The government speaks the language of the Confederate. How will the left respond? Material benefits are not enough

Poland's left has understood that if it wants to last as a political force with more than 5% support, it must talk about migration in a more rooted way in reality. So, here's the protection of human rights, and that's where the economy goes. praised the Political Criticist Galloping Major.

The fact that we hear more about the contribution of migrants to our GDP or pension strategy thanks to left-wing politicians and politicians is positive. However, bringing migration to purely material benefits would be a mistake. Especially since no of the main political forces intend to quit migrant work. They want to enjoy the fruits of their efforts, at the same time taking out from the protection of the state.

Migration and the economy as new black left narration

Thankfully. We have a fresh president. – at least for a minute politicians and the media focused on judging Duda and Nawrocki, not on another component of anti-immigration hysteria. But let us not delude ourselves: the subject of migration will stay with us for a long time. As in most Western countries, the right hand gives out cards here, threatening Poles with a threat to cultural identity and excessive burden on social systems. The Left is inactive trying to find its own voice in this debate.

A fewer years ago, the discussion on migration in Poland revolved around a classical dilemma: safety versus human rights. This was peculiarly evident during the crisis on the border with Belarus. The left, after a brief alliance with the Liberals, was yet marginalized: Donald Tusk and KO already in the 2023 run understood that the dominant emotion in society is not solidarity, but fear of losing control. Therefore, they seamlessly switched to the right-wing language, and later attacked the Law and Justice with their own weapons – starting the "visa scandal".

Today, it is hard to separate the KO's position on migration from not only the written one, but even the Confederate one. Only the left did not join the xenophobic choir. Neither Magdalena Biejat nor Adrian Zandberg in the presidential run exposed the issue of migrants' rights, but they mentioned the demographic and economical benefits of migration. Zandberg added to this the criticism of large capital – peculiarly curious in the existence of a reserve army of workers, which would undermine the negotiating positions of these natives, privatising the gains from migration, and shifting its costs to the state and society.

Migration and the economy are new black left-wing narrative. We are not beautiful spirits – we are applicable and rational.

In the light of the mad statements of the Confederate politicians and the deficiency of a strong consequence from the government, there is simply a discrimination between words reminding us that last year Ukrainian refugees accounted for 2.7 percent of Poland's GDP and contributions to the Social safety Office from all migrants covered the cost of thirteenth retirement. But there are 2 problems.

Firstly, no 1 in Polish politics – even Mentzen or Bosak – intends to quit economical benefits from migration. Secondly, talking about the economy does not inspire emotions. After all, the Polish debate on migration is actually a debate on emotions.

Migration trilem: what can Poland do and what does it not want to reconcile?

The fact that during the regulation of the Law and Justice, almost everyone could get a Polish visa, until they were ashamed to write. KO has introduced any visa restrictions which have so far hit students more than workers, but quietly agreed that after Romania and Bulgaria entered the Schengen area migrants could come to Poland on the papers of these countries.

The Confederacy may throw a show ban on working for Colombian citizens, but nothing will truly change the scale of the phenomenon. Meanwhile, Mentzen voters from tiny towns are as eager to send Ukrainian men to the front as they accept them to work.

It seems that the right and alleged liberal centre present want the same thing: maintaining or expanding the number of migrants along with further restrictions on their rights.

A fewer years ago, a Dutch sociologist and geographer prof. Hein de Haas formulated a migration trilemate. erstwhile conducting a migration policy, the State may prosecute 3 objectives:

1. Behavior of sovereignty, i.e. obstruction of arrival and long-term residence.
2. Taking advantage of globalisation and the free marketplace through crucial engagement of inexpensive labour.
3. Ensure a advanced standard of protection of migrants' rights in order to effectively integrate and combat marginalisation.

In practice, only 2 can be achieved simultaneously. EU countries have so far preferred open borders in the Schengen area and the inclusion of persons who have received a residence licence or exile status, at least basic social policy programmes. A classical example of what happens erstwhile the state wants to defend sovereignty and cultivate the free market, without turning its back on human rights, are the Gulf countries.

