Spain’s decision to regularise roughly 500,000 undocumented migrants has reignited the debate on migration — one of the defining issues in European politics.

Portugal’s recent presidential election demonstrated how the far-right reached the second round for the first time in decades by leaning heavily into anti-immigrant messaging.

Across the continent the question has become polarised: is migration an opportunity to sustain Europe’s economies, or a threat to its identity and borders?

Critics on the-far right and within conservative parties describe Spanish prime minister Pedro Sánchez’s decision as reckless, a signal to the world that entering Europe irregularly will eventually be rewarded with papers.

Supporters argue the opposite, highlighting bringing people out of the shadows is not naïve idealism but a pragmatic policy choice aimed at restoring legal and economic order.

What the amnesty is and what it isn’t

The actual decision, announced on 27 January, grants eligible applicants a one-year residence permit. Applicants must prove continuous residence, demonstrate employment or integration, and pass background checks confirming they have no criminal record. Only if they comply with the law and meet requirements can their status be extended. It is not automatic citizenship, nor is unconditional freedom of movement. 

This distinction matters. Regularisation is not the same as opening borders.

Opponents warn that Spain is becoming a ‘Black Sheep’ within the European Union, damaging trust between the member states and the Schengen system.

If half a million people receive documents, what prevents them from travelling to Sweden or Germany the next day, asked centre-right Swedish MEP Tomas Tobé, a Swedish MEP, during a debate in Strasbourg on Wednesday (11 February).

The fear is political as much as legal, as critics argue that such moves could create a ‘pull factor,’ encouraging others to enter irregularly in the hope of future amnesties.

During the debate, Spanish Socialists & Democrats MEP Juan Fernando López Aguilar responded that those who receive documents will have residence and employment in Spain, which binds them to the country, and that all applicants undergo background checks.

Moreover, it is important to note that the majority, over 90 percent, of the migrants benefiting from this decision are from Latin America — ie Spanish speakers with cultural and linguistic ties to Spain.

Economic arithmetic

The Spanish government’s argument is also grounded in economic arithmetic. Spain, like much of Europe, is ageing rapidly, with low fertility rates straining pension systems and labour markets. Many of those targeted by the policy have already lived and worked in Spain for years, some for decades, often in agriculture, construction, hospitality, and domestic care.

During the Covid-19 lockdowns, when formal workers could rely on state support, informal workers could not afford to stop working. The pandemic exposed the scale of informal workforce that was essential to the economy but excluded from legal protection.

Regularisation brings these workers into the formal system. It reduces labour exploitation, increases tax contributions, and allows individuals to access healthcare and travel without fear. For the state, it helps convert invisible labour into measurable revenue.

Data across OECD countries consistently show that migrants, particularly those of working age, contribute more in taxes and social contributions over time than they receive in benefits.

Spain’s recent economic performance, among the strongest growth rates in the eurozone, has been partly fuelled by migrant labour filling shortages in key sectors.

Italy’s ‘me-too’ moment

Italy, facing similar demographic pressures, announced in June 2025 that the country will issue nearly 500,000 work permits for non-EU citizens during 2026-2028. Spain’s difference is that it is legalising those already present rather than importing new labour.

The political backlash, however, has been fierce.

Far-right parties and other political commentators accuse Sánchez of courting future voters. However, the structure of the policy complicates that claim.

A one-year renewable residence permit does not immediately translate into voting rights. Citizenship pathways vary, and for many nationalities the process takes years. Therefore, it is not possible to get votes from these migrants for the 2027 elections which goes against the electoral “replacement” claim made by the opposition.

What has amplified the controversy is not only the policy itself but also the tone of the debate.

Elon Musk butts in

During a recent public exchange between Elon Musk and PM Sánchez over Spain’s proposed ban on social media for children, the Spanish leader stated that Musk’s platform, X, had “amplified disinformation” about his government’s decision to regularise half a million undocumented workers and asylum seekers.

Sánchez also pointed out that Musk himself is a migrant.

The deeper issue is whether Europe prefers managed integration or tolerated illegality.

If undocumented migrants remain in the shadows, they continue working, but without contracts, protections, or full tax contributions. Deportations on a massive scale are politically and logistically unrealistic, particularly when many countries of origin resist returns. Regularisation, then, becomes less a moral statement than a pragmatic adjustment.

None of this eliminates legitimate concerns.

Migration flows must be coordinated at the European level to preserve trust within Schengen. Legal pathways need clarity to avoid incentivising irregular entry. Integration requires sustained investment in housing, education, and public services.

But framing the Spanish decision as an existential threat obscures the structural forces at play which includes demographic decline, labour shortages, and the limits of enforcement.

Europe is ageing. Its economies require workers. Its politics, meanwhile, often reduce complex realities to symbolic battles.

Spain’s move forces a harder conversation. Is it better to pretend half a million workers do not exist, or to regulate the reality already on the ground? Migration will remain polarising, but governance demands more than fear or applause. It demands choosing between managing change and denying it.