Few issues spark such fierce debate as migration: a threat to some, a lifeline and opportunity for others. Narratives around migration shape national debates, fuel populist rhetoric, and affect foreign policies. Poland and the U.S. illustrate this duality in different ways. While the former has recently transitioned into a migration destination, the latter continues to fortify its role as gatekeeper. These contrasting approaches reveal the complexity of migration as a socio-political phenomenon in the 21st century.
In Europe, eyes are currently turned toward the Mediterranean route and the Italy-Albania case. But other migration routes are in operation too, a fact that mainstream media often seem to forget. And while western governments are increasingly looking to control migration, the phenomenon of human mobility is a constant of human history. The question is not whether migration will happen, but how nations can manage it effectively and ethically.
According to UNHCR, in 2023 there were 31 million refugees worldwide. In 2023, over 2 million migrants attempted to cross the U.S.-Mexico border (according to the Homeland Security Committee), with asylum applications reaching record highs. In Poland, migration has surged in recent years, driven by Ukrainian refugees fleeing conflict and an increase in migrant workers from South Asia. According to the European Migration Network, in 2022, Poland issued over 100,000 work permits to Indian nationals, demonstrating a significant shift for a country traditionally seen as a source of emigrants rather than a destination.
In this landscape, migration perceptions vary dramatically across the world. In the U.S., the southern border is a political flashpoint, portrayed in polarizing terms of security and sovereignty. In Poland, while Ukrainian refugees are largely welcomed, other groups face indifference or exclusion. These differing narratives shape national strategies and highlight the tension between migration as a necessity and a perceived threat.
Poland: from emigrant nation to migration destination
When I think about Poland’s migration story from a personal standpoint, I remember the “Polish plumber” trope that once defined its global image – a nation of emigrants seeking opportunities abroad. Yet today, this trope no longer holds, as Poland is increasingly turning into a receiver country, particularly for South and Central Asians – Indians, Bangladeshis, Nepalis. Labor shortages and Poland’s rapid economic growth have turned the country into a hub for resilient migrants seeking work and study opportunities, as highlighted by research done by Patryk Kugiel. This shift is particularly evident at the Ukrainian border, where Poland has welcomed over 1.5 million refugees since 2022, offering temporary protection and access to healthcare and education.
Yet migrants from South Asia face different circumstances compared to Ukrainian refugees. Legal pathways like work permits and student visas have facilitated their arrival, but integration remains a challenge. These migrants arrive legally, equipped with work permits or student visas, marking a contrast to the irregular routes seen in other parts of the EU. Even more striking, Poland’s media and political discourse have so far not politicized this specific ethnic group. But Poland’s approach isn’t without its challenges. The country lacks a cohesive integration policy, leaving migrants to navigate cultural and social adaptation largely on their own.
The U.S. – Mexico border: A “Black Mirror” Reality
On the other side of the globe, the U.S.-Mexico border presents a starkly different migration model. Jennifer Babaie is a US advocacy activist for migrants at the southern border. Listening to her account of the situation at the border, I was struck by how dystopian it all sounded, triggering associations with “Black Mirror” episodes. The border is a high-tech gauntlet, with facial recognition apps and biometric scans, often requiring internet access and expensive devices. As Babaie described, even the slightest misstep, such as a failed scan, can end a migrant’s chance to apply for asylum.
The U.S. approach is rooted in deterrence, with policies designed to make migration nearly impossible. It’s not just migrants who are criminalized—advocacy groups and volunteers face increasing scrutiny and hostility. Babaie’s insights revealed a troubling trend: the suppression of independent civil society movements, which are critical in supporting vulnerable populations. This echoes broader crackdowns on activism, from migration aid groups in the Mediterranean to environmental movements across Europe.
Yet the U.S.’ hyper-securitized model showcases a profound paradox. A nation built on migration—the so-called melting pot—has turned into a fortress. By prioritizing enforcement over integration, the U.S. risks undermining its historical identity as a land of opportunity.
A Contextual Lens: Learning from Canada and Germany
While Poland and the U.S. present contrasting migration narratives, other nations offer models that blend a humanitarian approach and pragmatism. Canada’s community sponsorship program for refugees is a notable example. This innovative initiative pairs refugees with private sponsors—families, nonprofits, or faith groups—who provide financial and emotional support for resettlement. Since its inception, this program has successfully integrated thousands of refugee families, showcasing the power of grassroots involvement in migration management.
In Germany, vocational training programs for refugees and migrants have tackled labor shortages while fostering social integration. These programs not only provide language courses and job-specific skills but also emphasize cultural adaptation. By equipping migrants with tools to thrive in the workforce, Germany demonstrates a sustainable approach to managing migration, one that balances economic needs with human dignity.
A Shared Strategy: Externalization vs. Hybrid Warfare – Migrants as Tools of Policy
The flaws of externalization are evident at the U.S.-Mexico border, where cooperation agreements with neighboring countries like Mexico and Panama aim to intercept migrants before they reach the U.S. border. While effective in reducing visible migration numbers, these policies often leave migrants stranded in precarious conditions in transit countries, exposing them to exploitation and violence. In stark contrast, Poland does not rely on cooperation agreements with its eastern neighbors. Instead, it maintains control of its borders independently. This is particularly critical as countries like Belarus and Russia employ migration as a tool of hybrid warfare, intentionally creating crises to destabilize Poland and other EU nations. The 2021 Belarus-Poland border crisis serves as a grim example, where migrants were manipulated and weaponized to pressure the EU.
Both externalization and hybrid warfare reduce human mobility to a geopolitical chess game, treating migrants as pawns rather than individuals with rights and dignity. Whether stranded in transit camps under externalization policies or caught in the crossfire of hybrid warfare, the consequences for human lives are devastating.
When analysing these policies I often recall the film “Me, Captain” by Matteo Garrone, which captures the desperation of those stuck on the margins of Europe. Migration policies focused solely on externalization fail to address root causes like poverty, violence, and climate change. Instead, they perpetuate cycles of suffering while shifting responsibility away from wealthier nations.
A Call for Dialogue and Action
Too often, migration discussions center on the most high-profile cases, leaving lesser-known patterns unexamined. Yet these less visible narratives offer valuable insights into sustainable, long-term solutions. Can we still debate migration governance meaningfully? The cases of Poland and the U.S. highlight the urgent need for a more nuanced approach—one that views migration as a natural phenomenon and a resource for host states, not just a problem to solve. Perhaps the most valuable takeaway is this: migration cannot be stopped, but it can be managed—ethically, effectively, and with humanity at its core.