COMMENT: sorry marti but The article “Poland Refuses to Surrender Its Borders to Brussels” is a misleading piece that ignores the harsh realities on the ground. To present Poland as a sovereign fortress that is successfully resisting external pressures is to look at the situation through rose-tinted glasses. A sober, clear-eyed assessment reveals a different picture.
First, the claim of border control is undermined by the scale of economic immigration. While the number of new work permits has fallen recently—from 144,000 in the first half of 2025 to 69,000 in the same period of 2026—this is not a story of a closed border. It is a story of a massive, ongoing influx that has been poorly managed for years. For a long time, hundreds of thousands of permits were issued to people from unknown backgrounds, creating a vast, opaque labor market. The recent tightening of procedures and the introduction of the Entry/Exit system only confirm that the previous system was a leaky sieve. The article conveniently ignores this legacy of uncontrolled, often unverified, migration.
Second, the article completely omits the dire state of the Polish IT sector, which is a crucial indicator of the country’s economic health. The truth is that the “Polish IT eldorado is over”. Layoffs have become a permanent feature of the landscape, not a temporary blip. In Kraków alone, 40% of all collective redundancies in 2025 were in the IT industry. The situation has escalated in 2026: GSK announced the liquidation of its IT department in Poznań, putting over 500 jobs at risk and moving the work to India. Companies like Nordea, Fujitsu, and Aptiv have also conducted significant layoffs. This is not a picture of a resilient economy; it is a picture of a sector in deep crisis, with tens of thousands of jobs affected.
Finally, the article’s triumphalist tone is detached from the broader economic anxiety. While the unemployment rate remains low by EU standards, the registered unemployment rate has been rising, reaching 6.0% in January 2026, up 0.6 percentage points year-on-year. This, combined with massive layoffs in key sectors like IT, suggests a labor market that is far more fragile than the article would have you believe.
The article is not an objective report; it is a piece of wishful thinking. It is time for the commentators and “informers” to look at the facts with a sober eye. Poland is not a fortress holding the line; it is a country grappling with the consequences of years of uncontrolled migration and a profound structural crisis in one of its most important modern industries. To pretend otherwise is not patriotism—it is denial.
-A
REPLY: You have raised three entirely different issues and somehow concluded that they disprove my argument about Poland defending its borders. Poland is still very much a member of the European Union. It is subject to EU treaties, regulations, and court decisions, and it faces the same economic pressures as the rest of Europe. Nobody suggested otherwise. What distinguishes Poland is that it still has political leaders willing to stand up publicly and demand secure borders, defend their national traditions, and preserve their culture rather than simply surrender every decision to Brussels.
First, you are confusing legal immigration with compulsory migrant relocation. There is a world of difference between a skilled immigrant who applies for a work permit, passes the required checks, obtains employment, pays taxes, and contributes to the economy, and an individual who enters illegally, has not been adequately vetted, and becomes dependent upon taxpayer-funded assistance. Education alone does not determine someone’s worth or whether they will contribute to society, but skills, employment, security screening, and financial self-sufficiency are perfectly legitimate considerations in immigration policy. Poland has accepted foreign workers and enormous numbers of Ukrainians. The question is whether Poland should retain the right to determine whom it admits or whether Brussels should make that decision for it. If its work permit system has been abused, that is a failure Poland must correct. It does not justify handing more authority to the EU.
Compare Poland’s position with Germany under Angela Merkel, which opened its doors to enormous numbers of asylum seekers in 2015, or Sweden, which pursued generous asylum policies before eventually tightening its immigration rules amid growing political and social concerns. Those governments made decisions that profoundly affected their societies, and their citizens are still debating the consequences. Poland’s leaders have been far more outspoken about the importance of integration, national identity, public safety, and preserving Polish traditions. You can disagree with those priorities, but there is nothing unreasonable about a country wanting to maintain its cultural character. Immigration should benefit the receiving nation as well as the immigrant. It should not be treated as an obligation imposed regardless of public consent or the capacity to accommodate newcomers.
Second, you bring up the problems in Poland’s IT sector, layoffs, and companies transferring operations to India. What does any of that have to do with Poland’s refusal to accept compulsory EU migrant quotas? I have written extensively about how capital moves internationally in search of lower costs and better returns. European companies have been relocating operations, manufacturing, and technology services because of the cost of labor, regulation, energy, and changing global competition. Poland cannot escape those forces merely because its politicians take a tougher position on immigration. Furthermore, Poland remains subject to EU regulations and the broader economic policies that have undermined competitiveness throughout Europe. A country can defend its borders and still suffer from terrible economic decisions, outsourcing, or a downturn in a particular industry. These are not mutually exclusive.
Third, you cite rising unemployment as though I had declared Poland immune to recession. I never made any such claim. Poland is part of the European economy, and its businesses are affected by European demand, international capital flows, and the policies coming out of Brussels. If unemployment rises, that should make the government more concerned about labor conditions and the economic impact of immigration, not less. Importing additional labor without regard to domestic employment conditions, qualifications, or the costs of public services is hardly a solution to unemployment.
The difference is that Poland still has leaders such as Dominik Tarczyński who are willing to confront Brussels publicly rather than pretend that every immigration policy coming from the European Commission must be accepted without question. Poland has not escaped the EU’s political and economic problems, nor has it solved every problem within its own borders. Its leaders are operating within the same European system as everyone else. Yet they continue demanding that border security, national identity, and the interests of Polish citizens be taken seriously. That is what I was praising.
You have completely misread the article if you believe I was portraying Poland as some impenetrable fortress or a perfect European nation without migrants. Poland remains firmly within the EU and is subject to its regulations and political pressures. I have never suggested otherwise. In fact, Poland’s geographical position makes it one of the most vulnerable nations in Europe. If this confrontation with Russia escalates into a broader European war, Poland will be among the first thrown into the fire, regardless of what the bureaucrats in Brussels promise. I am certainly not suggesting Poland has escaped the problems confronting Europe. I am applauding those Polish leaders who still have the courage to defend their nation’s borders, traditions, and sovereignty while so many of their European counterparts have willingly surrendered those responsibilities. There is an enormous difference, and if you came away believing I was claiming Poland is some perfect nation free of immigration or EU interference, then you missed the entire point.