Neither saints nor invaders. Immigrants are people.

This week, the Patriarch of Lisbon, Bishop Rui Valério, published a column in Observador reflecting on the topic of immigration. I'm no one to judge texts originating from the episcopate, but I found it balanced and sensible. While affirming that it is necessary to "look at migrants with compassion and responsibility," Bishop Rui Valério noted that "reception cannot be naive or disorderly." Alongside the need for "policies that respect their dignity and help them rebuild their lives," he warned of the duty to "regulate migratory flows in accordance with the common good," clarifying that any integration requires a "cultural pact."

But, apparently, it wasn't enough. And the reactions can be classified into four categories. Elegant: "Valério, go get your vitiligo fixed." Intellectually lucid: "They sing well, but they don't make me happy." Classic: "How many of these immigrants did the Vatican welcome last year and this year?" Subtle: "Go destroy another country. Hypocrites! Go back."

Well, it seems like radicals have discovered something that electrical engineering, out of sheer stubbornness, insists on denying. According to science, electrical circuits depend on two poles: positive and negative. According to radicals, life only works with one. Sorry, but that's not the case. It's possible to say that the increase in the immigrant population in Portugal from 4% to 15% between 2017 and 2025 is a boom with clearly questionable consequences, particularly in terms of the pressure on public services, but without this leading us to conclude that we are facing "an undeclared war of invasion." Likewise, it's not enough to talk about the necessity of immigration for the vitality of some sectors of the economy, or the positive contribution of 1.604 billion euros to social security that derives from this community, to sanctify and confer royal approval on everything and everyone.

Apparently, we have to choose sides. It's impossible to simultaneously believe that Portugal is the seventh safest country in the world and that the perception of security also matters. It's well known: when you choose one side, the other becomes unavailable. And whoever chooses is a hero-martyr to their fans and a traitor-mind to everyone else.

Radicals thrive on good intentions and false, libertine fantasies. One of them is the far-right's wet dream, where only "Maghrebians" and "Indostan" appear. In reality, the five countries with the largest immigrant presence in Portugal are, in order: Brazil (35.3%), Angola (5.3%), Cape Verde (4.7%), the United Kingdom (4.5%), and India (4.2%). Nepal is 8th, with fewer immigrants than Italy. Pakistan is 12th, with fewer immigrants than France, China, or São Tomé.

But there are also wet dreams on the far left. Phrases like "immigration solves the problem of population aging" or "immigration brings diversity and cultural richness" are neither scientifically rigorous nor comprehensive. In fact, they seem to have come from an essay by an average high school student. With all due respect to them, they deserved better.

But the lack of rigor also extends to statements like the one Joana Amaral Dias published this week in an opinion piece. She said: "In Sweden, for example, Malmö is already classified as as dangerous as Baghdad." It's true that the Numbeo platform lists Baghdad's crime rate as 55.6 and Malmö's as 55.5. But what is Numbeo? A subjective self-reporting platform that measures perceptions of safety, not how many people die or suffer violence. In fact, in Malmö, in 2023, there was only one homicide by shooting; in Baghdad, it's not even possible to access any statistics.

Still, I'm glad to hear that Joana Amaral Dias (JAD) has changed her mind. In her article, she states that "neo-misanthropes want to destroy national identity," and asks: "Do you think the Iberians can have an open heart to welcome foreigners when they were suddenly forced to live with hordes of people with completely different daily habits, religions, and principles?" Now, it's not that I have a good memory, but when I was a young 12th-grade student, I attended a debate hosted by the FFMS (Federal University of Minas Gerais) with the question, "Does Europe Need God?" At the time, JAD, a panelist, categorically stated that Christian Europe "is a myth," and that it is so because, for centuries, it has successively "expelled, decimated, and exterminated other citizens, practitioners of other religions, in the name of this ideal—which I think is more of a nightmare—of having a white and Christian Europe." Time doesn't heal.

But, returning to the topic, I don't have, nor does anyone else, a responsible and thoughtful solution for immigration, just off the top of my head. I suspect this is a topic that's here to stay, that immigration has reignited a residual social resentment in Portugal, and that we may have to constantly hit the nail on the head to steady the ship. However, I am certain of two things. First, without the social and charitable structures of the religions present in Portugal—without the parishes, the IPSSs (Social Solidarity Institutions), Cáritas, the Vincentian conferences, the Community of Sant'Egidio, the Vida e Paz Community, and the various secretariats and services for refugees and migrants—the national response to this issue would be even more deficient, if not technically non-existent. Second, I believe in something that, I know well, can today be considered eccentric: immigrants are neither saints nor invaders; they are people.