A “welfare state chauvinism” has emerged, which believes that it should only benefit those born on European territory, of European parents, of white race and of Christian culture.
Right-wing campaigns place immigration as the fourth problem of the Spanish
Television reports on African immigrants arriving on the Spanish coast and throughout the Mediterranean convey to public opinion the image of a critical, supposedly unsustainable situation, which has nothing to do with reality. But this is the preferred image of the right and the extreme right to flood the balance sheets of Western countries with xenophobia. And to elevate the so-called mass deportations to the rank of political strategy.
We are not facing a migration crisis, nor is it possible to decide to send back immigrants whenever a government deems it appropriate.
The original causes of migration in the Western world are essentially two in number: the search for work in Europe or the United States and persecution suffered for political reasons. Both have a deeply structural character and do not depend on the will of the governments of the countries receiving immigration.
Migrants to the Mediterranean coasts move according to the laws of the market, that is, the demand for labor in Europe. Around 20% of the population of many European Union countries comes from third countries. Stopping this migration abruptly would mean the collapse of our economies. On the other hand, its irregular or “illegal” nature allows some companies to pay migrants for their work with poverty wages.
The irrefutable proof of the structural link between migration and labor demand is that, when the coronavirus pandemic emerged and the economic crisis broke out, millions of immigrants returned to their countries of origin, from which they never wanted to leave.
The neglect of governments of developed countries to build legal migration routes, with visas at the origin for example, leads to risky movements, which have transformed the Mediterranean into a sinister graveyard.
Solving the so-called “invasion” of migrants with large-scale expulsions is pure hypocrisy. Because the countries of origin simply do not accept the migrants they intend to return.
The second source of migration is the flight from countries that do not protect those who live there, due to political repression or civil wars. This is what is happening in Mali, which is experiencing the flight of people seeking refuge. Many of them reach the Canary Islands. There are 27 million refugees in the world.
For this type of situation, the institution of the right to asylum was created after the Second World War. A Convention and a Protocol regulate it: 1951 (Geneva) and 1967 (New York). They were developed with those who fled the satellite states of the Soviet Union to liberal democracies. But now, it must be applied to those who, all over the planet, flee oppression because of their opinions, their sexual orientation, their gender, or because they are displaced from or within their own country.
Asylum is not just a “moral or humanitarian” issue. It is above all a right, protected by the Spanish Constitution and by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
The most important protection is what international law calls “non-refoulement“, that is, the prohibition of returning an asylum seeker to a country where his life or physical integrity is in danger. What is sometimes used – return to the borders – is an illegal proposal and contrary to international treaties. This is often done from so-called democratic and liberal countries. Some Eastern European states, members of the Union, have simply refused to apply so-called international protection.
The European Union has just agreed on the Pact on Migration and Asylum, with serious shortcomings, although it contains some progress.
In short, the anti-immigration propaganda that is developing in Europe and the United States at the pace of the extreme right is pure demagogy and hypocrisy of a pseudo-liberalism that conceals the most obscene racism, even the most ruthless exploitation through work.
Immigration has been and remains a key element in the construction of the welfare state. It so happens that a “welfare state chauvinism” has emerged, which considers that it should only benefit those who were born on European territory, of European parents, of white race and of Christian culture. The others, coming from distant countries and of other religions, would only have the right to work in extremely dangerous conditions.
This “social chauvinism” is not sustainable and it would be desirable for the European Parliament to make this clear during the upcoming legislature.
