quarta-feira, 1 de julho de 2026

Should asylum seekers be 'expected' to contribute towards costs once they start earning?

 


Should asylum seekers be 'expected' to contribute towards costs once they start earning?

Whether asylum seekers should contribute to their accommodation and support costs once they earn an income is a highly debated political, economic, and ethical issue with varying policies globally. The discussion centers on balancing taxpayer responsibilities, economic integration, and humanitarian obligations.

The UK Legal Landscape

The UK government introduced the Immigration and Asylum Bill. Under this law, adults who are granted asylum and have sufficient funds are required to pay a flat-rate contribution—expected to be around £10,000—towards their past accommodation and support costs once their income crosses a specific threshold.

  • Structure: The repayment mimics a student loan model with monthly installments.
  • Enforcement: Clearing the full amount is a prerequisite for permanent settlement status.
  • International Precedents: This concept is not entirely unique; nations like the Netherlands utilize the Regeling Eigen Bijdrage Asielzoekers (REBA), requiring working asylum seekers housed in reception centers to contribute to their stay based on income.

Arguments in Favor of Contributions

Proponents of repayment schemes, including government officials and policy advocates, argue that the system fosters fairness and fiscal sustainability:

  • Taxpayer Fairness: In the UK, asylum support costs have reached roughly £5.3 billion annually. Supporters argue that asking individuals to contribute once they are financially capable reduces the immense burden on taxpayers.
  • Rights and Responsibilities: Proponents emphasize that asylum support is a temporary safety net, not a permanent entitlement. As Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood noted, it reinforces the principle that support is a right paired with a responsibility to give back when able.
  • Deterring Misuse: Some political groups believe that financial contribution requirements reduce the "pull factors" that attract economic migrants using the asylum system.

Arguments Against Contributions

Humanitarian organizations, legal experts, and opposition politicians heavily criticize these policies, raising concerns over integration and practical execution:

  • Financial Disincentives: Experts from organizations like the Migration Observatory note that imposing a £10,000 debt acts as an effective "tax" on low-income individuals. This may discourage refugees from entering the formal workforce or taking higher-paying jobs to avoid hitting the repayment threshold.
  • Hindering Integration: Human rights groups, such as the Refugee Council, argue that saddling traumatized families with significant debt makes it incredibly difficult for them to achieve financial independence, save for permanent housing, or escape poverty.
  • Systemic Irony: Critics point out that asylum seekers are legally banned from working while their applications are being processed. Forcing them to pay back costs accumulated during a mandatory period of enforced unemployment is viewed by opponents as unfair.
  • Low Fiscal Return: Data shows that only 24% of refugees find employment in their first year, and median earnings remain low (£23,000 after eight years). Opponents suggest the administrative cost of tracking and collecting these micro-debts could outweigh the actual revenue recovered.

Should asylum seekers be 'expected' to contribute towards costs once they start earning?

 

Trump spent a decade making friends in Europe. Now they’re turning away.

 



Trump spent a decade making friends in Europe. Now they’re turning away.

 

From Italy to France, nationalist leaders are reassessing their ties with the U.S. president as his brand sours across the EU.

 

June 23, 2026 4:02 am CET

By Marion Solletty

https://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-giorgia-meloni-jordan-bardella-europe-turning-away/

 

PARIS — For Europe’s populist right, U.S. President Donald Trump’s embrace was once seen as a political asset. Not anymore.

 

For years, nationalist leaders across the continent treated the American president’s support as proof that their politics had gone global. But with major elections looming in 2027, including in Italy, France and Poland, many are rethinking the value of that transatlantic backing.

 

Trump’s brand in Europe has soured — curdled by his tariff wars, threats against Greenland and a war on Iran that increased energy prices. His interventions, once welcomed by his ideological allies, are now seen as political explosives: liable to alienate moderate voters, split nationalist electorates and hand ammunition to their opponents.

 

A case in point is Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, once seen as the U.S. president’s most prominent ally in Europe. After Trump claimed she had “begged” for a photo with him at the G7 summit last week, Meloni gave voice to what polls have been saying for months.

 

Brushing off a social media post in which Trump said she was “doing poorly in Italy with her level of popularity,” the prime minister retorted: “Being your friend certainly has not helped it.”

