The extraordinary regularization of immigrants reaches a record of 900,000 applications

Direct answer

To date, there is no “extraordinary regularization” bill promoted by the Government under parliamentary processing in either the Congress or the Senate following a supposed approval in the Council of Ministers. The only clearly identified initiative with that title is the Popular Legislative Initiative (ILP) 120/000026, non-governmental, from the previous XIV Legislature. That ILP remained at the initial stage: text published in the Bulletin of the Cortes, sent to the Government for opinion and to the competent Commission, but without reaching debate for consideration in Plenary nor passing to the Senate. Consequently, the “extraordinary regularization” with parliamentary trace is not currently being processed as a Government initiative in the XV Legislature.

What initiative actually exists regarding “extraordinary regularization”

In the parliamentary documentation consulted, only one initiative with that denomination appears:

– Type of initiative: Popular Legislative Initiative (ILP).
– Official title: «Bill for an extraordinary regularization for foreign persons in Spain».
– File number: 120/000026.
– Origin chamber: Congress of Deputies.
– Legislature: XIV (already concluded).
– Authorship: Citizen promoting commission led by Augustin Marie Ndour Ndong and others, not the Government.

The agreement of the Congress Board ordered its publication in the Official Bulletin of the General Courts (BOCG), Series B, no. 330‑1, of February 24, 2023, where it is recognized that the ILP exceeded the minimum required signatures and is formally classified as (120) Popular legislative initiative. That same agreement arranged its transfer to the Government, the Central Electoral Board, the Senate, and the promoting Commission, in accordance with the Organic Law regulating the ILP.

Processing stage reached in the Congress

In procedural terms, this ILP on extraordinary regularization only reached an initial stage:

– The Congress Board qualified it, verified the signatures, and agreed its publication in the BOCG.
– It was sent to the Government so that, according to articles 126 and 127 of the Congress Rules, it would issue its opinion on the consideration and, if applicable, a report on budgetary impact.
– It was sent to the Commission on Labor, Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations, for the appearance of the promoters as provided in Organic Law 3/1984, an appearance that can only take place after the Government’s deadline to respond has expired.

There is no trace that the debate on consideration in Plenary has taken place, nor that subsequent phases (submission of amendments, committee report, final debate in Plenary) have opened. The voting database itself shows that the file has no recorded votes (“the number of available votes is 0”), confirming that the consideration was never voted on.

Furthermore, as it belongs to the XIV Legislature, now ended, the ILP was effectively frozen at that stage of publication and transfer. There is no parliamentary information indicating that it has been resumed, reproduced, or assumed by the Government in the current XV Legislature.

Status in the Senate and relation with the Government

The Congress Board agreement orders to “communicate this agreement to the Senate,” but that communication is merely informative: it does not imply that the text has been approved by the Congress nor that it has been sent as a bill or proposal in bicameral reading. In the Senate documentation consulted, no file number or associated procedures appear for this bill, so it can be concluded that it never entered effective processing in the Senate.

Regarding the Government’s role, the file only reflects the ordinary functioning of the Rules: receipt of the ILP for the Executive to issue opinion and economic report. The Government is not listed as promoter of the norm, nor does the documentation show that it has assumed the text as its own or transformed it into a governmental bill.

Conclusion on the “parliamentary status” after the supposed governmental approval

In view of all the above:

– The only “extraordinary regularization” with parliamentary reflection is the ILP 120/000026 from the XIV Legislature, not a Government bill.
– That ILP was published and classified, pending the Government’s opinion and the Congress Plenary’s consideration, without advancing to amendment, committee report, or final approval phases.
– There is no parliamentary record that in the XV Legislature there is a new extraordinary regularization text approved by the Government and sent to the Cortes currently under processing.

If public debate talks about a “Government approval” of an extraordinary regularization, that possible Council of Ministers agreement has not yet translated, according to the documentation consulted, into a registered and ongoing bill in Congress or Senate.

