The Euro Zone
A cross-border issue
Columnist Mark Nayler analyses the European response to the Ceuta border crisis and defends Madrid against flawed claims that its amnesty program fuelled the influx
Mark Nayler
EU interior ministers met via video call on Tuesday to discuss the migrant influx into Ceuta last Thursday. The consensus seems to have been that Spain handled the situation well, but that Europe needs tougher controls on its external borders. Spainās regularisation scheme for half a million undocumented migrants has also come under attack, even though itās implausible to claim that it was a direct cause of events in Ceuta last week.
Magnus Brunner, the EU Commissioner for migration, said that Spainās regularisation initiative was not discussed at Tuesdayās meeting, but that it was ādefinitely not a good signal for the rest of Europeā. The scheme, which was enacted by Royal Decree in April, was also criticised in a letter to the EU leadership signed by 22 countries ahead of the meeting.
Signatories of the letter (which included Germany and Italy but not France) stressed the EUās āduty to effectively deter and relentlessly combat illegal migrationā, in part by opposing any āpolicies that can serve as pull factors, such as the regularisation of [a] very large number of illegal migrantsā. Italy has emerged as Pedro SĆ”nchezāās strongest critic over Ceuta, despite receiving almost double the number of illegal immigrants than Spain last year (66,328 compared to 36,683).
If anyone swam to Spain from Morocco last week believing they would benefit from SĆ”nchezās one-off regularisation programme (and I think thatās unlikely), they would have been badly mistaken. The scheme offered residency and work permits to migrants who could prove that they were resident in Spain before January 1, and who had been in the country for five consecutive months at the time of application. The deadline for applications was over a month ago.
You can imagine the lettersā signatories dismissing this as too literal-minded. āThat doesnāt matter,ā they might say (in fact itās what they implied in their letter), āschemes such as the one introduced by SĆ”nchez send out a signal that Spain welcomes illegal immigrants, and that message was a cause of the Ceuta crisis.ā
SĆ”nchez was right to object to this fudging of the issue in his own letter to the EU leadership. The argument made by his critics might have had some force if the Ceuta arrivals could have benefited from his scheme; but none would have been eligible, even if the deadline hadnāt already passed.
Imagine that a poll was conducted of the Ceuta migrants, and it was found that the majority had (mistakenly) believed that scrambling into Spain would qualify them for the regularisation scheme. Why would that be Madridās fault? A countryās government canāt be held responsible for people who wildly misunderstand its immigration laws.