Taking Back Control from Brussels: How EU Member States Can Reclaim Migration Policy Now

The new report Taking Back Control from Brussels: The Renationalization of the EU Migration and Asylum Policies, prepared by the Mathias Corvinus Collegium in Budapest and Hungary’s Migration Research Institute in cooperation with Poland’s Ordo Iuris Institute, addresses one of the most pressing political and legal challenges facing Europe today: the loss of national control over migration policy. The central objective of the report is clear and pragmatic—to demonstrate that European Union member states can reclaim effective authority over migration and asylum policy without changing the EU treaties. In other words, meaningful action is possible immediately using the legal tools already in place.

As explained by Ordo Iuris President Jerzy Kwaśniewski in an interview for Magyar Nemzet, Hungary’s main conservative daily newspaper, the widespread belief that EU law irreversibly transferred migration policy to Brussels is based on a fundamental legal misunderstanding. While the EU has been granted certain coordinating and harmonizing competences, primary responsibility for protecting public order, national security, and social cohesion remains with the member states.

The current paralysis of national governments stems less from legal constraints than from political hesitation and a distorted interpretation of EU obligations. Member states continue to possess the sovereign right—and the legal duty—to decide who enters their territory, under what conditions, and whether asylum claims meet the criteria set by international law. This includes the right to refuse entry, to return illegal migrants, and to adopt national measures when EU policies prove ineffective or harmful.

The report argues that reclaiming national competence in migration policy is not an act of rebellion against the European Union, but a restoration of the principle of subsidiarity enshrined in the EU treaties – in light of the failure of decades of migration policies undertaken at the EU level. When migration decisions are centralized without democratic accountability, citizens lose trust in institutions and social tensions escalate.

The EU Migration Pact, coming into force in 2026, is only going to make things worse. The pact can be summarized as follows: first, combat illegal migration by legalizing it; second, mass migration is inevitable, necessary, and beneficial for European societies, economies, and cultures; third, mass migration must be distributed evenly across all Member States through forced relocations. The effects of these assumptions are millions of migrants within the EU’s borders, as well as a negligible rate of actual deportations of those who have been ordered to be deported – only one in five actually leaves the EU!

Only reasserting national control will allow governments to respond to real security risks, protect public services, and maintain social cohesion, while still respecting international obligations. The report thus offers a roadmap for lawful, immediate, and responsible action by EU member states.

Report Presentation in Budapest

On January 22 in Budapest, the Mathias Corvinus Collegium (MCC) hosted the launch of the report Taking Back Control from Brussels: The Renationalization of EU Migration and Asylum Policies, co-authored with the Migration Research Institute and written in cooperation with the Ordo Iuris Institute. The event brought together scholars, policymakers, and legal practitioners to assess why the European Union’s current approach to migration policy has repeatedly failed and to outline a legal roadmap for returning authority to individual member states.

Opening the conference, Balázs Orbán, MCC Chairman of the Board of Trustees and Political Director to the Hungarian Prime Minister, framed the report as more than a political statement but a serious legal analysis of migration law. He warned of the broader “civilizational erasure” Europe faces if legal frameworks are not reformed and stressed the need for sovereign border control.

Orbán sharply criticized the EU’s migration policies, arguing that despite years of attempted coordination, Brussels has failed to stop illegal migration while imposing sanctions on states that defend their borders. He said that current legal and institutional approaches treat migration as an administrative issue rather than a security threat and that meaningful change requires rethinking not just EU policy, but also international humanitarian law.

Panelists, including the report’s authors, expanded on these themes by pointing to structural flaws in the EU asylum system that act as pull factors for irregular flows. They highlighted the need to restore national competence over border protection and asylum adjudication as a matter of legal clarity and democratic accountability.

At the conference, Jerzy Kwaśniewski, President and Co-founder of the Ordo Iuris Institute, underscored that the report furnishes ready-made solutions for reclaiming member state authority under existing treaties and stressed that stopping illegal migration must remain a national prerogative when EU mechanisms prove ineffective and unenforceable.

The Budapest presentation thus spotlighted a growing legal and policy argument that Europe’s migration crisis stems not from a lack of cooperation but from misapplied law—and that renationalization offers a feasible path forward under current treaty frameworks.

Summary of the Report

The report itself begins by clarifying the legal framework governing migration and asylum within the European Union. Contrary to popular belief, the EU does not possess exclusive competence in this field. While the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for a common asylum policy, it does not abolish national sovereignty over border control, internal security, or the determination of who may enter and remain on national territory. The report stresses that these core competences remain with the member states.

A central argument is that EU institutions have progressively expanded their influence through secondary legislation and judicial interpretation, often exceeding the intent of the treaties. This process has led to a de facto centralization of migration policy without democratic consent. The authors argue that member states are not legally obliged to accept this expansion, particularly when it conflicts with constitutional identity or fundamental state functions.

The report examines international asylum law, including the Geneva Convention, and explains that asylum is not a right to choose one’s country of residence. States retain the authority to determine admissibility, to designate safe third countries, and to reject applications that do not meet legal criteria. The misuse of humanitarian arguments to justify unrestricted migration is identified as a distortion of international law.

Another key section addresses border protection. The report affirms that member states have both the right and the obligation to secure their external borders. Failure to do so undermines not only national security but also the integrity of the Schengen system. The authors argue that pushbacks, when conducted in accordance with the law and accompanied by access to asylum procedures where required, are not inherently illegal.

The report also critiques compulsory relocation mechanisms, describing them as legally questionable and politically counterproductive. Such schemes, the authors argue, violate the principle of subsidiarity and ignore the vastly different capacities and social contexts of member states. Renationalization would allow countries to adopt policies tailored to their specific circumstances while cooperating voluntarily where appropriate.

Finally, the report outlines practical steps for reclaiming national control. These include invoking treaty safeguards, challenging unlawful EU acts, strengthening national legislation, and coordinating with like-minded states. The authors emphasize that renationalization is not about dismantling the EU, but about restoring a lawful balance between European cooperation and national sovereignty.

Conclusion

As Jerzy Kwaśniewski states in the report:

“Europe is facing an unprecedented legal crisis that is depriving member states of their ability to protect their own borders and citizens. After years of a common EU migration and asylum policy, the system has completely collapsed. The Schengen area has turned into a sieve through which illegal migrants move freely. Return procedures for illegal migrants are largely illusory. Meanwhile, overlapping international obligations have made effective border protection almost impossible from a legal standpoint. To make matters worse, European taxpayers are financing NGOs that directly facilitate illegal migration and obstruct effective border control. Given the total failure of the European Union’s common migration and asylum policy, further reforms within the current EU framework are no longer possible. A fundamental paradigm shift is needed — the restoration of migration sovereignty to nation-states, which alone possess the democratic legitimacy to decide who has the right to enter and reside on their territory.

The renationalization of migration policy is no longer an option; it is a necessity. The alternative is a complete loss of control over Europe’s borders and the definitive end of our ability to manage our own territory.

The time for debate is over. The time for decisive action is now.”

Read also:

• The Migration Pact and the Protection of the EU’s External Borders in 26 Questions and Answers
• Full house in Paris – Ordo Iuris and MCC presented a vision for reform of the European Union