Minister Maciej Duszczyk (in summary): Soon we will present a plan on how the Migration Strategy will be implemented. A permanent working group will also be established within the interministerial team, including representatives of non-governmental organizations. This will signal that we take them seriously. In crises, the state cannot manage without their help.

Minister Adriana Porowska: I did what I could. Thanks to the civic hearing, organizations and citizens were able to voice their concerns. We will document everything and hand it over to the officials working on Poland’s Migration Strategy.

Jakub Wygnański, Stocznia Foundation: Fear is a sign of weakness. Our civil society is strong. Ten percent of Poles were involved in helping Ukrainians. We know how to do this. The hearing transcript will be available in a few days. We await the government’s response.

The civic hearing was not a form of consultation on the “Migration Strategy,” as the government had already made its decision, and the prime minister announced that it would not change. However, it was an opportunity to present various arguments and perspectives that the government had previously ignored.

Government representatives attended the hearing in significant numbers, sitting in the hall, and if they had to leave (e.g., Minister Duszczyk for a medical appointment), they promised to listen online. The broadcast was available (and remains so) to everyone.

A Missed Opportunity?

The debate was meticulously organized: over 140 people registered, with 84 selected to speak. Each was allotted a specific amount of time. Speakers prepared their statements to fit these limits. The hearing lasted seven hours, moderated by Prof. Anna Giza-Poleszczuk from SWPS and Kuba Wygnański, with organizational support from his Stocznia Foundation. Official responsibility lay with Minister for Civil Society Adriana Porowska (Polska 2050). It was Poland’s first hearing where the government, not civil society, took the lead.

Is Everyone Represented Here?

“The essence of debate is diversity,” said Wygnański. At the debate at the Copernicus Science Center (pictured), representatives of authorities (ministers and parliamentarians), political factions (e.g., the conservative Ordo Iuris), think tanks (e.g., Klub Jagielloński), human rights defenders, social activists, experts, and academics presented their arguments.

The discussion centered on migrants’ and human rights. The concerns of citizens worried about changes in their surroundings were addressed by experts only indirectly. However, these concerns were voiced during the hearing. For instance, Agnieszka Kosowicz from the Polish Migration Forum emphasized that in an aging and depopulating country, “we must not feed the wolf” of fear toward migration.

Avoidable Mistakes

Speakers criticized the government’s strategy, pointing out that its assumptions seem unrealistic. The methods proposed are ineffective and may exacerbate societal fears rather than alleviate them. The government could have avoided these errors by consulting the Migration Strategy during its preparation. This document will guide not only legislation but all related decisions.

However, no consultations took place (a point criticized by participants ranging from Grupa Granica to Ordo Iuris). Participants noted that the gains from populist rhetoric outweighed those from a well-prepared public policy.

In response to the imposed migration strategy, NGOs called for a change in Prime Minister Tusk’s approach, leading to the civic hearing.

Government: “We Will Listen”

Maciej Duszczyk, the minister responsible for migration policy and a former expert: Migration policy had to be adopted without consultations. Sometimes that is how politics works—I am prepared to defend this decision. The “Migration Policy” document draws on the latest scientific knowledge and experiences from other countries. It is general enough that input from the hearing could be incorporated. Remember, Poland has transitioned from an emigration to an immigration country faster than any other in history, with all the resulting consequences.

Deputy Senate Marshal Magdalena Biejat (Lewica): The strategy is finalized, but executive acts and laws are still being developed. There is still ample room for dialogue and mutual understanding.

Deputy Minister of Culture Marta Cienkowska, Polska 2050: I hope we can collectively develop solutions during the hearing and incorporate them into the strategy. As members of the government, we could not influence this strategy’s development. I want to make this clear.

Deputy Minister for European Affairs Magdalena Sobkowiak-Czarnecka: Migration issues will arise during Poland’s EU presidency, starting in January. Poland will face differing opinions, making the hearing’s contributions crucial.

Senator Maciej Żywno (Third Way, speaking on behalf of invited organizations): It’s good that after three years, someone is finally willing to listen to the social side, including legal, humanitarian, security, and emotional perspectives. Anyone who has helped refugees will oppose pushbacks and insufficient humanitarian measures. That’s non-negotiable. Secondly, state policies can command uniformed services, but not activists or NGOs. This must be understood for state policies to be effective.

Franciszek Sterczewski, MP (speaking as a citizen): I head the parliamentary team on migration policy. We failed to initiate a debate on this topic. I apologize. I hope dialogue begins now. The border will not be safe without dialogue. During its EU presidency, Poland should push for sanctions against the architects of the border crisis: Putin’s Russia and Lukashenko’s Belarus.

