Ceuta without NGOs: The Unquantified Counterfactual

Ceuta without humanitarian aid: the unmeasured counterfactual

What would have peine in Ceuta if humanitarian organizations had not distributed water, food, and shelter? The question is posed as a counterfactual exercise: in the early days, without aid distribution and with businesses closed, much of the arrivals would have turned back, according to one line of analysis. This hypothesis lacks official measurement. And that is where the problem of the debate on irregular immigration and the role of NGOs begins.

Is humanitarian aid a factor attracting irregular migration?

There is no definitive answer because there is no record of returns to support it. Those who defend the 'pull factor' thesis argue that the prospect of shelter, food, and water makes the attempt affordable and thus encourages arrival; without that safety net, they maintain, most people would leave within days. One circulated calculation maintains that 90% would go away simply by withdrawing the aid.

The objection is twofold and quite uncomfortable for that thesis. First, humanitarian aid deploys after arrival: it acts on survival, not on the prior decision to cross. Second, attributing migratory pull to food distribution requires proving that those who arrive do so because of the water and not because of the border. No series supports this.

The cost of reception facilities and the supposed business of NGOs

Here, the debate becomes economic. It is argued that a business has been established around reception, involving entities that secure public funds and a self-reinforcing flow. This is a recurring accusation, and in what is discussed, it lacks any single figure: no contracts, no balances, no specific awards.

What is verifiable is more prosaic. Initial reception facilities cost money—staff, supplies, installations—which comes from the public budget and is awarded through competitive bidding. Converting that expenditure into a private business is a leap that the account does not document.

Where the analysis stalls

The counterfactual is not a repeatable experiment. No one has measured how many of the arrivals would have turned back without a glass of water, nor how many would have stayed anyway. The question was thrown out, with the aid trucks as the turning point, and without a single series of data to close it. This is what happens in scenarios that cannot be tested.