What Is It That Some Still Don’t Understand? Bringing Migration Back to the Debate

In a time of growing polarization and increasingly extreme rhetoric, it is urgent to recall some basic truths about how our democracies function—and the role of law within them. This is especially crucial when dealing with a topic as sensitive as migration, which some political and social actors have transformed into an ideological battleground, rather than addressing it as a matter of political and social governance.

First and foremost, we live under a set of legal systems shaped by centuries of history, wars, treaties, and consensus-building. This legal framework is not a recent invention—it is a collective and civilizational construction.

Second, international law—particularly in the field of human rights—not only holds the same status as domestic law, but in many cases takes precedence over it. This principle has been recognized both by international courts and by states themselves, which have voluntarily assumed these obligations by ratifying international treaties.

Third, Europe—specifically the member states of the European Union and the Council of Europe—is doubly bound: by international law and by European Union law. These legal instruments take precedence over national legislation in key areas, such as the protection of fundamental rights.

Given all this, one must ask: what is it that some political and social actors still do not understand? Or, more worryingly: what are they choosing to ignore? Time and again, we hear distorted narratives about migration. Falsehoods—about rights, economic burdens, or cultural identity—are repeated so often that they begin to resonate with segments of the public. Yet the legal truth remains clear: anyone on Spanish or European soil, regardless of origin, legal status, or asylum process, has rights. This is affirmed by law, upheld by the Council of Europe, supported by the European Commission, and confirmed by the courts. To deny this is to lie.

It is also false to claim that migration is a drain on our economies. Europe has undergone profound transformation—not solely due to its internal achievements, but also thanks to the contribution of thousands of migrants who work, pay taxes, and enrich our societies. The idea that we would be better off without them is a dangerous fiction.

When this socio-economic argument becomes hard to dispute, the narrative shifts: migrants must adapt and become part of “our” European culture.

But what does it actually mean to be part of European culture? The answer is simple: respect for the law. Compliance with legal norms. Equality in rights and duties. There is no other democratic definition. There are no exclusive cultural codes, no closed identities. In a plural democracy, culture also means the universal, unwavering respect for the rule of law.

Ultimately, those who seek to change the rules should do so through legal and democratic means: by winning elections and negotiating within the European framework. In the meantime, no one should manipulate the facts, especially on such a sensitive issue, which strikes at the core of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Respect for the law—and for the truth—is not optional. It is the foundation of any free society, the shield of the vulnerable, and the sword of those who fight for justice. The Council of Europe alone has produced a set of binding conventions that cover nearly all aspects a legislator should consider when designing migration policies. These are binding not only for national judges and courts, but also, though less directly, for political parties and civil society organizations.

While a basic principle of law holds that ignorance of the law does not exempt one from complying with it, when it comes to migration policy, public discourse often drifts into ignorance—or outright illegality—because it sells. These narratives are politically profitable. That, no doubt, deserves separate analysis: why do citizens support parties or movements that blatantly violate established legal standards? The growing appeal of nationalist identity politics, often opposed to the presence of the “outsider,” is increasingly reflected in electoral results. It is alarming—and demands a serious response. And that response begins with one fundamental demand: compliance with international legal norms.

At its core, this is not just a legal issue. It is about who we are—and who we choose to be—as states that define themselves as democratic and committed to the strict protection of human rights.

History does not belong to those who shout the loudest, but to those who stand firm—with dignity and reason—when it would be easier to give in. In this debate, as in so many others, what is at stake is not just migration policy. It is the very soul of our democracy.

Let us begin by simply reviewing the existing legal framework that tells us, unequivocally, what rights migrants have.