 

“In any case, my popularity is none of your concern,” she added. “I suggest you focus on yours.”

 

In France, Jordan Bardella — head of the far-right National Rally party and a presidential front-runner — is making the same calculation. In an interview with POLITICO last week, he firmly rejected Trump’s backing and described the U.S. president’s behavior as “erratic.”

 

Even as the Trump administration’s leading figures have thrown their weight behind Europe’s nationalist parties, the U.S. president’s embrace has become a “poisoned gift,” said Jean-Yves Dormagen, president of the Cluster17 polling institute.

 

“Trump is really creating a problem for these leaders,” he stated. While their electorates are divided over Trump, they increasingly see him as a threat, he added.

 

A January survey conducted by Cluster17 in seven EU countries showed that while right-wing voters had a higher opinion of Trump than the general population, only a minority of them saw him as “a friend of Europe” — 18 percent among Bardella’s National Rally voters, 23 percent among Meloni’s Brothers of Italy voters and 25 percent among supporters of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).

 

In a POLITICO poll conducted by Public First in June, only 31 percent of AfD voters and 36 percent of National Rally voters agreed that the U.S. is “a reliable ally.”

 

In the U.K., Trump has become a liability for Nigel Farage’s right-wing populist Reform UK party, especially among swing voters. That is also true in France, where the U.S. president is unpopular among the center-right voters the National Rally is trying to win over, said Dormagen.

 

What makes the backlash especially awkward for Washington is that the politicians edging away from Trump are precisely the ones his administration has been seeking to court.

 

In its National Security Strategy published last year, the White House applauded “the growing influence of patriotic European parties.”

 

In the months that followed, the administration backed that rhetoric with high-profile public endorsements and behind-the-scenes outreach to the very movements now calculating that Trump might cost them votes.

 

In one of the most high-profile examples, U.S. Vice President JD Vance traveled to Hungary to support former Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in his reelection bid in April, saying this was “the right thing to do.”

 

But after the Hungarian leader’s 16-year rule ended in a crushing defeat, most far-right leaders eyeing next year’s top political prizes are either reconsidering their stance on Trump or fully reversing it.

 

In a response to a request for comment, a White House official pointed to a passage in the National Security, which says that “America encourages its political allies in Europe” who stand for “unapologetic celebrations of European nations’ individual character and history.”

 

End of a political romance

The shift is especially notable in Italy and Germany, where the far-right has historically been very welcoming to the U.S. president.

 

Meloni was one of the first European leaders to congratulate Trump on his 2024 reelection. And when he kicked off a transatlantic trade war, she was quick to cast herself as a potential bridge between a terrified Europe and the guns-blazing president.

 

Their relationship was initially full of spark. At a White House meeting last April, Trump called her a “very special person” and accepted an invitation to Rome (he never went). Fast-forward to today, and the two are now publicly trading barbs after Meloni refused to let U.S. warplanes taking part in the Iran war use Italy’s military bases.

 

Meanwhile, in Germany, the Iran war has aggravated a crisis of confidence between Trump and the far right, which had already been building before the conflict. This spring, AfD leaders urged party officials to scale back trips to the U.S. ahead of key regional elections.

 

Still, not all of Europe’s right-wing leaders are publicly rethinking the relationship.

 

Poland’s right-wing populist Law and Justice party is still cultivating ties with Trump. Warsaw, which is headed for a parliamentary election next year, is a close political and military ally for the U.S., and it’s one of Europe’s largest buyers of American weapons for its fast-growing armed forces.

 

President Karol Nawrocki, who is backed by Law and Justice, is seeking to leverage his connections with Trump as he battles Prime Minister Donald Tusk, who holds the country’s most powerful office.

 

For Law and Justice, it is “more beneficial than risky to be on very good terms with Donald Trump for many reasons,” said Wojciech Szacki, head of the political desk at the Polityka Insight think tank. “It gives them some leverage in internal politics because the president of Poland is the only person who has access to the White House right now.”

 

At a press conference in Warsaw on Friday, Law and Justice leader Jarosław Kaczyński praised Nawrocki’s “excellent relations with the American president” and hailed the alleged “success” of a Polish bid to get a permanent U.S. military base.

 

“A majority of Poles still think that what makes us safe is the presence of American soldiers in Poland,” said Szacki.

