21
The Spanish government’s decision to grant one-year temporary residency permits—along with work authorization—to nearly 500,000 undocumented migrants marks one of the most consequential and controversial policy moves in Spain and across the European Union in recent years. To understand this decision, one must examine the intersection of three analytical layers: the structure of Spain’s domestic labor market, the logic of multilevel governance within the European Union, and the political contestation unfolding inside the country.
The executive order applies to individuals who entered Spain before December 31, 2025, and who meet specific conditions. On the surface, the measure appears to be a technical effort to regularize an existing situation. In substance, however, it represents a recalibration of the state’s relationship to migration, labor, and European institutional constraints.
Spain today faces a structural contradiction it can no longer defer: the tension between economic necessity and restrictive migration policy. For years, hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants have worked in agriculture, construction, urban services, and tourism—sectors that form the backbone of regional economies. These workers have long participated in production, contributed indirectly through taxation and consumption, and sustained key industries. Yet they remained outside formal legal protection.
In this sense, the government’s decision does not create a new reality; it acknowledges one that has already solidified. Legalization moves labor from the shadows of the informal economy into the regulated domain of the state.
Spain’s economic structure clarifies the rationale. Its labor market operates across two primary segments: a formal core of stable employment with legal protections and adequate wages, and a secondary segment defined by temporary contracts, low pay, and limited security. Undocumented migrants have traditionally been concentrated in the latter, where legal vulnerability increases the likelihood of exploitation.
Granting residency and work permits may reduce the structural divide between these segments by integrating a portion of the workforce into formal arrangements. The implications are not merely humanitarian. Formalization expands the tax base, strengthens social security contributions, and curbs unfair competition. Employers can no longer rely on irregular status to suppress labor costs. What appears as a migration policy is equally a labor market intervention.
Yet this measure cannot be understood solely through economic logic. It must also be situated within the institutional architecture of the European Union. Member states operate within overlapping layers of national sovereignty and supranational governance. Spain has exercised its sovereign authority over residency policy—an area that remains largely within national competence.
However, membership in the Schengen Area complicates the equation. Individuals granted legal residency in Spain can travel within other Schengen states for up to 90 days in any 180-day period. This mobility capacity has triggered concern in Brussels.
The European Commission’s unease is less about formal legality than about institutional coherence. In recent years, the EU has sought to develop a coordinated framework to manage irregular migration—emphasizing deterrence, border control, and accelerated return mechanisms. Within such a context, large-scale regularization may be interpreted as a contradictory signal: that irregular entry can ultimately be converted into lawful status.
Here, the tension between two governing logics becomes visible: the human integration approach versus the deterrence-centered European paradigm. Yet the Commission lacks direct authority to suspend Spain’s policy, as residency decisions fall under national jurisdiction. What emerges is not institutional confrontation but structured negotiation within a multilevel governance system.
Spain is neither openly defying European order nor fully subordinating itself to it. Instead, it is recalibrating the balance between national discretion and collective coherence. The European Union does not operate through absolute uniformity; space remains for differentiated national policy within shared institutional boundaries.
Domestically, the policy has generated political friction. Conservative and far-right parties have characterized the measure as destabilizing and as a potential pull factor for new migration flows. From their perspective, enforcement and return should remain the core instruments of migration management.
Conversely, left-wing groups and civil society organizations argue that purely restrictive approaches have failed to eliminate irregular labor. Instead, they contend, such strategies entrench informal economies and structural exploitation. For them, regularization enhances transparency, strengthens public finances, and restores a measure of social dignity.
Spain has undertaken regularization measures before; this is not historically unprecedented. The difference today lies in the broader European climate, marked by intensified anti-immigration rhetoric in several member states. Consequently, the decision carries symbolic weight. Spain positions itself as a state attempting to reconcile economic need with a more integrative approach, even as neighboring governments adopt stricter postures.
Demographic realities reinforce this calculus. Spain faces population aging and declining birth rates. Migrant labor is increasingly viewed not only as an engine of growth but as a stabilizer of the social security system. Legalization increases formal tax and contribution participation, potentially alleviating long-term demographic pressures. In this light, the policy appears less ideological than structural—a response to demographic and fiscal constraints.
Reducing the decision to a binary of humanitarianism versus deterrence oversimplifies its nature. It is a pragmatic response to a labor market reality that has existed for years in Spain’s informal sector. Through executive action, the government has sought to bring that reality into a regulated legal framework while signaling that migration must be managed—not denied.
The European Commission’s cautious reaction suggests a similar balancing act. Brussels articulates cross-border concerns without escalating the matter into institutional rupture. The episode illustrates the interplay of three logics: labor market economics, national legal sovereignty, and supranational institutional coherence.
The ultimate outcome will depend not only on domestic implementation but on how effectively Spain navigates this equilibrium within the European framework. What is clear is that migration in Europe is no longer merely a question of borders. It is intertwined with labor structures, social cohesion, fiscal sustainability, and evolving definitions of sovereignty in an era of interdependence.
Spain’s decision signals that economic pragmatism has, at least for now, taken precedence over securitized political rhetoric. Whether this recalibration produces long-term stability or unintended consequences will become evident in the years ahead.
Translated by Ashraf Hemmati from the original Persian article written by Amin Mahdavi
[1] edition.cnn.com/2026/01/27/europe/spain-legal-status-undocumented-migrants-latam-intl
[1] theconversation.com/spains-mass-regularisation-for-500-000-undocumented-migrants-is-not-extreme-unprecedented-or-opportunistic-274875
[1] www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/dispatches/2026/02/11/royal-decree-immigrants-amnesty-spain-catholic-church/
[1] home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/asylum-eu_en
[1] cyprus-mail.com/2026/02/07/integration-over-exclusion-spains-mass-regularisation-of-500000-undocumented-migrants
[1] www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/04/this-is-europe-spain-pedro-sanchez-migrants-regularise
Comment
Post a comment for this article