The desire to guarantee comfortable surviving conditions for citizens of the Petromonarchy forces them to invitation millions of migrants from South and east Asia to work all year, who frequently work above the norm, in dangerous conditions, without the anticipation of long-term legalisation of residence, and even more naturalisation. There is no integration of migrants – they are a service caste for privileged residents.

While no of the politicians in Poland are calling for this model to be copied, the demands of limiting migrants' rights, moving them to the end of the queue at the NFZ (promised by the fresh president) or freezing the processing of applications for Polish citizenship are already on tape. For respective years now, migrants have besides been excluded from the Polish regulation of law. It is not just about suspending the admission of asylum applications at the border with Belarus.

Frozen decisions. Waiting time: a year, possibly two

Those wishing to stay in Poland for longer must be granted a temporary residence licence first, then a permanent stay or a long-term EU resident status. The conditions for granting permits are governed by the Foreigners Act, the procedure for examining applications – Code of Administrative Procedure, which obliges offices to issue decisions in 30 days (60 in peculiarly complicated cases).

In 2020, KPA's terms in abroad affairs were suspended in connection with the coronavirus pandemic. The Lockdowns have passed, and the maximum time for processing applications has inactive not been reinstated. In 2022 the decision was again made not to meet the deadlines for examining cases – this time under the pretext of war in Ukraine (although refugees received the position of PESEL UKR and did not apply to provincial offices).

For migrants, this means not only not being able to receive a decision within a reasonable time, but besides to complain, for example, about inactivity or tardiness of administration. As a result, in the first 4th of 2025 in the Mazowieckie Voivodeship the average waiting time for the decision on the residence card was 250 days. In Opolskie Voivodeship, 619 days in Śląskie.

Not everyone can proceed their legal work in the course of the case. In order not to land on the street, they frequently work illegally. ZUS suffers, but Polish business revolves around. Although the question of the legality of the stay is much more severe than on the Polish-German border, it seems that it does not concern anyone.

Compassion ends, Excel is not enough. Left needs a fresh story.

There is simply quite a few talk in Poland about the threat to national identity and the state budget that migrants supposedly represent, frequently transferring to local real land or imagined migration problems in France or the USA. However, there are affirmative voices. Even Mateusz Morawiecki, in the second word of the Law and Justice, frequently mentioned that migrants were an injection for ZUS.

In terms of the availability of verified information on the affirmative economical impact of migration, Poland is leading in Europe. The decada was akin in Britain. And then Brexit came and “our identity is threatened” and “we lose control.” Data on how migrants, including Poles, positively influence British GDP, that they contribute more to the social safety strategy than they usage it, were available and cited by the Labour Party. But it was not about creating a fresh set of arguments, but about creating a fresh set of emotions. The Laburists couldn't handle it.

To date, if migrants have caused any affirmative emotions in Poles, it is alternatively compassion. However, it has a short - word effect, for it is not possible to get into someone’s misery for long. In addition, it frequently implies asymmetry of subjectivity.

When foreigners from temporary aid points become permanent residents who gain their own income, they want to talk not from a position of gratitude, but from a position of anticipation and protection of their rights. Compassion won't work here. If we add underdeveloped integration programs to this, there is simply a discourse about the ingratitude of visitors, which cannot be undermined by information about increased taxation revenues – erstwhile offered compassion has no price in gold.

That is why it is not only the task of the left to publicise the facts and replace the discussion on the protection of migrants' rights with an economical analysis. It's about creating a fresh emotional narrative. Not sprinkling with false enthusiasm, but normalizing the reality in which Poles have the right to have their expectations for fresh neighbours, but not at the expense of bringing foreigners out of the protection that the state of law gives. Will it be worker solidarity? Or a concern for the local community? Talk about migration requires more ideas and human faces, not Excel.