A fierce debate has erupted across the European Union over migration policy, centred on a controversial shift towards stricter enforcement of return decisions for migrants residing illegally in member states.
The clash reflects deeper tensions about national sovereignty, the rule of law and humanitarian obligations at a time when asylum systems across Europe appear overwhelmed. French MEP François-Xavier Bellamy lambasted current enforcement practices and welcomed proposed measures aimed at tightening controls.
Bellamy drew attention to what he describes as “chaos” in Europe’s migration enforcement, noting with frustration that “the vast majority of foreigners who remain illegally in our countries, enter without a residence permit, or are denied the right of asylum, are never deported”.
His critique hinges on the assertion that “80% of return decisions in Europe are not enforced”, and, pointing specifically to French statistics, he claimed that “in France, over the past ten years, more than one million removal orders have not been carried out”.
To Bellamy, this is not a defence of legitimate asylum but a sign of systemic failure that “drains all rights and all laws of their meaning, for the French as for foreigners”.
The backdrop to his comments is the European Parliament’s recent vote to back a proposal for a new common system for the return of third-country nationals staying illegally in the Union. This legislative initiative seeks to make migration enforcement more effective after years of limited enforcement, where only a fraction of return orders result in actual departures.
European Commission data suggest that many return decisions remain unexecuted, in part due to cooperation challenges with third countries and procedural delays.
Under the new approach, member states would have strengthened powers to detain migrants ahead of removal, prevent the release of individuals who have committed crimes, and carry out returns even when the country of origin initially refuses to cooperate. Bellamy welcomed these elements.
“Proud of this new regulation which will indeed allow for detention until actual departure, prevent the release of foreigners when they have committed a crime, guarantee returns even when the country of origin refuses to cooperate, restore to our States control over our borders…” he wrote on X.
For supporters of the tougher stance, these changes are essential to uphold legal order and ensure that the right of asylum is meaningful rather than exploited.
However, the proposed reforms have also attracted criticism. Human rights advocates and a number of EU lawmakers have raised alarms about provisions such as extended detention and the creation of so-called “return hubs” outside EU territory, warning that they could lead to “human rights black holes” where legal protections are eroded.
Bellamy’s frustration extended to the political opposition to the regulation. He lamented that a broad coalition, including the French left and Macron’s centrist supporters, voted against what he described as “this so necessary text, despite support from deputies in their own groups and demands from the vast majority of European governments”.
For him, resisting these measures amounts to defending the very dysfunction that weakens Europe’s ability to manage migration effectively.
“We will no longer tolerate lessons on the rule of law from those who today sought to protect this state of lawlessness that renders Europe powerless in the face of illegal immigration,” he wrote.
The New Pact on Migration and Asylum, a broader framework aimed at overhauling the EU’s migration system, has already introduced reforms in asylum procedures and border management, but enforcement of returns remains a contentious element.
Critics argue that focusing too heavily on detention and deportation risks neglecting the root causes of migration and the protection obligations owed to vulnerable individuals.
Bellamy’s intervention reflects a growing impatience among certain political circles that current systems are inadequate and that decisive action is overdue. Whether the newest regulation will succeed in significantly improving enforcement without compromising fundamental rights is a test that EU lawmakers now face in upcoming negotiations with the European Council and member states.
