Antoni Bassas's analysis: 'Immigration and hypocrisy'
It can be said that not everyone can come to Europe, that immigration could overwhelm public services, that we don't have the money to pay for it, etc., and there's some truth to this observation. Just as there's truth in the fact that many immigrants, including those without papers, come because someone here is exploiting their labor with low or under-the-table wages. It's no good waving anti-immigration banners by day and then hiring a foreign caregiver for your parents by night.
We're returning from a long weekend, on the cusp of social obligations and Christmas shopping, and today you'll hear that polls indicate PP voters value the president of Madrid, Díaz Ayuso, more than the party president, Núñez Feijóo. But while daily life dictates their immediate agenda, the underlying current is very strong, so strong that it's already shaping the immediate agenda. We are witnessing a changing of the guard. Just read the news story that opens our front page today:
"The EU endorses the creation of deportation camps like Meloni." The new agreement stipulates that each member state can send unwanted migrants to a third country and that deportees can remain in the camps indefinitely while their cases are evaluated.
The countries of the Union approved this measure despite Spain's opposition, which left it quite isolated, with partial support from Portugal and France, as our correspondent in Brussels, Gerard Fageda, explains. Since immigration is an unstoppable and widespread phenomenon, significant effort must be dedicated to managing it. But, aside from the fact that the measure could be complicated and expensive, it sets a very delicate precedent for a human rights space like the European Union. Because you start building deportation camps and today you send irregular immigrants, and tomorrow… who knows who you'll end up sending. You know what we've always said: anything they can do to one person, they can do to us.
It can be argued that not everyone can come to Europe, that immigration could overwhelm public services, that we don't have the money to pay for it, etc., and there is some truth to this observation. This is evident in the fact that many immigrants, including those without papers, come because someone here is exploiting their labor with low or under-the-table wages. And those who run this business don't care much if the immigrant is in need of housing, social assistance, healthcare, or education. It's no good waving anti-immigration banners by day and then employing a foreign caregiver for your parents by night. I'm not saying that managing immigration is easy, nor that everyone can come—we'll integrate them eventually—but precisely because it's not easy, these camps for deported immigrants outside the EU's borders, but paid for by the EU, seem like a magic solution, more likely designed to scare future immigrants into thinking twice. Spoiler alert: they'll come anyway, because fleeing hunger or seeking a better future is an unstoppable human drive.
With this move to deportation camps, the European Union has just proven Donald Trump right. This weekend the United States unveiled its new national security strategy, and almost everything revolves around the idea that the US must be protected from the invasion of illegal immigration. And that we are on the verge of witnessing the disappearance of European civilization. And that it is necessary to aid the far-right forces that want to stop the invasion.
A voice from the Union has spoken out against this US memorandumThe statement by the President of the European Council, António Costa, has been seen as a kind of new official confirmation that the United States wants to weaken, divide, and, if possible, destroy the EU. In short, that today the United States is less of an ally of Europe than yesterday. Why is the United States doing all this? Don't miss this article by journalist Carme Colomina, an expert on the European Unionwhere he writes:
"For the White House, classic interventionism and digital interference go hand in hand. Direct interference in the European democratic system is permitted, in a clear alliance between American political and technological power. That is why Secretary of State Marco Rubio considered Elon Musk's $1 billion fine for lack of transparency in advertising 'not just an attack on X, but an attack on all American technology platforms and the American people by foreign governments, taxes levied from Ireland or the Netherlands.'"
Due to internal divisions, with Putin on one side and Trump on the other, the very idea of the European Union, our legal framework, the one that gives us our currency and part of our passport, is faltering. And this underlying current threatens everything if Europe doesn't decide what it wants to be.
Good morning.
