For the final article of this column, I thought we could tackle one of the most politically charged debates in Europe: Can the EU control migration while staying true to its values?

The timing is hardly accidental. On 12 June, the EU's long-awaited Migration and Asylum Pact officially entered into force after years of negotiations and a two-year implementation period. Supporters describe it as the first serious attempt to create a coherent European migration system. Critics see it as a dangerous shift toward deterrence, detention, and the erosion of asylum rights.

But what is the Pact actually trying to do? To understand the debate, it's worth starting with the problem the Pact is trying to solve. For years, the EU's migration system has struggled under the weight of uneven responsibility-sharing. Countries at the Union's external borders, particularly Greece, Italy, and Spain, have borne a disproportionate share of arrivals, while other member states have often resisted taking in asylum seekers. The Pact aims to address this by creating a more unified system across all 27 member states. In practice, the Pact is meant to make the system more streamlined and predictable. It brings in mandatory border screening, faster asylum decisions, and an upgraded database to track applicants across the EU. It also speeds up procedures for those unlikely to receive protection and strengthens return policies. On top of that, it tries to address one of the EU’s biggest issues (unequal responsibility) by introducing a system where countries must either take in asylum seekers or contribute money and resources instead.

In theory, the logic is straightforward. A faster, more predictable system should reduce backlogs, discourage irregular migration, and distribute responsibilities more fairly across the Union. Asylum seekers receive quicker decisions, member states gain more control over borders, and frontline countries receive support from their European partners. Or at least, that's the idea.

Supporters of the Pact argue the EU can no longer afford a system that appears disorganised and reactive. Migration is one of the defining political issues across the continent, and it has been for over a decade now. Public confidence in asylum systems has weakened, and governments face increasing pressure to demonstrate that they can manage who enters their territory.

From this perspective, the Pact is not about rejecting asylum but about restoring credibility. Faster procedures, better registration systems, and clearer rules can help distinguish more quickly between those who genuinely need protection and those whose applications are unlikely to succeed. Proponents argue that this is necessary both for the integrity of asylum systems and for maintaining public support for legal migration and refugee protection. In other words, effective migration control may actually be what allows a generous asylum system to survive politically.

Yet this argument is far from convincing. Many human rights organisations, legal scholars, and civil society groups point to the same issue: it is not efficiency that is problematic, but the methods used to achieve it.

Much of the criticism focuses on how the Pact will actually work in practice. The expanded use of border procedures means some asylum seekers will be processed quickly while held at border facilities with fewer opportunities to challenge decisions, prompting concerns about the fairness of asylum procedures.

There are also concerns about increased detention, including for families and minors. Organisations such as Amnesty International, Oxfam, Caritas and Save the Children have warned that the new system could erode fundamental rights protections. Many have gone further, calling parts of the reform incompatible with humanitarian principles: Green MEP Tineke Strik, has been vocal about how the Pact prioritises deterrence at the expense of asylum seekers' rights.

Beyond that, the Pact does not provide long-term solutions. Tackling migration through stricter procedures unfortunately does little to address the underlying drivers, whether it is conflict or economic hardship, and is unlikely to reduce arrivals in any meaningful way. And then there’s the practical issues.

For one, the Pact’s rollout got off to a shaky start: the EU’s upgraded Eurodac database which is central to tracking and processing asylum applications, ran into technical problems on day one. Meanwhile, several member states were still struggling to set up the necessary infrastructure and administrative capacity, casting early doubt on how effectively the new system can be implemented. So where does this leave us?

The debate is often framed as a choice between two extremes:

• either the EU effectively controls its borders,

• or the EU ensures the protection of human rights.

But that framing misses something important. The EU cannot treat human rights as optional. Not if it wants to continue presenting itself as a normative actor, not if it wants to lecture others on the rule of law, and not if it expects its values to carry any weight beyond political convenience.

There is no denying that migration presents real challenges. It puts pressure on administrative systems, fuels political tensions, and tests public trust in institutions. In that sense, some elements of the Pact like the attempt to introduce a more structured system of burden-sharing between member states do represent a step in the right direction after years of uneven responsibility across the Union. At the same time, it is worth keeping a sense of proportion: compared to much of the world, the EU remains one of the most stable, prosperous, and secure regions, and the scale of the “crisis” often looks different when placed in a broader global context rather than domestic political narratives.

This is precisely why the trade-off feels unconvincing. If a system built on rights and protections cannot hold under pressure, then it is fair to ask what those principles are worth in the first place.

The real issue, then, is not whether the EU can control its borders, but how it chooses to do so. Border management inevitably requires rules, procedures, and enforcement mechanisms, while human rights demand safeguards, due process, and a commitment to dignity. These objectives are not incompatible, but they can quickly come into tension when efficiency begins to take precedence over protection.

This is where the Migration Pact becomes worrying in its current form. While it aims to create a more effective and predictable system, it also introduces measures that sit uneasily with the values the EU claims to uphold, particularly when it comes to detention, accelerated procedures, and the broader logic of deterrence.

More fundamentally, the growing reliance on externalisation, whether through partnerships with third countries or proposals to process asylum claims outside EU territory, risks shifting responsibility away from Europe altogether. The Pact may well be a necessary attempt to reconcile competing pressures, but if the outcome increasingly resembles a system designed to keep people out of sight rather than to uphold rights in practice, then it is reasonable to question whether the balance has already begun to tip too far.

So, can the EU have its cake and eat it too? For once, I'm less optimistic than in previous editions. The EU can probably improve migration management and preserve its commitment to human rights. But doing so requires constant vigilance. Efficiency should not become an excuse for reducing protections, and humanitarian concerns cannot simply ignore the political realities governments face.

The Pact may prove to be a necessary reform, but it may also expose serious flaws in how the EU balances control and compassion. The answer, as usual, is unlikely to lie at either extreme. Most political dilemmas are not choices between good and bad options, but choices between competing goods and competing costs.

Disagree? Great! Like all our columns at the Diplomatic Digest, this one’s meant to be a conversation. If you’ve got your own take on how to solve this dilemma, reach out for a chat!