 

In the Cluster17 poll, 17 percent of all Polish respondents said Trump was “a friend of Europe” — the highest percentage among the seven EU countries polled.

 

NOTE: The Public First poll was conducted from Jun. 14 to Jun. 17, surveying more than 2,000 respondents each from U.S., Canada, U.K., France, Spain and Germany, and has an overall margin of error of ±2 percentage points. Smaller subgroups have higher margins of error.

 

UPDATE: This article was updated on June 23 with comments from the White House.

January 22, 2026: For Europe’s far right, Trump has become a liability

 



For Europe’s far right, Trump has become a liability

 

The U.S. president’s threats over Greenland have spurred national leaders to distance themselves from a figure they once praised.

 

January 22, 2026 4:00 am CET

By Marion Solletty and Max Griera

https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-far-right-donald-trump-liability/

 

PARIS — European populist champions are turning away from a U.S. president they once openly admired. 

 

As Donald Trump escalates his attacks on the continent, his scorched-earth approach to transatlantic relations is becoming a political liability — even for leaders who previously benefited from their association with him. 

 

For the right-wing and far-right movements in Europe, Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement offered validation from the other side of the Atlantic for similar populist movements back home — until its leader started threatening the invasion of a European territory.

 

While on Wednesday Trump backtracked on his administration’s threats, saying he will not take Greenland by force and would suspend his tariff threats, powerful right-wing figures in the continent’s capitals and core EU institutions have already shifted their narrative to adapt to the transatlantic hostility, mimicking the centrist leaders they loathe and dialing up the rhetoric against American imperialism.

 

“I think we should be honest,” said Nicola Procaccini, the leader of the right-wing European Conservatives and Reformists group in the European Parliament, who is also Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni’s right-hand man in the chamber. “When Trump is wrong, we should say he’s wrong, when he’s right, we should say he is right.”

 

Jordan Bardella, president of France’s far-right National Rally, and Nigel Farage, the populist leader of Reform UK, condemned Trump’s escalating threats over Greenland and his use of tariffs as coercive leverage against the very countries they hope to govern. Both are wary of appearing too close to a figure increasingly viewed by public opinion, including their voters, as a hostile force.  

 

Trump’s aggressive push on Greenland “goes way beyond a diplomatic disagreement,” Bardella said in the European Parliament on Tuesday, describing the U.S. president’s tariff threats as “blackmail” and accusing him of attempting the “vassalization” of Europe.

 

In the same address he called on the EU to activate its so-called trade bazooka, also known as the anti-coercion instrument, aligning with the position of his rival, President Emmanuel Macron. That puts Bardella at odds with a leader to whom he has long felt an affinity: Meloni, whose government is still advocating a let’s-keep-calm-and-negotiate approach.

 

Even the far-right Alternative for Germany, which once openly embraced support from the Trump administration, is scrambling to recalibrate.

 

Wannabes vs. incumbents

Populist leaders in office are proceeding cautiously, well aware of the risk of alienating a powerful but unpredictable ally. 

 

Italy’s Meloni, whose status as a Trump whisperer has raised her international profile, has so far refrained from directly criticizing the U.S. president’s offensive on Europe’s sovereignty.

 

As Trump announced he would slap punitive tariffs on NATO allies that have opposed his move on Greenland, he noticeably spared Italy, which has criticized European troop deployments to the Arctic territory.

 

Similarly, speaking from Davos, Poland’s President Karol Nawrocki, a Trump stalwart, said the U.S. remained his country’s “very important ally.” But even he balked at one of the U.S. president’s recent initiatives, with one of his aides expressing concerns about the inclusion of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the U.S.-led “Board of Peace.”

 

In the European Parliament, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s troops continue to seek close ties with Trump and are downplaying the annexation threats, arguing that Greenland is an issue solely between Denmark and the United States.

 

“With President Donald Trump comes peace,” Orbán said three days ago on X.

 

By contrast, far-right figures who still are aiming for higher office have adjusted their rhetoric.

 

In France, the National Rally has always been cautious in its approach to Trump, trying to maintain a healthy distance. But Bardella himself had flattering words for the U.S. president as recently as last month, when he said in a BBC interview that Trump was an example of the “wind of freedom, of national pride blowing all over Western democracies.”

