The new European rules on migration are intended to address the main limitations of the Dublin Regulation. However, the fundamental criteria remain unchanged. The burden of migratory flows continues to fall on the border countries. No improvements are foreseen in the treatment of migrants; instead, the procedures are becoming more rigid and complex.<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n

In recent months, attention on EU reforms has focused on the revision of the Stability and Growth Pact. Less visibility has been given to another reform that, at least on paper, could be equally crucial for the Union: the Migration Pact on migration and asylum seekers. The old rules, known as the Dublin Regulation, left the management of almost all arrivals to the responsibility of the border states, which over the years has caused many frictions among member states, leading de facto to the failure of the common system. The new rules attempt to address some of the main problems. In essence, however, the structural changes are few, and a more complex mechanism is created without altering the principles at the root of the implementation difficulties.<\/span><\/p>\n

How It Worked So Far: The Limits of Dublin<\/b><\/h3>\n

\u201cThe Regulation (EU) No. 604\/2013 is repealed as of July 1, 2026.\u201d With these words, on May 14, the European Union archived – albeit with a two-year cushion – the infamous Dublin Regulation on the management of migrants. The Dublin rules, first introduced in 1990, have governed the EU asylum system for decades but have been widely criticized for the disproportionate burden imposed on border states. According to the regulation, migrants must apply for asylum in the first EU country they set foot in. For example, a migrant arriving in Italy must be registered and apply for asylum there, waiting in Italy for the decision without being able to move to another EU country. If they manage to move and apply for asylum in another country, such as Germany, the German authorities must agree with the Italian authorities on the transfer of the migrant back to Italy, where the asylum request would be processed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The aim of the regulation was to avoid the potential risk of so-called “asylum shopping”- that is, avoiding asylum seekers applying in multiple countries and choosing the one offering the best treatment – and to ensure a clear and rapid mechanism for determining which state is responsible for handling each asylum request. In practice, however, it has resulted in a rift between three dimensions: regulation, reality, and perception. The perception is shaped by the narrative used to describe the phenomenon. Media images and political campaigns that capitalize on this narrative paint a picture of relentless landings in Mediterranean countries. Indeed, with the migration wave of the past decade, first reception facilities in Italy and other border countries have faced overcrowding issues, leading the public to perceive a collapsing European asylum system that burdens border countries entirely. However, this perception only concerns the initial arrival. What happens afterward paints a very different picture. As shown in the figure depicting the flow of new asylum requests relative to the total pending requests for the fifteen largest countries, there is no significant imbalance against the countries of first arrival. Italy has lower-than-average new request rates, and Spain’s rates are not significantly higher. Among the five countries with the most requests, Italy is not included, and only two countries face the Mediterranean.<\/span><\/p>\n

Asylum Applications in Fifteen EU Countries as a Percentage of the Population<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/h3>\n