About 50,000 people crossed illegally from Morocco into the Spanish territory of Ceuta within two days. Most were young Moroccan men, although women, children and other nationalities were also present. At least 67 people died, while more than 48,000 returned after discovering that Ceuta did not provide an open route into mainland Europe.[1]

Whether one calls this an invasion, a migration crisis or a mass border breach, the underlying principle should not be controversial: a sovereign country must be able to decide who enters, in what numbers and under what conditions.

Immigration can be enormously beneficial. Canada’s traditional system was built around that recognition. It was not perfect, nor was every immigrant selected solely for economic potential, but it generally combined skilled immigration, family reunification and humanitarian obligations within controlled annual limits. Canada admitted approximately 260,000 permanent immigrants in 2014.[2]

By 2024, permanent admissions had risen to nearly 484,000. More consequentially, temporary residents had grown from 3.3 per cent of Canada’s population in 2018 to 7.5 per cent in 2024. Even the federal government eventually acknowledged that this unprecedented increase was placing pressure on housing, health care and schools.[3]

Most of these newcomers did not enter Canada illegally. That distinction matters. Canada’s failure was largely self-inflicted: governments expanded legal and temporary pathways without ensuring that housing, infrastructure and public services could absorb the resulting population growth. The Bank of Canada observed that vacancy rates began falling shortly after immigration increased in 2015 because housing construction failed to keep pace.[4]

That is not the fault of immigrants who accepted Canada’s invitation. It is the fault of governments that treated intake targets as statements of virtue rather than practical commitments requiring homes, doctors, classrooms and public consent.

A just immigration system must account for three parties: those hoping to immigrate, those who followed the rules and were admitted, and the citizens whose country is receiving them. Uncontrolled illegal entry cheats lawful applicants. Excessive legal intake strains communities and leaves newcomers competing for scarce housing and services. Refusing to discuss either problem eventually destroys public confidence in immigration itself.

Strong borders are therefore not contrary to compassion. Clear rules, enforceable limits and admissions kept within a country’s plausible capacity are what allow immigration to remain fair, beneficial and politically sustainable. Capacity can never be calculated perfectly, but uncertainty is not an excuse to ignore obvious strain.

A country that cannot—or will not—decide who may enter is not practising generosity. It is surrendering the conditions that make generosity possible.

 

References

  1. Reuters, “Spain installs floating barrier in Ceuta after calm night following border rush,” August 1, 2026.
    https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/spain-installs-floating-barrier-ceuta-after-calm-night-following-border-rush-2026-08-01/
  2. Statistics Canada, “Permanent and temporary immigration to Canada from 2012 to 2014.”
    https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/91-209-x/2016001/article/14615-eng.htm
  3. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, “2025 Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration.”
    https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-manuals/annual-report-parliament-immigration-2025.html
  4. Bank of Canada, “Immigration, housing and the outlook for inflation,” December 7, 2023.
    https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2023/12/economic-progress-report-immigration-housing-outlook-inflation/