 

In the same interview, Bardella gave a hat tip to Trump’s successes at home and “welcomed with a certain goodwill” the moral support offered to nationalist European parties in Trump’s National Security Strategy, a bombshell policy paper widely received as another nail in the coffin of the traditional world order.

 

End of a bromance

In the U.K., Farage can claim to be a longtime friend of Trump, having campaigned for him during his 2016 presidential run and later being welcomed to Trump Tower as his personal guest. 

 

But this week the populist leader opened up clear blue water between himself and the U.S. president by saying Trump’s Greenland threats represent the “biggest fracture” in the transatlantic relationship since the Suez crisis of 1956.

 

The Reform leader, who is scenting real power ahead of the next general election, is well known for being attuned to public opinion — which remains pretty hostile toward the U.S. president.

 

Trump was unpopular in Europe even before the Greenland offensive, including among the supporters of right-wing populist parties he sees as allies, according to a POLITICO Poll in partnership with Public First conducted in November.

 

Farage supporters were the exception, but even so, only 50 percent of Reform-aligned respondents had favorable views of Trump. 

 

Public distance vs. private embrace

France’s Marine Le Pen has long warned her troops against embracing Trump too loudly.

 

While the American president is ideologically close to her National Rally on some subjects, first among them migration, Trump’s interference in domestic politics has ruffled the far-right veteran’s feathers.

 

After U.S. Vice President JD Vance’s fiery speech at the Munich Security Conference last year, where he criticized longstanding policies by centrist parties against collaboration with the far right, she warned her troops against cheering the apparent win for their camp.

 

Still, the party’s leading figures have also looked at Trump for inspiration and sought to emulate some of his movement’s successes.

 

Last September, her former partner and National Rally Vice President Louis Aliot, who traveled to the U.S. for Trump’s inauguration, gave a passionate speech on democracy and freedom of speech at the party’s back-to-school meeting in Bordeaux, paying tribute to slain U.S. conservative influencer Charlie Kirk — a name virtually no one in France’s heartland had heard of before his assassination. He elicited roars from the crowd.

 

Now, far-right politicians may legitimately fear that invoking Trump will earn them boos instead of claps.

 

Esther Webber contributed reporting from London. Ketrin Jochecová contributed reporting from Brussels.



Is Europe’s Populist Right Turning on Trump?

 

Why Meloni has hit back hard against Trump and his ‘made up’ photo claim

 


Why Meloni has hit back hard against Trump and his ‘made up’ photo claim

Riccardo Alcaro

With her popularity flagging and a general election looming, the Italian PM sees a strategic advantage in the rupture

 

Wed 1 Jul 2026 06.00 CEST

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jul/01/why-meloni-has-hit-back-hard-against-trump-and-his-made-up-photo-claim

 

If Giorgia Meloni thought that she could put her April spat with Donald Trump over the pope’s criticism of the US war on Iran behind her, she had not banked on the US president’s capacity to bear a grudge.

 

Trump reignited tensions by telling an Italian TV journalist that the Italian PM had “begged” him for a picture at the recent G7 meeting in France. The Spanish newspaper El País suggested that Trump’s feathers had been ruffled by a video at the same meeting, showing Meloni appearing to scold him. In any case he doubled down on his tale in a Truth Social post, adding that Meloni wanted the photo to boost her flagging approval ratings, which he blamed on her failure to support the US in the Iran war.

 

Trump’s line of attack is hardly surprising, but Meloni’s forceful response is. In a social media video, she said Trump’s claim about the picture was “made up”. She expressed puzzlement at the US president apparently treating his allies worse than his adversaries. Fusing personal and national pride in a single retort, she concluded: “I do not beg, nor does Italy.”

 

In a subsequent Instagram post , she insisted that her supposed slide in popularity had nothing to do with the US – although in an acerbic jibe, she added that being friends with Trump was not helping. Meanwhile, Antonio Tajani, Meloni’s foreign minister, cancelled plans to attend a US-Italian business forum in Miami.

 

It is hard to know if this rift is real or performative. In Trump’s eyes, Meloni’s sin appears to be one of lèse-majesté – specifically, failing to show the due deference of a subordinate to her boss. For Meloni, the clash is a matter of substance, namely Trump’s inability to appreciate the value of the western alliance.

