Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How do other countries with open borders policies, such as those in the EU, manage economic integration and migration?
Executive Summary
Europe’s model of open internal borders pairs deep economic integration with layered migration and security tools: free movement under the Single Market drives labor and capital flows while EU-level systems and national policies manage migration effects and rights [1] [2]. Recent policy shifts emphasize labour market integration, biometric data systems, and security cooperation to sustain social programs, address skills shortages, and reduce irregular flows, but implementation raises rights and privacy trade-offs and political tensions across member states [3] [4] [5].
1. Why Europe’s “Four Freedoms” Anchor Migration and Markets
The EU’s Single Market, built on the four freedoms, explicitly links open borders for people with a harmonized goods, services, and capital environment; this institutional design has been declared the “greatest achievement” of European integration and underpins labor mobility as a deliberate economic tool [1]. Policymakers frame free movement as both a political integration mechanism and a practical response to demographic and regional labor mismatches; the surface effect is workforce redistribution, while the deeper effect is structural—member states accept mobility because it sustains the Single Market’s economic cohesion [1] [2]. This framing helps explain why migration policy is inseparable from trade and fiscal arrangements at EU level.
2. Converging Pressures: Skills Needs and Political Salience
Recent EU discussions position migration at the center of the political agenda because population ageing and skills shortages make migrant labor economically necessary to keep social programs solvent and firms staffed [3]. At the same time, the public debate stresses risks associated with irregular migration and integration capacity, pushing the EU toward policies that accelerate labor market entry while trying to assuage domestic political concerns [3] [6]. This dual pressure creates incentives for both liberalizing labor mobility mechanisms and strengthening return and border-management tools, a mix of facilitation and containment.
3. Tech Meets Policy: Eurodac and the Data-Driven Border
The EU is expanding biometric systems such as Eurodac to enhance migration management and intra-EU trust; expansion aims to reduce serial movements and improve identification for asylum and returns [4]. The operational logic is to integrate databases to support mutual recognition of claims and better law-enforcement cooperation, but expansion raises privacy, data-protection and fundamental-rights considerations that critics highlight as potential legitimacy risks if safeguards are insufficient [4]. The technology strengthens state capacity but simultaneously concentrates sensitive information, requiring legal and oversight frameworks to maintain public confidence.
4. Measuring Integration: Where Policy Meets Practice
Tools such as the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) provide comparative measurement across eight policy areas to assess how governments translate open-border realities into integration outcomes [7]. MIPEX’s 2025 update highlights uneven performance: some states excel in labor-market access and anti-discrimination measures while others lag in long-term settlement supports and language acquisition programs. This variation matters because free movement alone does not guarantee socioeconomic inclusion; national policy design determines whether migrants contribute to—and benefit from—host economies, affecting public perceptions and political sustainability [7] [6].
5. Security and Cooperation: Building Trust Without Closing Borders
EU strategies like the emerging Security Union and agencies such as Europol and Eurojust aim to reconcile open internal borders with cross-border crime and hybrid threats by enhancing judicial and law-enforcement cooperation [5] [8]. The intent is to maintain free movement while preventing exploitation of that openness by criminal networks or security actors, but the success depends on mutual trust and information-sharing willingness among member states. Strengthening external-facing resilience, including trade diversification, is part of the broader effort to decouple security vulnerabilities from openness [5] [2].
6. The Political Tightrope: Balancing Rights, Integration, and Control
EU-level design attempts to balance fundamental rights with enforcement: migration policy rhetoric stresses respect for rights even as operational measures—database expansions and stricter external controls—tighten management [4] [6]. Member states face domestic electoral pressures that push toward visible control while EU institutions push harmonization and solidarity. The result is pragmatic hybridity: policies that facilitate labor mobility and quicker integration on one hand, and enhanced identification, border management, and return mechanisms on the other, reflecting a persistent tension between legal norms and political constraints [3] [4].
7. What’s Often Omitted: Implementation, Local Capacity, and Long-Term Cohesion
Analyses often emphasize EU-wide frameworks but understate implementation gaps, local integration capacity, and divergent national politics that shape outcomes. Effective free-movement benefits require local housing, education, and language provisions; without these, economic integration produces uneven benefits and social frictions [7] [6]. Likewise, technological tools and security strategies can only succeed with transparent oversight and funding for frontline services. Future resilience hinges on reconciling macroeconomic integration with micro-level investments that enable migrants to participate fully in host societies [2] [7].