Summary answer

The Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations (MISSM) is the key department of the General State Administration regarding the ordinary management of residence and work authorizations, as well as many “case-by-case” regularization procedures for foreign persons in Spain. It does not have the competence to approve a massive extraordinary regularization on its own (this requires a law or government royal decree-law and, if applicable, the Cortes), but it does control the ordinary migration policy and management that, in practice, allow moving from irregularity to legal residence. Additionally, it directs the regulations and application criteria in immigration matters, coordinates with other ministries (Interior, Foreign Affairs, Labor) and autonomous communities, and manages the social inclusion dimension linked to these processes. In summary, its role is decisive in how regularization is practically carried out, although the whether an extraordinary regularization is approved is a decision of the collegiate Government and Parliament.

General framework of the Ministry’s competencies

In the organic structure of the Government of Spain, the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations assumes migration policy and migrant integration, as well as much of the execution of immigration regulations. This includes proposing and developing regulatory legislation in the area, planning labor migration flows, and managing immigration offices that resolve most individual files. Although the approval of laws or royal decree-laws establishing extraordinary regularizations is the competence of the Council of Ministers and the General Courts, the MISSM is the reference department to technically design these measures, report on their impact, and, if approved, execute them.

Management of “ordinary” regularizations (case by case)

Most “regularization” processes in Spain do not occur through a massive amnesty but through ordinary figures of the Immigration Law (social, labor, family or training roots, changes from stay to residence, family reunification, etc.). In this area, the MISSM has direct competencies over:

1. Development of immigration regulatory legislation. Through its Secretariats of State and General Directorates, it proposes and develops reforms of the Immigration Regulation and the orders and instructions that specify the requirements to obtain or modify residence and work authorizations. This regulatory capacity is one of the main instruments to “open” or “close” individual regularization pathways.

2. Direction of Immigration Offices. These provincial offices process and resolve the vast majority of initial authorizations and renewals. They depend organically on the General State Administration and functionally on the ministry competent in migrations, so interpretation criteria, internal instructions, and prioritization of files are set by the MISSM.

3. Application criteria and instructions. The Ministry approves instructions and interpretative guides that specify, for example, how to prove roots, which documents are valid, or how to assess exceptional circumstances (humanitarian reasons, serious illness, family ties, etc.). Without changing the law, these instructions can facilitate or hinder in practice the regularization of persons in irregular administrative situations.

Participation in possible extraordinary regularizations

Extraordinary regularizations – exceptional processes of access to residence for large groups in irregular situations – can only be approved through laws or royal decree-laws adopted by the Council of Ministers and, if applicable, validated or processed by the General Courts. The Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations does not decide alone to initiate them but plays a key role in:

1. Technical design and impact report. Its technical structure prepares proposals on requirements, deadlines, labor market effects, Social Security system sustainability, and reception and inclusion capacity, which serve as the basis for political debate within the Government.

2. Administrative execution of the process. If an extraordinary regularization is approved, the MISSM organizes the administrative device: reinforcement of immigration offices, development of forms and platforms, instructions on documentation, coordination with national police and consular services when appropriate, and monitoring of deadlines and file volumes.

3. Interministerial and territorial coordination. Regularization impacts employment, health, education, and social services. The MISSM acts as a coordinating ministry with Labor, Interior, Health, Education, and with autonomous communities and local entities, especially regarding social inclusion and reception.

Social inclusion dimension linked to regularization

Beyond the administrative act of granting an authorization, the Ministry has competencies in migrant inclusion, which directly affects the success of any regularization process. Among these functions are:

1. Reception and integration programs. It designs and finances programs for initial reception, language learning, labor insertion, and social support, often managed in collaboration with autonomous communities, municipalities, and third sector entities. These programs are key for regularization to translate into effective integration.

2. Coordination with the Social Security system. Regularization usually involves registration in Social Security and full integration into the social protection system (contributions, contributory benefits, and in some cases, non-contributory). The MISSM, as the holder of this matter, ensures that migration procedures are consistent with affiliation, registration, and contribution rules and with system sustainability.

Limits and relation with other ministries

Although its role is central, the MISSM’s competencies are limited by those of other departments:

1. Ministry of the Interior. Maintains competence in border control, expulsions, returns, and sanctioning regime of the Immigration Law, as well as in issuing the NIE and physical documentation (cards, etc.). Regularization decisions must be coordinated with these functions.

2. Ministry of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation. Manages the consular network, which intervenes in visas and some procedures that may culminate in regularization (family reunifications initiated from the country of origin, work visas, etc.).

