��������Ƶ

Why has North Africa, with its complex history and fragile political fabric, turned to the scapegoating of refugees and migrants amid its own crises?
This trend, far from being an isolated occurrence, is part of a broader, more alarming phenomenon in which the sub-region has been transformed into a veritable crossroads for sub-Saharan African migrants attempting to reach Europe.
Meanwhile, stringent European border externalization policies have pressured countries such as Tunisia to act as immigration “gatekeepers,” straining their already limited resources.
The result is a morally corrosive narrative framing these vulnerable individuals not as victims seeking refuge but as convenient scapegoats for internal socioeconomic and political failures. This diversion of blame not only exacerbates human suffering but also obfuscates systemic issues within these North African nations.
Investigation of this trend further unearths deeper questions: What compels these governments to channel public frustration toward displaced peoples, and how does this shift in policy and perception align with historical patterns of societal manipulation by political elites in crisis?
Across North Africa, the erosion of support for refugees is more than just an echo of the anti-immigrant sentiment seen in other parts of the world; it is the result of calculated political maneuvering by regimes grappling with uncontrollable economic and social distress.
Attention to systemic failures, from corruption to democratic erosion, is deftly redirected toward refugees as scapegoats. This redirection is epitomized by oppressive policies and hostile politics that exploit public discontent while ignoring the root causes of socioeconomic instability.
The economic grievances that fuel this blame game are palpable. The high unemployment rates, deteriorating public services, and rampant corruption that siphons off national wealth are conveniently masked by vilifying the displaced.
However, this subterfuge does nothing to address the underlying structural failings. By shifting blame to refugees, regimes sidestep genuine accountability, which stifles any impetus for substantial reforms. Instead, this blame game tends to exacerbate the socioeconomic conditions it claims to alleviate. The policies engender not only societal divisions but also disregard the inadequacies in social contracts that promise economic stability and progress.
Consequently, blaming the desperate and vulnerable is simply a diversion that neither resolves fundamental issues nor inspires long-term solutions but rather perpetuates a cycle of blame and avoidance, devoid of constructive outcomes.
The alignment with historical practices of societal manipulation is unmistakable in its strategy and execution. Authorities, faced with erosion of trust in public institutions and mounting discontent, tap into preexisting biases and amplify them through state rhetoric, the censor’s pen, policy shifts, and even draconian legislation.

Growing anti-immigrant sentiment makes long-term solutions seem politically prohibitive.

Hafed Al-Ghwell

In recent years, Europe’s strategy of externalizing its border enforcement responsibilities to North African nations reveals more than a mere logistical arrangement; it lays bare a growing dependence on illiberal regimes that foster an environment ripe for scapegoating refugees and migrants.
Europe’s financial infusions into several North African countries, under the guise of managing migration flows, lack rigorous mechanisms to ensure accountability, inadvertently propping up regimes with questionable human rights records. In Libya, for example, funds intended for migratory control have been siphoned off by a kleptocratic elite, exacerbating local corruption and further destabilizing the region.
Such externalization efforts by Europe are motivated by a desire to mitigate domestic political crises caused by irregular migration, a strategy that offers a short-term palliative but fails to address the systemic issues at the heart of these movements.
This coupling of financial aid with turning a blind eye to human rights abuses not only sustains existing provincial calamities but also spreads xenophobic rhetoric that inevitably seeps into local policies, as observed in the rising public dissatisfaction with migrants in urban coastal regions of North Africa.
Meanwhile, growing anti-immigrant sentiment in Europe, illustrated by the increased support for political parties with rigid anti-immigration stances, constrains Europe’s maneuverability, making long-term solutions seem politically prohibitive.
The demand from European leaders for immediate, tangible results forces Brussels to continually funnel funds to North African governments, ignoring endemic abuses and pervasive corruption, merely to project a facade of interventionism.
However, the influx of European funds has emboldened these regimes to pursue “security first” policies, ultimately turning migrants into convenient culprits for domestic woes. Rather than diminishing the migration-related pressures, this practice engenders a vicious cycle: public discontent with the presence of refugees or migrants invokes harsher domestic policies, which in turn trigger even more significant migration and deepen the socioeconomic fractures both within and beyond North Africa.
As a result, the mirage of immediate frontier security diverts attention from the imperative need for comprehensive, inclusive policies that could tackle the foundational socioeconomic disparities that drive irregular migration.
As the region’s convergent crises deepen, reductionist perspectives that portray refugees as the source of a nation’s woes have gained alarming traction, creating a hostile environment that only worsens the human suffering.
Unlike typical humanitarian crises driven by conflict or natural disasters, this is an unusual crisis, one that is manufactured through policies that aggravate rather than alleviate hardship. These policies involve the depiction of refugees not as victims of their circumstances but as burdens on the economy, driving up rents, consuming resources, and destabilizing society.
Such scapegoating not only ignores the complex reasons why people seek refuge but also entrenches systemic injustices. True security and stability cannot be achieved by ignoring the root causes of migration — wars, persecution, and economic collapse — while implementing draconian measures that strip individuals of what little remains of their dignity.
Stability must be built upon policies that address these root causes and uphold human rights, fostering an environment in which citizens and refugees alike can thrive.

• Hafed Al-Ghwell is a senior fellow and executive director of the North Africa Initiative at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. X: @HafedAlGhwell