 

Yet Trump’s hostility to Europe is not exactly breaking news. In fact, on every previous occasion on which Trump has opened a new front – from tariffs to the quasi-abandonment of Ukraine to threats against Greenland – Meloni has been conspicuous by her silence. Even on Iran, ostensibly the immediate cause of Trump’s discontent, it took weeks for Meloni to shift from a position of “neither support nor condemnation” to distancing Italy more clearly from the war. Even now, the Italian government is working with the US administration to patch things up: Tajani has confirmed his attendance at Thursday’s celebration of the 250th anniversary of American independence at the Rome residence of the US ambassador, who has also offered conciliatory words. The hope is that the relationship suffers no further damage. What seems clear is that the personal bond between Trump and Meloni is almost ruined. But that is not necessarily a net loss for the Italian premier.

 

Meloni may be genuinely concerned about Trump’s Europe policy, but the root of the rift is less geopolitical strategy than strategic electioneering at home.

 

Although he exaggerates them, Trump is not wrong when he speaks of Meloni’s popularity problems. In a March referendum, voters roundly rejected a judicial reform package she championed. Despite the lingering differences between Italy’s main opposition forces, the centre-left Democratic party (PD) and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S), they are set to forge an alliance ahead of the next general election, due by 2027 at the latest. And National Future, a newly formed force led by Roberto Vannacci, a former general turned firebrand hard-right demagogue, has gained support at the expense of Meloni’s three-party governing coalition. According to polls, the coalition is set for defeat in the elections.

 

But publicly clashing with Trump, who is deeply unpopular in Italy, carries electoral advantages. On her left, it deprives the opposition of a major line of attack over Meloni’s previous closeness to Trump. On her right, it forces the National Future on to terrain that Meloni now strives to dominate: a nationalist conservative narrative rooted in tropes about western civilisation that also rejects subservience to the US.

 

She hopes, too, to strengthen her position within the European right. Distancing herself from Trump serves Meloni’s goal of drawing a sharp line between herself and pariahs such as one of her former allies, the pro-Trump Viktor Orbán. She would rather align now with the French National Rally, whose presidential candidate, Jordan Bardella, could become Europe’s foremost nationalist leader if he wins next year’s presidential election.

 

The solidarity expressed with Meloni across the Italian political spectrum (Vannacci included) and by European leaders over Trump’s efforts to humiliate her validates her political instincts. Whether those instincts are enough to win her re-election is another matter. Aware of this, Meloni is pushing for changes to the electoral law that would give bonus seats to the winning coalition, compel parties not already sitting in parliament such as Vannacci’s to collect 500,000 signatures and force coalitions to name their candidate for the premiership in advance. In one stroke, Meloni would drive a wedge between the opposition parties, with both the PD and M5S leaders, Elly Schlein and Giuseppe Conte, coveting the premiership, and either exclude Vannacci or force him to join her coalition on her terms.

 

The electoral reform, which the opposition has denounced as a semi-authoritarian power grab, is under review in parliament. Its approval will mark the unofficial start of the election campaign. Lacking major policy successes or legislative achievements, Meloni will confidently insist she has remained truthful to her conservative principles while also ensuring political stability. Ideological coherence is harder to claim, however, after flip-flopping on what was previously presented as the strategic wisdom of political closeness to Trump. And when stability is pursued through last-minute changes to the electoral rules, confidence begins to look more like performance than conviction. Meloni can only hope that voters don’t care about the difference.

 

Riccardo Alcaro is head of research at IAI, Istituto Affari Internazionali in Rome

Increase in immigration: Sebastião Bugalho wants to call former PS ministers to Parliament / Aumento da imigração: Sebastião Bugalho quer chamar ex-ministros do PS ao Parlamento

 


Increase in immigration: Sebastião Bugalho wants to call former PS ministers to Parliament

 

At a press conference at the party's headquarters, the spokesperson and vice-president sent more details about these hearings to the PSD bench, without clarifying whether or not former Prime Minister António Costa will be among the personalities that the party wants to hear.

 

Economic Newspaper with Lusa

29 June 2026, 12h47

https://jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/aumento-da-imigracao-sebastiao-bugalho-quer-chamar-ex-ministros-do-ps-ao-parlamento/

 

The PSD will request the parliamentary hearing of former socialist rulers such as José Luís Carneiro to find out whether or not the previous executive knew about the population increase made public last week by the National Statistics Institute (INE).

