The unprecedented border crossing into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta has sparked a wave of political reactions across Europe. Far-right parties described the crossings as “an invasion” and a majority of European governments demanded a reaction from European Union officials.
In an urgent meeting of the bloc’s interior ministers on August 4, Magnus Brunner, the European commissioner for migration, praised Spain’s “swift response” but deemed its immigration policy as “definitely not a good signal for the rest of Europe”.
The emergency meeting was prompted by a joint letter signed by the leaders of 22 EU member states led by Italy and Denmark, and addressed to the European Commission, the European Council and the Irish prime minister, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU Council.
The open letter contains a number of legal claims, the veracity of which is questionable, as this article will show.
Uproar over ‘pull factors’ for illegal immigration
The EU members’ letter called for the elimination of all policies that could be “pull factors” to Europe. Pull factors are considered positive things that attract people to another country. Governments across the world, including Europe, have been using arguments based on pull factors (e.g. welfare benefits, job opportunities) to erode their asylum and migration systems.
Even though academic research has repeatedly proven the simplicity of these pull factors wrong, the myth refuses to die. Establishing whether a policy functions as a pull factor requires empirical evidence, and decisions to migrate are rarely explained by a single cause. For the situation in Ceuta, evidence hints that Spanish-Moroccan relations are a major factor.
In the letter, the 22 member state signatories suggest two legal developments constitute a pull factor: a recent Spanish Supreme Court decision and Spain’s 2026 regularisation programme. Yet, in fact, neither of them grant any benefits to people arriving, as we will show. Singling these out as mono-causal pull factors, thus cannot withstand a simple reality check.
What’s the Spanish law on migrants arriving by land and sea?
According to Spanish law, a person can be deported, without procedure, if that person is found trying to overcome ‘an element of border containment’ (e.g. a wall). The Spanish Supreme Court recently ruled that water without any barriers is not an ‘element of border containment’; therefore, a person who, for instance, tries to swim to cross the border cannot be deported without a procedure.
What is presented politically as a permissive migration policy is, in legal terms, largely the implementation of obligations that already bind all EU member states. The decision does not grant anyone the right to remain in Spain or to move onwards to other member states. Rather, it simply requires Spain to apply the formal procedures in these instances.
Spain’s 2026 regularisation programme provided a pathway for certain eligible persons who have been living in Spain (before January 1 2026) to obtain temporary legal residence, work rights, and access to the Spanish healthcare system. But it does not automatically give them the right to live or work in other EU countries. Many of those eligible have long been living and working in Spain, often on the margins of society due to their undocumented status. Crucially, the programme does not grant rights to new arrivals.
Incidentally, Spain’s previous experience with regularisation programmes shows that these measures are exceptional rather than predictable policy tools: they are introduced in response to specific circumstances and cannot be reasonably anticipated by people considering migration. The idea that a “one-off”, politically uncertain programme would operate as a reliable incentive for future migration therefore rests on a weak assumption.
Presenting border crossings as the result of Spanish legal decisions and policies contributes to a narrative in which legal protection for people forced into precarious migration pathways, or living without a state’s authorisation, are depicted as dangerous incentives.
This framing risks normalising the idea that compliance with legal obligations is itself a problem, further undermining the rule of law framework within which migration governance should operate.
The letter also included a threat to reintroduce border controls inside the Schengen area. Although the governments claim that they would do so within the legal framework that exists, their actions paint a different picture.
On July 31, Italy had already announced that it had unilaterally “suspended” the border-free Schengen agreement with Spain. In practice, this means introducing checks on air and sea travel between the two countries. Similarly, the German Federal Minister of the Interior claimed that the situation in Ceuta allowed Germany to maintain the already existing controls at its land borders beyond September.
How do calls for internal border controls sit with the rule of law?
While it is true that, under specific circumstances, member states may reintroduce border controls for a limited period, they can only do so in the event of a serious threat. The Schengen Border Code lists sudden large-scale movements between member states as such a threat. The people in Ceuta do not move between member states and are hundreds of kilometres away from the next Schengen border.
Another valid reason for reintroducing border controls between member states would be in the event of “serious deficiencies” at the EU’s external border. But as the Schengen agreement does not apply to Ceuta in the first place, an exception would not be made for the recent migration surge there – aside from the fact that border controls cannot be invoked unilaterally.
What these developments reveal is a growing gap between political rhetoric and the legal framework governing migration in the European Union.
Claims about pull factors are used to justify measures that might go against EU law. Or, as in the case with the Supreme Court judgement, they frame Spain’s mere compliance with human rights as a problem. For an EU that claims to be governed by the rule of law, via legal rules constraining government powers, this should be a concerning development.
A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!
