At the latest European Council summit in Brussels, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez challenged growing support among EU leaders for establishing deportation camps, officially described as “return hubs.” Several heads of government, including Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen, backed arrangements to hold people facing return outside the European Union. Under the EU structure, such centers would require an agreement or formal arrangement with the host country and would apply to people who have received a return order and have no right to remain in the Union. Sánchez rejected the approach, arguing that it is ineffective and conflicts with the European Union’s core values.
The debate intensified when Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni indirectly criticized Spain’s extraordinary regularization of undocumented migrants, suggesting that national decisions can affect neighboring countries. The European Commission’s position is that regularization remains a national competence. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has also warned that national measures can have cross-border effects within the border-free Schengen area, calling for “coordination and close cooperation” between member states. That distinction, national authority over legal status alongside possible wider consequences, lies at the center of the dispute.
Spain’s measure was established by Royal Decree 316/2026, dated 14 April, with applications open from 16 April to 30 June 2026. It applied to undocumented migrants already in Spain who could show they had entered before 1 January 2026, had lived continuously in the country for at least five months and had no criminal record. Eligible applicants could receive a one-year residence and work permit, as employees or self-employed workers. The scheme so offered a route to regular status for people already present in Spain, rather than a new channel for admission.
The government recorded 1,174,978 applications by the deadline, well above its initial projection of about 500,000 beneficiaries. By 2 July, 609,737 applications had been accepted for consideration; a separate government update said more than 70% of files had entered processing, representing approximately 822,000 people with provisional permission to live and work. Around 79.6% of applications used the arraigo, or rootedness, route, while 20.4% came from people who had previously applied for international protection. Latin American nationals accounted for about 67% of applications, including Colombian nationals at 25.9%. Those figures show the scale and composition of the existing resident population covered by the scheme.
Sánchez said Spain’s migration context differs from that of other EU states, emphasizing that most people covered by the regularization already lived and worked in the country and that shared language and cultural ties support integration. He pointed to the Migration and Asylum Pact as part of the EU structure for managing migration. The pact took effect on 12 June 2026. European Parliament research later reported that irregular arrivals into the EU were at their lowest level since 2021 and that the EU-wide return rate had risen above 30%. Sánchez also cited Spanish government figures showing a 35% reduction in total arrivals and a 71% fall in irregular arrivals to the Canary Islands, attributing the results to tighter border controls, legal migration channels and cooperation with countries of origin and transit.
Spain’s permit is limited to residence and work in Spain. It does not grant the right to work or settle in another Schengen country. Holders may travel to other Schengen states for up to 90 days in any 180-day period, subject to the applicable rules. This distinction is basic to arguments about potential movement across the bloc: a Spanish regularization does not itself confer EU-wide labor-market access. Home Affairs Commissioner Magnus Brunner acknowledged that Spain’s decision could have an “impact” on other member states while recognizing regularization as a national prerogative. He also described Spain’s circumstances as distinctive and noted the large share of Latin American applicants.
Denmark’s Frederiksen has asked the European Commission to examine the effects of one member state legalizing people who entered irregularly. In August, a letter signed by 22 European leaders reportedly described large-scale regularization schemes as possible “pull factors.” Their concern is whether a national policy could influence future arrivals or secondary movement, while Spain’s eligibility rules were restricted to people already present in the country. At the October summit, leaders also addressed the migrant influx affecting Ceuta and Melilla on 30-31 July and expressed solidarity with Spain, acknowledging EU support.
The proposed return hubs have drawn criticism from the European Economic and Social Committee, which warned they would represent “a impressive expansion of the EU’s coercive apparatus” and said the implications for affected people’s rights had not been adequately assessed. The debate covers how return orders are carried out, along with safeguards, jurisdiction and accountability when centers operate outside EU territory. The Return Regulation has since been signed into law. European Parliament President Roberta Metsola called it “a impressive piece of the puzzle” in the EU migration strategy and urged member states to implement it swiftly.
The dispute over return hubs and Spain’s regularization shows a widening divide over how the EU should balance enforcement, national decision-making and integration. While many member states favor tougher controls and external return arrangements, Sánchez has defended a model combining border management with legal pathways for people already established in Spain. The policy’s scale, the limits of the permits and disagreement over cross-border effects have made the Spanish measure a focal point in the wider European migration debate.
