Si quieren defender Ceuta, que ayuden a Ceuta

Alberto Núñez Feijóo has demanded the immediate return of all individuals who have entered Ceuta illegally, including adults, minors, potential asylum seekers, identified and unidentified persons. His call for mass repatriation is framed in strong terms, using language such as “invasion,” “occupation,” and implying a perverse reward for those who reach Spanish soil. However, Spain is not merely a political arena for sensationalism, nor is Ceuta a stage for electoral theatrics. It is Spanish territory subject to the Constitution, the Foreigners Law, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, European Union law, and international refugee protection treaties. These legal frameworks explicitly prohibit the kind of collective, automatic, and indiscriminate returns that Feijóo advocates. The issue is uncomfortable yet unavoidable. If Feijóo understands the law, which he holds a degree in, he is not proposing a viable migration policy but rather publicly challenging the government to break the law. If he does not understand these legal norms, it raises questions about the quality of his legal education. The situation presents two possibilities: either he is a slow-witted individual unaware of the legal framework, or he is a dishonest figure who knowingly promotes illegal actions. Spanish law does not permit the immediate deportation of anyone who enters the country irregularly. Such individuals retain rights and must be treated with due process. The state cannot simply hand them over to another country without identifying them, listening to their claims, providing legal assistance, maintaining records, or assessing whether they require international protection. While the Foreigners Law includes procedures for repatriation, these are not blanket permissions to transport people across borders. They require individual guarantees and adherence to due process. Recent judicial rulings have been particularly clear regarding individuals arriving in Ceuta by sea or swimming. These individuals cannot be automatically rejected at the border. Instead, they must follow the regular legal channels established by law. This distinction is not arbitrary. The so-called “border rejection” applies only to attempts to bypass physical barriers, such as the fences surrounding Ceuta and Melilla. It does not allow for the simple return of anyone who has arrived irregularly, especially those who have already reached the coast. Feijóo’s demand for universal repatriation disregards personal circumstances, eliminates administrative oversight, negates the right to defense, and transforms the border into a space where the state can act without rules. This approach is fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law. The political immorality of the proposal becomes even more apparent when applied to unaccompanied minors. Feijóo has made no exceptions. In fact, he has insisted that all, including children, should be returned. Yet a minor is not just a smaller adult or a mere statistic in migration data. Spanish law establishes specific procedures for repatriating minors, guided by the best interests of the child. This requires identification, guardianship, hearings, locating family members when possible, evaluating conditions for return, and ensuring that repatriation does not place the child at risk or violate their rights. Therefore, declaring that Morocco lies beyond the border is insufficient. The administration must assess, case by case, whether the return is truly consistent with the protection owed to the child. Collective repatriation of minors is illegal. To advocate for it while invoking the specter of a supposed “invasion” is not strength, it is a failure of both legal and ethical responsibility.