When the date for them being able to start working approaches, we get in touch with different companies – and they contact us as well – and we start looking for jobs for them.” Migration Minister Elma Saiz said the beneficiaries of the new system would be able to work “in any sector, in any part of the country” and extolled “the positive impact” of migration. Beyond its borders, the Spanish government funds training schemes for unemployed youth in countries such as Senegal, especially for irregular migrants who have been sent back, to help them develop viable new livelihoods at home. It has also expanded a “circular migration” programme that gives West Africans short-term visas to come to Spain for limited periods of seasonal work, mainly in agriculture, and then return.
This may be why Spain has been outperforming the other main EU economies in recent years, posting expected growth of close to 3% in 2025. Unemployment, a longstanding weakness of the Spanish economy, has dipped below 10% for the first time since 2008, according to figures released in January. Although this economic success is the result of a range of policies, Sánchez has said migration accounted for 80% of Spain’s dynamic economic growth in the last six years, contributing 10% of Social Security revenues while representing only 1% of expenditure.
The benefits of migration are therefore clear, but what about the negative impacts? Electorates often see immigrants as a drain on their economies, taking up jobs, housing, and healthcare benefits that would otherwise go to citizens. However, this perception is largely incorrect and is stoked by far-right political groups and sections of the media. Looking at the UK, where Sir Keir Starmer recently came under fire when, during a speech on immigration, he spoke of the danger of his country becoming “an island of strangers”. However, studies have shown little evidence of a substantial impact of immigration on the employment or unemployment prospects of UK-born workers. In terms of economic impact, pre-Brexit research suggests that, overall, migrants paid into the public finances about as much as they took out through the use of public services. One analysis found that, on average, “Skilled Workers” who entered the UK in 2022/23 had a net positive impact of £16,300 in that year.
Politicians should resist the urge to pander to over-represented far-right voices and acknowledge the clear benefits of a more sympathetic approach to the issue of migration. The long-term social, moral, and economic benefits of prioritising human rights and integration far outweigh the short-term political instinct to pull up the drawbridges. European governments must find a way to prioritise a narrative of co-existence to ensure that their own citizens can appreciate the myriad advantages of global migration.