This week, Latvian Interior Minister Jānis Dombrava stated that a strict procedure is needed for identifying and deporting illegal migrants who cross the border unlawfully and then claim asylum-seeker status. According to Dombrava, Latvia’s asylum centres are overcrowded, while some migrants “mock European humanitarianism, walk around carrying knives, and have turned the surrounding environment into a dump.”
BNN asked political analyst Filips Rajevskis, co-owner of media company Mediju tilts, whether Latvia can simply refuse entry to such “asylum seekers” and why they are so determined to come to Europe.
“You cannot really force us to let them in,” Rajevskis said. “Protecting our border is our own responsibility. It is up to us whether we allow them to enter and what we do with these illegal migrants afterward.
“The fact that they take advantage of our human-rights standards and social guarantees is undeniable. They would not come here if our laws treated them the same way they are treated in their home countries. They have no interest in integrating or working.
Their primary goal is simply to get here and avoid being sent back to where they came from.”
Many of the migrants arriving at Latvia’s border come from countries such as Somalia, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. Asked whether all of these countries are experiencing war or threats severe enough to justify seeking asylum on the other side of the world, Rajevskis argued that the issue is often linked to living standards rather than direct persecution.
“Somalia is one of the harshest countries in the world, violent and dangerous in many respects,” he said. “But in Egypt, for example, the situation is different. There is overpopulation, and achieving even the standard of living that someone might enjoy here on social benefits requires very hard work.
“You cannot say that people are being slaughtered in the streets of Egypt. People live their lives there. The country is simply poorer and has a lower standard of living. That is what many are trying to escape from. There, nobody will support you if you do not work.”
Asked whether Dombrava is pursuing the right approach to reducing illegal immigration, Rajevskis answered affirmatively.
“I think this is exactly his task and also the task of his political party—to protect Latvia
from repeating the mistakes made by some Western European countries and to preserve a safe environment in which people can live without fear,” he said.
“We still want to feel safe walking down the street and not worry that migrants could pose a threat to women or children. They often come from very different cultural backgrounds. And secondly, I do not think Latvia has an obligation to support all the people of Egypt. Egypt has a population of around 100 million. If we wanted to raise the entire country to European living standards, no amount of money would be enough. Egyptians themselves must work to improve their own country.”
Rajevskis also drew a distinction between migrants arriving from distant countries and refugees fleeing Russia’s war against Ukraine.
“With Ukrainians, the situation was clear,” he said. “We helped them.
Some integrated, some returned home, but they were not simply sitting in camps waiting for welfare payments.”
Another major issue discussed this week was comments by Baiba Šmite-Roķe, who argued that political decisions regarding e-cigarettes have contributed to increased smuggling and were adopted largely for “headline purposes.”
When asked when politicians would stop making decisions for publicity and start focusing on practical outcomes, Rajevskis compared the situation to alcohol prohibition.
“It is another example of someone believing that banning something will make it disappear,” he said. “If alcohol were prohibited, people would not suddenly stop drinking. They would travel to Estonia or Lithuania to buy it, or they would produce it themselves.
“The same applies to products that remain available in neighbouring countries but are banned in Latvia. People do not stop using them—they simply find other ways to obtain them. Delivery services and other channels emerge.”
According to Rajevskis, the biggest problem is that the state loses oversight.
“The government no longer controls what products are being used or their quality because everything moves into the illegal market,” he argued. “I would even suggest that such bans may increase health risks because people end up consuming unlicensed or counterfeit products whose real impact on health is unknown.
“In the end, the illegal market profits, while the state budget loses revenue.”
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | Latvia’s new government operating in “firefighter mode” – political analyst reviews its first week