Activists Speak: “We Know the Reality at the Border”

Marianna Wartecka, Ocalenie Foundation: Unaccompanied children from the Polish-Belarusian border disappear. Not only from forests but also from facilities run by the Border Guard and Polish courts. For instance, in May this year, twelve children were transferred to a clergy retirement home in Augustów. At least ten vanished. Imagine ten Polish children disappearing from foster care—there would be uproar. Yet unaccompanied children quietly vanish from the border. Polish authorities place them in facilities without oversight.

Aleksandra Gulińska, Grupa Granica: Migration patterns change with the seasons, and government actions have little connection to this reality. Despite the buffer zone, we assisted nearly twice as many people in September 2024 compared to the same period in 2023.

Farida Nehzad, Afghanistan: If someone takes away your country, how would you feel? No one leaves their homeland unless they must. I climbed your five-meter fence. Activists helped me, not the Polish authorities.

Magdalena Nazimek, Migration Consortium: On February 1, the Ministry of Interior published a work schedule for the migration strategy. Despite promises of consultation, NGOs, academia, local governments, and migrants were ignored.

Key issues include:

– A legislative suspension of asylum applications threatens the rule of law.

– Claims of “zero deaths at the border” are misleading when pushbacks to Belarus continue.

– Migration dynamics on the Belarusian border depend on factors like Belarusian authorities’ decisions and seasonal trends, which are not

acknowledged.

– Denying Poland’s obligation to implement the Migration Pact without noting that a National Implementation Plan is due by year-end is misleading.

Ignoring NGOs’ expertise is unacceptable in a democratic state.

Dominika Ożyńska, Association Egala: A family from Afghanistan asked me for help. I found the body of their loved one by the road to Białowieża. I speak Arabic and visit Podlasie every month. The authorities refuse to use our expertise, hiding their extreme incompetence. A change in government has not altered this.

Fidèle Toko Lomaza from Nigeria, a medical student and pastoral candidate, spoke (in French, as he is still learning Polish) about his 14 attempts to cross into Poland via the Belarusian border. He eventually arrived legally, “thanks to God’s help and many activists.”

Elmi Abdi: I crossed the Polish-Belarusian border as a refugee 27 years ago. The title of the document, *Regaining Control*, suggests that Poland has lost control and that we pose a threat. This narrative, this sowing of fear, has persisted for over a decade. But I love Poland and wish this love could be reciprocated.

Jana Szostak: I witnessed a pushback myself. Sadly, the individual sent back to Belarus is now a political prisoner. There are many more such cases, and their numbers will grow. I invite everyone to join a minute of screaming for each person who has suffered as a result.

[Jana Szostak screams.]

The Conservative Vision: Integration and Majority Rights

Patryk Ignaszczak, Ordo Iuris: The Migration Strategy includes many positive points, such as:

– Emphasizing the need to maintain Poland’s social cohesion, primarily through migrant integration.

– Recognizing that international migration and asylum regulations are outdated and exploited by non-democratic states to exert migration pressure on others.

– Highlighting the hybrid nature of the migration crisis on the Polish-Belarusian border and the use of migrants as tools of chaos by Russia.

Paweł Łapiński, Klub Jagielloński: The strategy is one of many. My concern is whether the measures outlined ensure coherence among various governmental strategies.

Fr. Mirosław Puzewicz: The strategy overlooks Poland’s efficient grassroots integration system. I can point to numerous examples.

Małgorzata Jarosz-Jarszewska, Caritas Poland: Effective integration efforts require coordination. Caritas has registered 120,000 individuals across 28 centers. We know their challenges and have already initiated integration efforts in refugee centers. Coordination with businesses is crucial.

Employers’ Perspective: Focus on the Economy

Aleksandra Borecka, Employers of Poland: Poland’s declining birth rate poses significant challenges. Migration could be a solution. The strategy mentions automation and modernization, but how will this balance with migration? Remember, Poland operates under a free market economy.

Nadia Winiarska, Lewiatan Confederation: Migrants pay taxes—up to PLN 20 billion annually—and support the pension system by contributing. They shouldn’t be framed solely as a threat. The strategy’s labor market provisions are insufficient, given:

– Workforce shortages hinder 70% of businesses.

– Forecasts predict a shortfall of over 2 million workers in the next decade.

– Migrants constitute 68% of caregivers, essential for addressing the aging population’s needs.

