back to top

    Europe’s Migration Pact: A Controversial Debate

    Critics argue that the EU’s migration pact legitimizes criminal activities of smuggling groups. They foresee heightened migratory pressure, citing incentives for smugglers and the potential strain on national budgets.

    The Law and Justice (PiS) party, led by figures like Jadwiga Wiśniewska, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, and Paweł Szefernaker, portrays opponents as endangering national interests.

    “We must be aware that accepting the migration pact is legitimizing the illegal activities of smuggling groups. With the adoption of this pact, there will come such actions as even greater migratory pressure, as human smugglers have received a clear signal that their business will thrive even faster. The regulations adopted are nothing but adding fuel to the fire. The wave of migration will be even larger. Now we must look at the regulations contained in the migration pact. The principle is simple: take or pay. We will have to accept or pay. In 2026, we will refer to the current situation. I am not aware of any provision indicating that we will refer to historical facts. The principle of take or pay is very simple. If Poland does not accept migrants, it will have to pay €20,000 for each migrant not accepted. These funds will come from the state budget, resulting in less money for education, social care, transportation, and all the necessary issues awaiting Polish citizens,”

    said MEP Jadwiga Wiśniewska from the Law and Justice party.

    The pact’s adoption allegedly violates EU treaties and previous Council decisions, sparking legal debates around immigration competence and decision-making procedures. Critics highlight diverse motivations behind EU’s migration policies, from addressing labor shortages to ideological aspirations of cultural blending. Moreover, they accuse left-leaning factions of seeking electoral advantages through immigrant votes.

    National Security and Electoral Campaigns

    Opposition parties face scrutiny for past statements supporting unchecked migration, contrasting sharply with current apprehensions about accommodating migrants. As EU elections approach, the discourse underscores sovereignty concerns and reflects the broader ideological divide shaping European politics.

    More in section