There seems to be a vendetta against immigrants in some sectors of Portuguese politics. What appeared to be yet another fetish of the Chega party has ended up catching on with the parties of the national coalition. The President of the Republic and the Constitutional Court have put a stop to the initiative through legislation, but the government is threatening to achieve it through other means. How do you analyze all these developments?

The cardinal sin of the whole process is the populist, haphazard, and poorly structured way in which the government has handled the issue. Let’s take it step by step. It is legitimate for the government to want to reform migration policy, particularly through the Foreigners’ Law. The situation today is difficult; it is not the same as it was a few years ago, and the increase in the immigrant population probably requires a new strategy to safeguard everyone’s rights. Even the PS acknowledged its own mistakes when Pedro Nuno Santos disagreed with the expression of interest. These issues deserve to be debated and should not be the exclusive preserve of certain parties.

Now, this issue should not have been handled with such levity. First, because it concerns people, the overwhelming majority of whom just want a dignified life. And if these people are excluded from society today, it is because of failures in integration policies. Second, in addition to all the economic and demographic consequences, changes of this kind to legislation call into question international cooperation treaties, as the Brazilian ambassador to Portugal has already warned.

I would remind you that much of this reform comes in response to the chaotic state of the impotent Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum (AIMA). But let’s face it: you cannot introduce changes that radically transform an issue that is crucial to the identity and future of the country due to administrative matters. You cannot violate the Constitution because of the administrative failures of the state itself.

Regardless of the content, it is clear that the government created a law on the fly, without technical justification, without supporting data, and without listening to the associations involved in the matter. Whether you like the content or not, the law was poorly drafted and the process poorly conducted. In the end, the Constitutional Court ruled that Portugal cannot use an immigrant solely for work purposes and deny them other aspects that enable a dignified life, such as family issues.

It should be noted that the main problem identified by the Constitutional Court was precisely family reunification. It is absurdly paradoxical for a government to say that it wants to control immigration, citing social exclusion as one of the reasons, while castrating one of the main factors of inclusion, which is family reunification. These situations show that, despite the government’s legitimacy to legislate on this matter, Montenegro was more concerned with showing itself as a “doer” to certain more radical factions of the electorate and its own party.

From a political point of view, the situation revealed a climate of acute tension between Belém and São Bento. We know that we are in the beloved month of August and that the country is on hold until the end of the beach season. We also know that Montenegro is in a state of grace, and Marcelo (the President of the Republic) is at the end of his term. This does not mean, however, that we are not experiencing an institutional conflict, also marked by other episodes such as the extinction of the Foundation for Science and Technology.

In any case, the crisis reflects a deeper structural change in the Portuguese party system, which is not new. Marcelo was one of the founders of the old PPD and has always been a right-wing, conservative man with a Catholic background and a humanitarian streak. With all this going on, his opposition to the more right-wing wings within the PSD itself, which compromise the social-democratic legacy of figures such as Barbosa de Melo and Mota Pinto, is clear. It remains to be seen whether Marcelo’s PSD still exists.

Has ill will towards immigrants found a place among the Portuguese people, or are we just facing a kind of political “bubble” that makes a lot of noise?

It certainly has. As I said in your previous question, immigration control has been a banner issue for Chega in recent years, and you only have to look at the results of the last elections to see how much ground the issue has gained among the population. In fact, the urgency with which the PSD seized on the issue, bypassing legislative procedures and changing the party’s position, is indicative of Montenegro’s effort to capture a certain ‘fringe’ of the electorate. The PSD wants to steal voters from Chega. And here it is important to look at the legislation in question, since it was the AD (Democratic Alliance) itself that approached Chega and not the other way around. In some cases, with slight differences, in others with “chemical paper.” There are several similarities between the government’s package and the measures that Chega has proposed in recent years, such as the requirement that parents have three years of legal residence for a child born in Portugal to be Portuguese; or imprisonment of five years or more for crimes of espionage, terrorism, treason, or attacks against institutional bodies; or mandatory tests to assess connection to culture and language.

The Portuguese are experts at emigrating, even “jumping” (synonymous with illegally), fleeing poverty and political persecution. How can people like this be against immigrants who are looking for a dignified life and are fed up with regimes that oppress them?

These are questions that touch the heart of the crisis in Western democracies. It is much easier to point the finger at the weakest when we are in a position of superiority, forgetting that even today, we are a people of emigrants. We live in a time of hatred, driven by populist narratives and where perceptions are worth more than reality.

In the specific case of immigration, Europe—I would even say humanity—has also failed over the last few decades by failing to respond to the thousands who have fled in search of a better life. Then, in an environment like this, with people feeling that their problems are not being solved and disenchanted with democracy, scapegoats are always needed. And history teaches us that immigrants are always a tempting scapegoat. But only some immigrants, mind you. This is one of the problems at stake here: legislation focuses on restricting immigration of the poorest and most disadvantaged, creating first- and second-class immigrants.

In the specific case of the Azores, emigration is the surname of practically every family. And the word illegal has never stopped us, especially when fleeing hunger and even war, to countries such as the US and Canada, among others. Seasonal emigration is now endemic in the Azores. Have the Azoreans lost their memory, or will anti-immigrant policies fail to take root among us?

We shall see. For now, measures to restrict immigration have not gained traction here. It should also be recognized that the Regional Government has an ideological position that contrasts with that of the Government of the Republic. It can be argued that the increase in immigrants is not as noticeable in the Azores as it is, for example, in Lisbon, but that does not mean that we are free from anti-immigration narratives. This is especially true in Ponta Delgada, where there has been a noticeable increase in immigrants from Nepal and Bangladesh, who have been instrumental in the hotel and restaurant industry. Because this is what is really at stake: the immigration of people who do not dress like us, do not look like us, and in many cases do not speak our language. This is the core of our discomfort with others. That is why we are not entirely immune to these kinds of movements, especially on endemically conservative islands where it is easy to lose sight of the past. It is important to recognize the importance of immigration in mitigating the natural population decline and combating depopulation.

In your personal view, what do you attribute anti-immigration movements and policies to, especially in our democracies?

The situation is complex and stems from individual prejudices and legitimate fears. The democratic system is under strain, with a loss of trust in institutions and the rise of populism, which has anti-immigration policies as one of its main banners. In a polarized society contaminated by populist rhetoric, immigration becomes a kind of perfect target to blame for economic, social, and cultural consequences. It is a kind of symbol of all social frustrations, whether due to lack of jobs, insecurity, or changes in lifestyles that are characteristic of globalized societies. This not only touches the depths of our prejudices, but also responds to the frustration of those who can only survive on their monthly earnings.

Rui Paiva is a journalist for the Portuguese news agency LUSA and for the national newspaper Público.

In Diário Insular, José Lourenço-director and Armando Mendes, PhD, editor-in-chief.

Translated to English as a community outreach program from the Portuguese Beyond Borders Institute (PBBI) and the Modern and Classical Languages and Literatures Department (MCLL) as part of Bruma Publication and ADMA (Azores-Diaspora Media Alliance) at California State University, Fresno, PBBI thanks Luso Financial for sponsoring NOVIDADES.