This post was originally published on here
The influx of third-country migrants has become a difficult problem for Europe to resolve, and the European Union is attempting to address it through the Migration Pact. This means that EU member states, including Latvia, must choose whether to accept asylum seekers from countries facing high migration pressure, provide alternative support in the form of personnel, experts, or technical equipment, or pay tens of thousands of euros for each asylum seeker they refuse to accept. Meanwhile, the number of migrants who have entered Latvia through other means continues to grow day by day. What should be done about this migration issue, and how large is it really? BNN asked Filip Rajevskis, political scientist and co-founder of the company Mediju tilts.
“Society often confuses two different things — asylum seekers whom others want to ‘allocate’ to us from countries overwhelmed by migrants, and citizens of third-world countries who have arrived in Latvia at the invitation of employers, as students, by illegally crossing the border, or in other ways,” the political scientist stresses. Speaking about the latter group, Rajevskis says this is the Latvian government’s own choice and has nothing to do with Europe. “One must ask who granted these people permission to be here and to stay. Who allowed them to work here, and who is responsible for ensuring that they leave after their work contracts or studies end. The problem is not that these third-country nationals have come here and are doing jobs we do not want to do. Problems arise when they decide to stay, reunite their families, and then begin to form their own cultural space — religious and otherwise — that is comfortable for them. But that is our choice, and the fact that we do not control them is in no way related to the European context,” the political scientist explains.
As for asylum seekers whom Europe would gladly send to Latvia, Rajevskis says that Latvia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has done nothing to secure a status similar to that of Poland and Lithuania, which are exempt from obligations under the EU Migration Pact.
“In the so-called ‘old Europe’ countries, these asylum seekers are screened and checked, and those migrants who, say, Italy or Greece do not want would be sent to us — however incorrect and unempathetic that may sound. These are people who have no skills and no desire to do anything, only to receive benefits and vegetate in Europe’s economic space.
Those are the consequences, and there we have no control at all
— precisely because of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ complete irresponsibility.”
Responding to BNN’s remark that, according to the Ministry of the Interior, Latvia has chosen alternative support measures, Rajevskis notes that two steps are being conflated. “The first step — granting an exemption status and leaving us alone — has already been botched. We will not be left alone. As for the claim that Latvia can take a path where supposedly nothing has to be paid and only technical support with personnel and experts must be provided, one must remember that technical support also costs money! These are our people who receive salaries and must go somewhere instead of strengthening Latvia’s border, where a state of emergency has been extended for years on end. Things should not be confused. Of course, when the water is already at their mouths, they try to twist and turn. Because neither the Ministry of Foreign Affairs nor the Ministry of the Interior has done its job.”
The political scientist emphasizes that, first and foremost, it was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ responsibility to ensure that Latvia would be left alone in this matter, as Poland is. “We ourselves have problems at the border. We have been under hybrid attack for years.”
In response to BNN’s objection that Foreign Minister Baiba Braže stated as recently as last October that there is no such Polish exemption from the Migration Pact, Rajevskis stresses that this is the kind of false rhetoric that has become entrenched in politics: “The public is simply being misled into believing that nothing like this is happening. Because who wants to take responsibility for inaction, senseless increases in spending, and creating threats to the state? It is easier to lie. As Goebbels said —
lie so boldly that no one can imagine that one could lie so much.”
Rajevskis also refers to the National Armed Forces’ statement this week confirming the involvement of Belarusian military structures in organizing illegal migration. “Everything must be done to make Europe recognize that Latvia is a target of hybrid attacks, that we are under pressure at the borders, and that perhaps Europe should help protect them instead of forcing us to take in migrants from other countries. Let’s be realistic — there has also been considerable inaction in those countries if they have allowed such large numbers of migrants to arrive.”
Asked what Latvia should do to resolve the situation, Rajevskis says that, first of all, Latvia must return with new evidence and fight for the right not to accept these third-country migrants, or, if forced to do so, to allow them to move on to Germany, where they actually want to go. “The second thing is to assume both political and official responsibility for allowing such a glaring situation to develop,” the political scientist says.
Asked whether he truly believes that anyone will take political responsibility, Rajevskis answers briefly: “I don’t believe it.” However, he is convinced that society must demand this responsibility, because “we are talking about the safety of our people — Latvian women and Latvian children. We should not talk nonsense that this is some minor issue. We see rising crime in Europe. We see increasing violence. We see a rise in sexual crimes in European countries. We see it, and we do nothing to prevent it from coming here. On the contrary — we passively watch as decisions are made that run counter to the interests of our state and society.”