 

At a press conference at the party's headquarters, the spokesperson and vice-president sent more details about these hearings to the PSD bench, without clarifying whether or not former Prime Minister António Costa will be among the personalities that the party wants to hear.

 

"Did the Government then in office act with knowledge or without knowledge of the population increase now made public? What public policies of this Government were designed or conditioned by this population increase, the result of the unregulated migratory policy of this Government? If they knew, what did they do, and if they didn't, why didn't they do it?" he asked.

 

Asked if the PSD will call the current secretary-general of the PS and former Minister of Internal Affairs José Luís Carneiro to parliament, the MEP and leader considered it "natural that he be called to this clarification", despite referring the detail and timetable to parliamentary leader Hugo Soares.

 

"The current secretary-general of the PS evidently has responsibilities, not only in the extinction of the SEF, but also for the fact that he held the portfolio of Internal Administration, directly related to migration policy, but even before in other functions, as responsibility for the consular network," he said, referring to his previous role as Secretary of State for Communities.

 

Without clarifying which other former ministers can be heard, Bugalho pointed out to "the rulers who had responsibilities related to this process and the absence of information about the country's population, foreign and national".

 

"The numbers do not tell us what was done, or should have been done, to protect public services and the Portuguese State and Portuguese social cohesion from population growth of that size," he said.

 

For the PSD spokesperson, the fact that the foreign population went from 7.1% to 14% between 2021 and 2025 demonstrates an "unequivocal relationship" with the migration policy of the previous PS Government led by António Costa.

 

"It seems clear to us that its effect goes beyond the sectoral issue, having affected and camouflaged the 'per capita' income then calculated, the housing market, as well as the responsiveness of fundamental public services, such as the National Health Service and public schools," he said, admitting that these problems are "more difficult to solve" because there was this lack of reliable data.

 

Bugalho also considered that the data now known demonstrated the importance of the changes in immigration laws already implemented by the PSD/CDS-PP executive.

 

Even so, the PSD spokesman declined to answer whether Portugal has too many or too few immigrants, as some sectors claim, stressing that the problem was "too few rules".

 

"As far as the PSD is concerned, there will never be a repeat of a deception in which the country thinks it is growing, but does not grow that much, in which a phenomenon as impactful as a population increase of this type occurs, without it being deserving of political attention or even public discussion. It is in the name of this transparency, of not repeating something that should never have happened, that we will hold the parliamentary hearings soon announced", he justified.

 

Asked if they also admitted calling former Prime Minister António Costa to parliament - who would always have the prerogative to respond in writing - the PSD leader replied only that they did not close any door.

 

On recent criticism, both from Chega and the PS, of the PSD's position, the party's spokesperson repeated that "the preferred partner is the Portuguese" and not any political party.

 

If it will be possible to reconcile the position of spokesperson with that of MEP in Brussels, Sebastião Bugalho resorted to irony to answer in the affirmative.

 

"I have noticed that the same people who said that I would be a bad MEP because I was always in Portugal are the same people who say that I will be a bad spokesperson because I am always in Brussels," he said, detailing that, in the last two years, he has traveled "more than 73 thousand kilometers" at the service of the PSD, participated in three electoral campaigns and maintains a presence rate in the European Parliament of more than 94%.


Aumento da imigração: Sebastião Bugalho quer chamar ex-ministros do PS ao Parlamento

 

Em conferência de imprensa na sede do partido, o porta-voz e vice-presidente remeteu mais detalhes sobre estas audições para a bancada do PSD, sem esclarecer se o antigo primeiro-ministro António Costa estará ou não entre as personalidades que o partido quer ouvir.

 

Jornal Económico com Lusa

29 Junho 2026, 12h47

https://jornaleconomico.sapo.pt/noticias/aumento-da-imigracao-sebastiao-bugalho-quer-chamar-ex-ministros-do-ps-ao-parlamento/

 

O PSD vai pedir a audição parlamentar de ex-governantes socialistas como José Luís Carneiro para apurar se o anterior executivo sabia ou não do aumento populacional tornado público na semana passada pelo Instituto Nacional de Estatística (INE).

