Europe faces a demographic and cultural crossroads. As aging populations and a shrinking workforce strain welfare systems, immigration is promoted as a key solution. But are immigrants to be viewed as ‘anywheres’ who can just be relocated to supply the labor market as needed? Spanish researcher Juan Ángel Soto thinks not. In his new report for the Danube Institute, The Empire Strikes Back: Why Civilisational Aspects Matter in Migration Policy, he argues that the civilisational legacies of former empires continue to influence the integration of migrants today.
“What I am trying to show in this work,” Soto explains to europeanconservative.com, “is that immigration cannot be analyzed solely in numbers or economics. There is a civilisational background that explains why some countries achieve better integration than others.”
The study compares Spain, France, and the United Kingdom, three colonial powers with different trajectories. Soto distinguishes between administrative empires (British and French) and civilisational or replicative empires (the Spanish).
“While France and the United Kingdom governed their colonies by maintaining cultural distance, Spain exported language, religion, and institutions. That difference still weighs heavily today on migrant integration,” the researcher notes.
In France, republican universalism coexists with recurring unrest in the suburbs and the growth of ghettos where integration seems impossible. The United Kingdom, for its part, adopted a multicultural model that encouraged parallel communities, leading to widespread mistrust and conflict.
“In both cases, legal or formal proximity does not translate into real belonging. The result is social and cultural fracture,” Soto explains.
But Spain is different. For the almost four million Hispanic American migrants—approximately 10% of the population—living in the country in 2025, integration has been smoother than in the British and French cases.
“When a Colombian or a Peruvian arrives in Spain, they don’t feel they are landing in a strange world; they see it as a reunion. That familiarity explains why their integration is faster and less conflictive,” Soto affirms.
According to the author, this relative success is due to a heritage of cultural affinity—language, religion, law—that still articulates the idea of Hispanidad.
The effective integration of Hispanic immigrants, however,does not automatically translate to success when integrating immigrants of non-Hispanic origin, something Soto is acutely aware of.
The report concludes with a warning. Immigration will continue to shape Europe’s future, but the results will depend on how policies are designed.
“I’m not saying borders should be closed, I’m saying we must be selective,” Soto clarifies. “If we do not consider cultural compatibility, we will repeat the problems of ghettos and fractures we already see in France or the United Kingdom.”
His proposal is clear: immigration must be legal and controlled, respond to real labor market needs, and above all, incorporate a criterion of civilisational proximity.
“Europe is at a crossroads,” he warns. “Either it manages immigration with civilisational realism, or it will lose social cohesion and national identity. Spain offers a clue as to the way forward.”
