THE gulf between sentiment and action is as wide as the Mediterranean itself. On May 13th the European Commission issued its plan for dealing with immigration, including the multitude who take to boats on the shores of north Africa in the hope of reaching asylum on European Union soil or, more likely, of being plucked from the wavesby a passing vessel. The report's authors clearly lament the shameful drowning of thousands of migrants,left to their fate because of cuts in marine patrols that were deemed to be picking up too many people. Nevertheless, the commission's ideas on what to do fall lamentably short.

War in the Middle East, oppression in Africa and the ubiquitous human desire for a better life: all have played their part in causing a surge of migration into the EU. The fighting in Syria alone has crammed 4m fugitives into refugee camps in Lebanon, Turkey and Jordan. The tide is hardly about to dry up.

Not all of these people can find a new life in Europe. The UN convention is clear that refugees automatically qualify once they reach the EU, because they need protection. By contrast, economic migrants do not. A country picks its economic migrants and deports those it does not want.

That is the theory. The reality is a tide of human misery. Traffickers charge thousands of dollars, and rob and rape their customers. Refugees and economic migrants are mixed in together, so those that survive the sea journey are cooped up in camps to be sorted. Fewer than 40% of those who fail to gain asylum are ever deported. Some countries, like Sweden and Germany, accept a lot of refugees, many others, including Britain, are grudging. There was international outrage after more than 1,000 people drowned in a few days in the Mediterranean in April.This week's report is supposed to ensure that such a catastrophe never happens again.

Some of its recommendations were expected. It suggests, for instance, that the budget for maritime patrols should triple, that the EU should take on the traffickers by force, and that countries must accelerate the sorting of refugees from economic migrants. Others go further. Refugees are now the responsibility of the country where they land. The commission rightly wants EU countries to share the burden according to their capacity, going by GDP, population, unemployment and how many they have taken in the past.

In graphics: Why Europe's boat people are such a huge problem

Compared with Thailand and Indonesia, the plan is a model of compassion. Those countries are callously pushing boat people from Myanmar and Bangladesh back out to sea. Yet the EU's plan fails in two ways. One is that the scale of the effort is unequal to the task. The traffickers will not be stopped. Development assistance of a few hundred million euros will not prevent economic migrants setting out. Too little aid is going to countries that host the vast majority of Syria's refugees. The commission calls for the EU to take in a total of 20,000 refugees who are still in third countriesthe UN says the EU should take in 20,000 a year.The other is that the plan is sure to be watered down. Britain, unlike Ireland, has refused to share the burden—which, thanks to a long-standing waiver,it is legally allowed to do, even if that course is morally reprehensible. When the plan is debated in June other countries will also seek to wriggle out of their responsibilities.

The only way to keep migrants off the Mediterranean is to set up camps in north Africa that can take in people rescued at sea and sort through asylum applicants. Getting it right will be hard. North African countries will need money to host them. The processing must be fair and fast. Economic migrants can be sent home. But the one thing EU countries cannot avoid is taking in more refugees.