 

Em conferência de imprensa na sede do partido, o porta-voz e vice-presidente remeteu mais detalhes sobre estas audições para a bancada do PSD, sem esclarecer se o antigo primeiro-ministro António Costa estará ou não entre as personalidades que o partido quer ouvir.

 

“O Governo então em funções agiu com conhecimento ou sem conhecimento do aumento populacional agora tornado público? Que políticas públicas desse Governo foram projetadas ou condicionadas por esse aumento populacional, fruto da política migratória desregrada desse Governo? Se sabiam, o que fizeram, e se não o fizeram, porque não o fizeram?”, perguntou.

 

Questionado se o PSD vai chamar ao parlamento o atual secretário-geral do PS e antigo ministro da Administração Interna José Luís Carneiro, o eurodeputado e dirigente considerou “natural que seja chamado a esse esclarecimento”, apesar de remeter o detalhe e calendarização para o líder parlamentar Hugo Soares.

 

“O atual secretário-geral do PS tem evidentemente responsabilidades, não só na extinção do SEF, como pelo facto de ter sido titular da pasta da Administração Interna, diretamente relacionada com a política migratória, como até antes em outras funções, como responsabilidade pela rede consular”, disse, referindo-se à sua anterior função de secretário de Estado das Comunidades.

 

Sem clarificar que outros ex-ministros podem ser ouvidos, Bugalho apontou aos “os governantes que tiveram responsabilidades relacionadas com este processo e a ausência de informação sobre a população do país, estrangeira e nacional”.

 

“Os números não nos dizem o que é que foi feito, ou deveria ter sido feito, para proteger os serviços públicos e o Estado português e a coesão social portuguesa do aumento populacional daquela dimensão”, disse.

 

Para o porta-voz do PSD, o facto de a população estrangeira ter passado de 7,1% para 14% entre 2021 e 2025 demonstra uma “relação inequívoca” com a política migratória do anterior Governo PS liderado por António Costa.

 

“Parece-nos claro que o seu efeito ultrapassa a questão setorial, tendo afetado e camuflado o rendimento ‘per capita’ então apurado, o mercado da habitação, assim como a capacidade de resposta de serviços públicos fundamentais, como o Serviço Nacional de Saúde e a escola pública”, disse, admitindo que esses problemas são “mais difíceis de resolver” por ter havido essa falta de dados fiáveis.

 

Bugalho considerou ainda que, os dados agora conhecidos, demonstraram a importância das alterações nas leis da imigração já concretizadas pelo executivo PSD/CDS-PP.

 

Ainda assim, o porta-voz do PSD escusou-se a responder se Portugal tem imigrantes a mais ou a menos, como reclamam alguns setores, frisando que o problema foi de “regras a menos”.

 

“No que depender do PSD, jamais se repetirá um engodo em que o país julga crescer, mas não cresce assim tanto, em que um fenómeno tão impactante quanto um aumento populacional deste tipo ocorre, sem que seja merecedor de atenção política ou sequer de discussão pública. É em nome dessa transparência, de não repetir algo que nunca deveria ter acontecido, que realizaremos as audições parlamentares em breve anunciadas”, justificou.

 

Questionado se também admitiam chamar ao parlamento o antigo primeiro-ministro António Costa – que teria sempre a prerrogativa de responder por escrito -, o dirigente do PSD respondeu apenas que não fechavam qualquer porta.

 

Sobre críticas recentes, quer do Chega, quer do PS, ao posicionamento do PSD, o porta-voz do partido repetiu que “o parceiro preferencial são os portugueses” e não qualquer partido político.

 

Já se será possível compatibilizar o cargo de porta-voz com o de eurodeputado em Bruxelas, Sebastião Bugalho recorreu à ironia para responder afirmativamente.

 

“Tenho notado que as mesmas pessoas que diziam que eu seria um mau eurodeputado porque estava sempre em Portugal são as mesmas pessoas que dizem que eu vou ser um mau porta-voz porque estou sempre em Bruxelas”, afirmou, detalhando que, nos últimos dois anos, percorreu “mais de 73 mil quilómetros” ao serviço do PSD, participou em três campanhas eleitorais e mantém uma taxa de presença no Parlamento Europeu superior a 94%.