Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez provided a rather flimsy defense of immigrants in a guest essay for the New York Times. He argues that migration has two aspects, emphasizing that the “first and most important” is moral.
Sánchez reflects on Spain’s own history, noting that many Spaniards immigrated to America and elsewhere in the mid-20th century, particularly during the financial crisis of 2008. Now, he suggests, Spain is thriving economically and must become the welcoming society that many of its ancestors hoped for when they crossed borders.
However, Sánchez points out that Spaniards didn’t typically migrate to North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, or the Middle East. They primarily sought opportunities in the U.S. and various European countries. This raises the question—if we assume there are moral obligations regarding immigration, why should Spain feel responsible for nations that didn’t experience a similar influx of Spanish immigrants?
There’s some curiosity about whether accepting more Muslim immigrants will genuinely lead to a more welcoming society. With a growing number of gay voters in Spain and Europe, it seems that nationalist movements are gaining traction, which complicates Sánchez’s stance.
Sánchez’s acknowledgment of the challenges posed by Muslim immigration is somewhat minimal. Migration offers both opportunities and significant challenges, which he believes often relate to broader issues like poverty and inequality rather than the immigrants’ backgrounds. Yet, one might pause here—unregulated markets alone can’t be blamed for heinous acts like rape, especially in light of troubling incidents like those reported in the UK involving Pakistani men and British victims.
Turning to the economic side, Sánchez argues that Western nations require people to combat declining birth rates and sustain economies. He asserts that without accepting immigrants, these countries face severe demographic challenges.
However, there’s another option: encouraging Western citizens to have more children. Sánchez’s perspective feels a bit lacking. What kind of immigrants are needed? While some may support extending visas for specific individuals, the reality often complicates such intentions. Sánchez does not clarify what types of immigrants Western nations should prioritize.
It’s frustrating that Sánchez doesn’t clearly outline his moral philosophy. His arguments seem to drift between ethical considerations and cold economic facts, leaving one wondering what he genuinely believes.
Interestingly, Sánchez is described by the BBC as an atheist. When he took office, he opted to uphold the constitution without an oath on a Bible or cross, instead using the word for “promise.” This raises questions about his motivations when he claims that welcoming immigrants is vital for societal prosperity and human dignity.
It’s hard not to wonder where Sánchez’s true loyalties lie, especially if the interests of newcomers might clash with those of the Spanish populace.
