THE recent surge of tens of thousands of migrants from Morocco into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta has once again brought the European migration debate to a fever pitch and into my own living room.
In a recent family deliberation, I found myself at odds with some members who argued for a more humanistic approach from Spain. My counter was simple: a sovereign nation must take necessary measures to protect its citizens and borders.
The conversation, as these often do, took a winding path through European politics, American presidential rhetoric and even ancient scripture.
The numbers from Ceuta are staggering. Roughly 72,000 migrants have entered the enclave, many by swimming around the coastal barrier. In the process, at least 77 people have died, primarily through drowning or crowd crushes. These are not just statistics, they are human tragedies.
My family members’ plea for humanity is understandable. It is painful to witness people risking and losing their lives for a chance at a better future. Yet, I argued, Spain’s response must be viewed through a lens of realism.
Spain has not resorted to lethal force against these migrants. Tragically, many of the fatalities occurred during the crossing attempts themselves, a consequence of the perilous journey rather than deliberate state violence.
The Spanish government has since reinforced its border, installing a floating maritime barrier and has worked with Morocco to facilitate the return of approximately 70,000 individuals. This is enforcement, not extermination.
The Ceuta crisis was triggered by a Spanish court ruling that was dangerously distorted on social media and amplified by migrant-smuggling networks, falsely suggesting that anyone reaching the enclave would be granted automatic residency, a claim that tapped into the deep desperation of young Moroccans facing economic hardship and unemployment.
This misinformation, spread virally through platforms like TikTok and Instagram, prompted a massive surge of people who took the the perilous crossing into the Spanish exclave, which serves as the European Union’s only land border with Africa, resulting in deaths.
This brings us to the broader European context. The discussion then winded itself with the idea of strict controls. So I pointed to Poland. Poland has successfully managed to avoid similar crises by maintaining a stringent border regime, including a buffer zone and a physical barrier along its frontier with Belarus.
The Polish government cites national security and sovereignty as priorities, a position that has effectively deterred mass irregular entries. In this context, it was interesting to observe how our arguments shifted in favour of the “Orange Man” and his hallmark anti-immigration policies. Like him or loathe him, many feel his administration has performed admirably in asserting border control.
The Trump administration’s policies, from asylum restrictions to increased enforcement, represent a commitment to national sovereignty that resonates with those who believe borders are the bedrock of statehood.
This inevitably led to the philosophical abyss: Is killing ever justified? It is a question that haunts humanity. I quoted history, noting that no evolution or revolution has ever taken place without violence.
Even in the sacred texts like the Mahabharata and Ramayana, the triumph of good over evil is achieved through war and deaths.
Indeed, these epics provide intricate philosophical frameworks – dharma yuddha or righteous war – which establish rules of engagement, proportionality and the protection of non-combatants.
These are not glorifications of killing but acknowledgements that conflict and sacrifice are woven into the fabric of human existence.
Let me be clear, I am not supporting indiscriminate killing. I am looking at things from a realistic and historical point of view. The world is not a vacuum of pure ideals. It is a contested space where nations must balance humanitarian obligations against the duty to protect their citizens.
The EU’s migration pact is facing its first major test and the outcome is uncertain. As European leaders debate stricter returns and external processing, the ghost of the Ceuta tragedy will linger.
We must ask ourselves if the pursuit of a “humanistic” approach can survive the reality of mass, unregulated migration or if a more sober, security-oriented paradigm is an unavoidable necessity in a world of unrelenting pressure.
Dr Bhavani Krishna Iyer holds a doctorate in English literature. Her professional background encompasses teaching, journalism and public relations. She is currently pursuing a second master’s degree in counselling. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