Wiktoria Wawrzyniak, Employers of Poland: Closing borders won’t ensure safety or prevent unrest. Without migrants, economic growth will slow, reducing funds for defense and social expenditures. Declining prosperity will heighten social tensions.

Human Rights Advocates: Strategy Fails to Mitigate Risks

Jakub Kiersnowski, Club of Catholic Intelligentsia (KIK), Warsaw: Migration is framed as a threat—terrorism, societal fears, even fear of public opinion, which has been heavily ideologized for a decade. This is the wrong path.

Wojciech Klicki, Panoptykon Foundation: The strategy treats migrants as risks, encouraging state control mechanisms. This militarization fosters aggression toward those who don’t fit the “norm.” Abandoning human rights will not secure our borders; it will deepen divisions.

Anna Błaszczak-Banasiak, Amnesty International: We are open to revising our stance on the strategy if solutions align with the law. Unfortunately, the government strategy is based on populist, dangerous, and false premises:

– Suspension of asylum rights has been in effect since 2021 and has proven ineffective.

– Border barriers lack evidence of efficacy.

– Proposed measures violate international law, as the European Council emphasizes compliance in all solutions.

Joanna Subko, UNHCR: Poland has the sovereign right to control its borders, but international law prohibits actions that prevent individuals from seeking protection from persecution.

Paweł Kasprzak, Citizens of the Republic of Poland: No one defeats fascists by adopting their agenda. A migration strategy aimed at winning elections is senseless and scandalous.

Kacper Srebro: Human rights are not a menu from which the government can pick and choose.

Hanna Machińska, former Deputy Ombudsman: This strategy disregards the rule of law and therefore cannot provide security.

Marcin Sośniak, Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights: “I feel discomfort in having to remind the government of the obvious: Poland is a democratic state governed by the rule of law, obligated to respect constitutional and international human rights. No state action or strategy can violate the essence of these rights and freedoms.”

Janina Ochojska, MEP (Civic Platform): I feel shame as someone from a country practicing pushbacks, causing torture, suffering, and loss of life. Spreading fear of migrants divides society and contributes to building “Fortress Europe.” Yet, the solution lies in humanizing the strategy, as proposed by NGOs.

Who Fuels Anti-Migrant Fears?

Agnieszka Kosowicz, Polish Migration Forum: Poland will soon be older and less populous. Five percent of children here have migrant roots, and 50,000 people have married migrants. We must not “feed the wolf” of fear. People need to feel secure—and it is the state’s duty to ensure this.

Krystian Połomski, Rural Support Foundation: Poland is capable of more than this fear-driven strategy. Our report shows how Polish villages supported Ukrainian refugees. However, we need a campaign highlighting migration’s benefits.

Beata Siemaszko, *No to Ci Pomogę*: The right to feel safe is undeniable. But this is not a hybrid war; it’s a narrative battle.

Adam Traczyk, More in Common: The strategy addresses fears of losing control and societal unease. This is good, but trust is built through citizen inclusion.

Michał Boni, former MEP and Minister of Digitalization: People’s fears stem from political narratives. Let’s start a debate; we are not “detached from reality.”

Key Details: What Should We Discuss?

As always, serious debates reveal that effective governance depends on solving countless specific problems. Civil society has already identified most of them.

Martyna Bogaczyk, Education for Democracy Foundation: Supporting and integrating refugees cannot simply involve acquainting them with local laws and culture. Effective policies must also respect their culture and rights.

Draginja Nadaždin, Doctors Without Borders: The border wall must be critically reexamined.

Myrosława Keryk, Ukrainian House: Migration discourse cannot be based on fear. Doing so divides migration into “acceptable” and “unacceptable.” The strategy legitimizes xenophobia as a national virtue.

Anna Mikołajczyk, Community of Sant’Egidio: Let’s discuss humanitarian corridors. We have successfully admitted 8,000 migrants through these safe and legal pathways.

Karolina Czerwińska, Save the Children Poland: Effective integration requires robust family reunification policies, which are absent from the strategy.

Julianna Łoboda, Visible Foundation: The claim that migrants increase crime rates is false and dangerous, as it escalates tensions.

Katarzyna Słubik, Legal Intervention Association: Detention is convenient for authorities but shortsighted. Alternatives exist, and NGOs can help identify them.

Alicja Sztutowska, Habitat for Humanity: Integration is impossible without addressing housing policies.

The above article by Agnieszka Jędrzejczyk was published on OKO.press on November 25, 2024.