Today it is hard to talk about the alleged rational migration policy, although in public discourse many people talk in a akin tone. In the context of border protection and a coherent approach to refugees, emotions that have dominated the public debate to a large degree are the problem. For politicians, playing with emotions is something completely natural and rational in many ways. Inciting anti-migration sentiments, politicians are not only able to engage and mobilise voters, but besides rapidly dominate the communicative of migration, giving it a securitisation character. Securitisation of migration, i.e. the inclusion of it mainly through the safety prism, has settled in the Polish public debate. This is simply a dangerous phenomenon, due to the fact that in the discriminating and applicable sphere it eclipses and excludes another perspectives for migration (e.g. humanitarian perspective), indicating their ridiculousness or even irrationality in the face of "obvious" and existential threats from migration. erstwhile we are dealing with this kind of narrative, supported by strong emotions, it is very hard to have a rational discussion and to make a rational knowledge-based policy, according to the presumption that there is no time for debate at risk. Instead, we operate in a discourse based on fear and anxiety, open to manipulation and disinformation, the best example of which is the debate about the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border.
Therefore, referring to Agnieszka Holland, alternatively of just focusing on rationality, we should talk more about the values that could guide us in shaping a common approach to migration, exile and border protection. Values that could be a signpost, but besides a mechanics to defend against radically strong solutions related to migration management and border protection. The problem may be the mention point for discussion on specified values. In order not to look far, let us turn to the principles and values of liberal democracy, which at least in the declarative sphere is the Republic of Poland.
Without going besides deep into the axiology of liberal democracy, let us focus on fundamental values specified as the regulation of law, the protection of human rights and human dignity or the fight against discrimination. These are values which are entered in the Constitution of Poland, criteria for accession to the European Union or yet global legal order. These are besides values that we instill in students, students and citizens, hoping that their attitudes and choices will strengthen them alternatively than weaken them. That is why, since 2021 and the beginning of the crisis at the border, a large part of the academic, journalistic, legal and besides part of the political environment has opposed the actions of the Law and Justice Government, recalling the values mentioned above. These environments behaved in accordance with the principles and values of the democratic state, where policies are based on respect for rights, including human rights. Unfortunately, over the last fewer years, we have noticed that the language of liberal democracy no longer adheres to the realities of public debate. On the Polish-Belarusian border we created a unique space, excluded from the strategy of values of the liberal and democratic state. It is simply a closed space outside the regulation of law which is characterized by its own logic of action, language and rhetoric, in which illegal pushbacks are a standard border protection practice. The military became the main actor of actions and hero of the alleged border performance.
Militaryisation of the border and militarisation of migration management bring many risks and can make more problems than solutions. The military is not a service decently prepared for tasks and, above all, challenges related to border service. Unfortunately, with increased and almost unlimited militarisation, we will face tragedies, specified as the death of a soldier stabbed. This tragedy should be a reason for discussion on reducing mortality at the border alternatively than strengthening the strength solutions. expanding the number of troops and another uniformed services, introducing buffer zones, building fortifications, creating the Shields of the East and another dramatic government declarations may alternatively point to its helplessness in the face of the crisis and trying to take control utilizing the most extremist safety instruments. Already at this point, the solutions proposed are opposed to many environments, not only academic, journalistic or legal, but besides to local residents and entrepreneurs. The consequence to make up for the sacrifices and losses associated with the fortification and militarisation of the border is to increase our sense of security. But are you sure?
Another problem outlined above is the confusion of migration rhetoric with war rhetoric, which is even more crucial in the already mentioned securitisation narrative. Under specified conditions, it will be hard to avoid votes that if anyone denies the request to fortify the border or even tries to discuss it, he may be qualified as a suspect, if not straight Russian spy. We come to a point where not only a migrant is presented as a threat, but the discussion of the sensibility and consequences of the fortification of borders begins to be treated as something dangerous, threatening the right of a state, unpatriotic. At this point, the rhetoric of war leads to closing the discussion. Consequently, the closure of the public debate is linked to the suspension of certain standards from which we should absolutely not depart. It is very dangerous not only for this single policy, but above all for the quality of our democracy.
Let us note that the face of the militarisation of the border is increasingly little and little talk about the humanitarian crisis. Meanwhile, we're dealing with people at the border. any of them were deceived by Russian or Belarusian propaganda, others seeking global protection under the law. There are refugees who are seeking global protection, and whether they will get it, that is the decision of the country which accepts their request. Poland, as a organization to the Geneva Convention, is obliged to accept and proceed with specified a proposal, approve or yet reject it, initiating e.g. a deportation procedure. Of course, if there are reasons for this, we can place specified a individual in a shelter for foreigners. As a state, we have rights, obligations and circumstantial instruments for us to decide on the individual seeking protection in a liable and lawful manner. Meanwhile, we do the opposite. We cannot presume in advance that people with whom we are dealing on the Polish-Belarusian border do not deserve global protection, since we do not accept and consider their asylum applications, and so we do not even get to know – as a state – their circumstantial life situation.
It is hard to accept that all these people come here in bad faith. Many may have dreamed of a better life in Europe, others fleeing war and persecution. Many were deceived in their countries, where propaganda convinced them that the alleged Belarusian way is now the easiest and safe path. They were downloaded by the Belarusian government, and they were promised various attractive scenarios that they would enter Germany and lay down their lives. They sold their property, borrowed it, flew to see the promises of Belarus or Russia. This is simply a well-known script in which people are then transported at a distance – as they are told – on a day or half of the march from the Polish border. They lose their phones, they are taken distant from the food and equipment they purchased in Minsk, they are intimidated; they are left alone in the forest and experience terrible things. Meanwhile, we, as a state, are de facto punishing them for being caught up in this powerful global fraud, a tool of hybrid war.
At this point, we request effective management of the situation of the migration crisis, internationalisation, with greater usage of the resources of the European Union (including Frontex), while moving distant from intensive militarisation of borders. This would let for a better and more efficient strategy of border protection and protection of human rights. We must remember that the Polish east border is besides the external border of the European Union, which means that we do not should be alone in this crisis. There are tools we can use, but we don't. Although a controversial relocation mechanics could be very helpful here. While the Government of Law and Justice had a reason against the Europeanisation of the crisis, arguing that it is simply a Polish case and only Poland and that no 1 from Brussels will interfere with it, we should require a small more from the current government. There is simply a request for a broader problematisation of the crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border in the global context. So far, beyond the borders of our country, the awareness of events on the Polish border is minimal, comes from individual media information, sometimes from the movie Agnieszka Holland "Green Border". We request to find a prescription for that, too.
We request a fresh beginning in the public debate on migration. We will always talk about safety in the context of migration, but we cannot ignore the safety and rights of the individual, that is, people waiting at the border for help. While we have a highly-securitised and emotional public discourse, we should effort to bridge its impact on the debate by beginning up more to cognition and research, which can aid to a large degree to calm social sentiment.
Migration should never be considered in terms of good or evil. This is the first thing we tell students in migration courses. Like all social phenomena, migration brings challenges and opportunities. Since the dawn of past migration, including refugees, has been a way of surviving the human race, full cultural groups or nations. It is thanks to her that we are able to make as a social, political or yet economical community. It is not without reason that freedom of movement is 1 of the pillars of European integration and European economical development. Our rhetoric should go this way, showing not the alienity of another who comes from another country, but the value and importance of the difference that enriches and develops.
