Migration, for as long as I can remember, has always been haunted by a negative, disturbing and dangerous outlook. The history of humanity comes with migrations. Therefore, the history of humanity is the history of migrations. Thus, migration is not an event, a crisis or a threat to the normal development of States, as much of the European right appreciates it. Nor does it imply an intrusion into European identity and dignity.
The unjustified war against Ukraine forces introspection, concluding that since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, two determining phenomena have occurred over time.
On the one hand, the non-compliance with the mandate of solidarity between Member States, which implies an injustice in the distribution of tasks that allow us to face the challenge of migratory flows and, where appropriate, address asylum assumptions and recognize asylum claims and the protection associated with the condition of asylum status.
On the other hand, the blatant non-compliance with European law in some aspects, for example, the “relocation programs” attributed to the Member States in case of urgent need.
The European Union has expressed and regretted in all the languages of the organization that the solidarity that Ukrainians, mostly women and children (Ukraine prevents men between 18 and 60 years old from leaving) deserved and have obtained, who have fled the military conflict encouraged by the personalist dictator Vladimir Putin, has not been extended to other situations and other people who also deserved it.
The fact that more than 4.7 million Ukrainians (data extracted from the UNHCR website, which is updated weekly on Fridays at 12:00 CET) have entered European territory and have benefited from the Temporary Protection Directive, which means that, technically, they are not refugees, but can circulate freely without a visa for a maximum period of 3 years in the Schengen area, while its first article obliges Member States to welcome and offer assistance to those fleeing from third countries, as in this case, and promotes a joint distribution of the effort that this entails. This translates into access to the full range of usual social assistance for those who enter Europe in a conflict situation (education, access to work, social and medical assistance...).
And, despite everything, this situation has not caused any catastrophe, it has not shaken the foundations of distribution in the European Union, but quite the opposite, the Member States close to Ukraine have been willing to offer help and specific programs (offering private homes, free public transport, ...).
All migratory flows are not boycotting the territories where they land, but are being reasonably attended to and absorbed with dignity.
And, having reached this point, I wonder, if that has happened with 4.7 million people who have fled the war in Ukraine, how are we not capable of offering the same joint distribution to 1,000 people from Afghanistan, or the Syrian Civil War or the Disaster in Iraq, who are crowded into the well-known “hot spots” or internment camps on some Greek islands.
The reason is found in: the context?; in the cultural proximity?; perhaps in the awareness of sharing a threat that today forces Ukrainians to flee based on the old submission of the USSR, governed from Russia and in which Poland or Hungary play a relevant role? Can it be all of them?, or maybe, are they none?.
With this situation, the reason must be very simple, but not simplistic, the same joint and humanitarian distribution is needed, without challenging the response and management capacity of the European Union, and that can be materialized if the political will joins efforts and promotes joint action.
It is true that the migratory fact requires a very sacrificial management capacity of the Member States individually. Which is why the response must be supranational, Europe must give that efficient and effective response that allows a reasonable distribution of shared responsibility and a continued exercise of solidarity with those countries of first entry. That is, States that border the southern border, therefore, Italy, Malta, Greece, Cyprus and Spain will be more exposed to irregular migration if they are not provided with a response capacity that allows them to face first-order migratory flows.
However, in this case, it has happened that, paradoxically, the countries that are located on the Eastern border with Ukraine, which maintain a more reluctant discourse to the reception of migrants in Europe (Poland, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary), have had to assume an important task: being the gateway for people fleeing the war. I cannot think of a better way to summarize it than to refer to a Spanish saying that proscribes that, “when you see your neighbor's beard shave, put yours to soak”.
So, if it has been possible to respond to countries with discourses more reluctant to migration, what prevents doing so with those on the Southern Border and that the European Union provides Member States with a greater defensive and protective response in line with respect for Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
