? JUST IN: While France burns, Polish Member of European Parliament Dominik Tarczynski is WALKING THROUGH Krakow LATE at night, showing all of Europe it’s PERFECTLY CALM
“Look how safe we are. Churches are safe. Because we did not let them in. Zero means zero. ‘Be like Poland’…
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 18, 2026
Poland has become one of the most outspoken defenders of national control over immigration within the European Union. Polish Member of the European Parliament Dominik Tarczyński recently walked through a Polish city at night, contrasting its peaceful streets with the scenes of destruction coming out of France. “Look how safe we are. Churches are safe. Because we did not let them in. Zero means zero. ‘Be like Poland’ means be brave.” His message was aimed directly at Brussels, which has spent years attempting to impose a common migration system upon countries that do not necessarily agree on whom they should admit. Poland has insisted that decisions involving its borders, national security, and the composition of its population cannot simply be handed over to European institutions.
The Polish people have good reason to understand the importance of sovereignty. Their country was partitioned by foreign powers in the eighteenth century, disappeared from the map of Europe for more than a century, endured Nazi occupation, and subsequently fell under Soviet domination. Poland did not regain its full political independence from communist rule until 1989. That experience helps explain why arguments about surrendering national authority to Brussels provoke such strong reactions. The country spent generations struggling to govern itself, and immigration policy has become another arena in which the boundaries of European integration are being contested.
Poland’s confrontation with the EU began during the 2015 migration crisis when Brussels attempted to distribute asylum seekers among member states through mandatory relocation quotas. Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic refused to comply, and the European Court of Justice ruled against them in 2020. The legal defeat did not settle the political disagreement. Polish governments continued arguing that immigration and asylum decisions must account for national security, public consent, and the ability of local communities to absorb newcomers. Brussels viewed the relocation mechanism as a matter of shared responsibility, while Poland challenged the idea that solidarity could be imposed through compulsory admissions.
Poland has demonstrated that border security involves more than political speeches. Along its frontier with Belarus, Warsaw constructed physical barriers and expanded surveillance and military deployments after accusing the Belarusian government of facilitating migrant crossings as a form of political pressure. The European Union itself has increasingly acknowledged the problem of migration being used as an instrument of hybrid warfare. Poland’s position has been that an external border cannot remain credible if authorities are unable to control unauthorized entry. At the same time, border enforcement must operate within applicable asylum and human-rights obligations, a continuing source of legal controversy.
Poland’s position has become more significant in 2026 because the country’s border policy is no longer confined to speeches from opposition politicians. On September 18, the Polish government extended restrictions on asylum applications at the Belarusian border for another 60 days, the eighth extension since the measures were introduced in March 2025. Warsaw argues that Belarus has deliberately facilitated migrant crossings to destabilize Poland and the European Union. The measures remain controversial because of concerns about access to asylum, but they demonstrate how seriously Poland regards the border as a matter of national security.
Even more revealing was Poland’s intervention at the September 26 migration summit in Munich. Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński told representatives from 18 European countries that the EU Migration Pact did not go far enough to address the challenges confronting Europe’s external borders. Poland was no longer simply resisting policies developed in Brussels. Its government was actively promoting stronger enforcement measures for the rest of Europe to consider. That is a remarkable development given the years of confrontation between Warsaw and European institutions over immigration.
There is also a financial dimension that Brussels cannot ignore. Poland has accommodated approximately 1.5 million Ukrainian nationals, according to the European Union Agency for Asylum. The European Commission itself recognized the cumulative migration pressures facing Poland, allowing it to seek relief from contributions under the 2026 solidarity mechanism. This complicates the familiar accusation that Poland refuses to share responsibility for migration. Warsaw’s argument is that it has already absorbed substantial humanitarian and financial obligations and should retain discretion over additional commitments. As for other nations? Poland is not disillusioned to believe that every culture can live in harmony together. “We know what jihadists are capable of. We do not know what second or third generation of so-called refugees will do. Well, actually we do know… we can see what is happening in France,” Tarczyński noted.
The disagreement over migration ultimately reaches far beyond border fences and asylum quotas. Poland’s experience illustrates the unresolved question at the center of European integration: how much authority should national governments retain when Brussels adopts common policies that conflict with domestic priorities? The EU argues that shared external borders require cooperation and mutual responsibility. Poland insists that cooperation cannot eliminate national accountability for security, immigration, and public order. As economic pressures and political tensions increase across Europe, that dispute is unlikely to disappear. Poland has made clear that it intends to remain an active participant in determining Europe’s future rather than simply accepting every decision made in Brussels.