3. General Courts. Any major model change or broad extraordinary regularization requires a law. The Courts, not the Ministry, have the final word on the content of those norms.

In conclusion, the Ministry of Inclusion, Social Security and Migrations does not monopolize the political decision to launch an extraordinary regularization, but it does control the legal and administrative architecture that makes ordinary regularization possible and, if applicable, the execution of extraordinary processes.

Summary answer

In regularization processes for foreign persons in Spain, the formal requirements appearing in the regulation (years of residence, job offer, roots, etc.) are always complemented by a series of additional legal and administrative demands. Among them are usually the absence of relevant criminal records, rigorous documentary proof of identity and effective residence, compliance with tax and Social Security obligations when applicable, and not being subject to expulsion causes or entry bans. Additionally, many calls require demonstrating social or labor integration through reports, stable registration, or participation in training programs. Without the specific text of the regularization you have in mind, only this general framework can be described and not a closed list of specific requirements.

1. Difference between “basic” requirements and additional demands

Every regularization (whether by “roots,” an extraordinary authorization, or a specific migration policy measure) is articulated on two levels:

a) Core requirements of the norm: These usually appear highlighted in the articles or public exposition: minimum continuous residence time, type of labor or family link, previous administrative situation, etc. b) Additional legal requirements: These are transversal conditions derived from the general immigration regime, administrative law, and sometimes internal circulars or instructions: absence of certain criminal records, full identification, registration, payment of fees, respect for expulsion resolutions, among others.

This means that, although a person meets the basic “profile” described in the regularization, their application may be denied if they do not pass these additional filters.

2. Criminal records, police records, and expulsion causes

A central block of additional requirements relates to security and public order:

Absence of serious criminal records: The usual practice is to require a criminal record certificate from the country of origin (and previous residence countries) and to check for records in Spain. Total “absence” is not always required, but the non-existence of crimes considered incompatible with granting residence (serious crimes, violence, organized crime, etc.) is.
Status regarding expulsion orders: Being subject to a valid expulsion order, or repeatedly failing to comply, can be grounds for denial, unless the regularization measure itself foresees lifting it in certain cases.
Assessment of dangerousness: Beyond records, the Administration may consider police or security reports to deny authorization when it perceives a risk to public order or national security, although this must be specifically justified.

3. Proof of identity, residence, and roots

Another block of additional demands concerns solidly proving that the applicant meets the profile targeted by the regularization:

Identity and nationality: A valid passport is usually required or, if not possible, consular identity documentation. The inability to verify identity with minimum guarantees may lead to inadmission or denial.
Effective and continuous residence: Although the norm may mention, for example, “X years in Spain,” in practice this must be proven through registrations, rental contracts, bills, health or educational history, etc. Long interruptions or lack of documentary traceability may question compliance with the time requirement.
Social and family roots: Social services reports, children’s school certificates, participation in neighborhood associations or entities, and other integration indicators are usually valued as complementary requirements, even when the regulation only generically mentions “roots.”

4. Compliance with economic and administrative obligations

Regularization processes are also usually linked to respecting fiscal, labor, and administrative rules:

Payment of fees and absence of significant public debts: Almost all applications involve paying administrative fees. Additionally, in certain cases, it is assessed whether the applicant (or the employer hiring them) has significant debts with the Treasury or Social Security.
Regularity of the labor relationship or income: When the access route is labor, it is examined whether the contract presented is real, meets minimum salary and working hours, and whether the employer is up to date with obligations. In self-employed routes, the economic viability of the project and planned Social Security registration are analyzed.
Respect for previous administrative decisions: Repeated failure to comply with exit orders, documentary fraud in previous files, or abusive use of the asylum system may be negatively considered as additional elements.

5. Lack of reference to a specific regularization

Without a specific reference to which regularization process you mean (a concrete reform of the Immigration Law, a parliamentary initiative, or an exceptional measure announced by the Government), it is not possible to detail the exact list of additional requirements applied in that case. In the Spanish context, each politically proposed regularization comes with its own configuration of filters, exceptions, and internal procedures, which can only be known with the norm and administrative instructions in hand.
If you indicate the specific name of the measure, the political moment (for example, whether it is a proposal in Congress, an executive draft bill, or a prior social debate) and the type of affected group, these additional requirements and their practical scope can be much more precisely specified.