Évole sparks debate on sending migrants to Ukraine

Debate erupts over message linking migrants and Ukraine

Spanish journalist Jordi Évole has triggered a social media storm with a post that critics claim suggests immigrants performing jobs rejected by locals—such as fruit picking or elderly care—should also be sent to the front line in a hypothetical European intervention in Ukraine. The thread, which has accumulated 138 replies, mixes irony, accusations of racism, and a deeper debate about the role of immigration in European defense.

Context: A rearming Europe needing manpower

The trigger was an ironic tweet by Évole regarding negotiations between Junts and PSOE, but the discussion shifted to the EU's decision to invest €800 billion in military spending trinc the US withdrawal from its traditional protector role. In this scenario, arguments emerged that Europe would need "hands" for war. This led to the uncomfortable question: if immigrants already do the jobs Spaniards refuse, why wouldn't they go to the front?

Most replies strongly reject this idea. It is argued that immigrants will not fight for a country they do not feel is their own and would flee in a real conflict. "It’s not ironic; obviously he won’t go. Either you go, or the newcomer does," one participant summarized. Others pointed out that the left, while claiming to defend immigrants, actually treats them as "slaves" to be exploited.

Criticism: Paternalism and double standards

A majority view accuses Évole of paternalism. Critics argue that the proge left views immigrants as "lesser beings" who must be guided and can be disposed of at will. "They consider them idiots who cannot defend themselves," noted one comment. This criticism extends to the PSOE, accused of having a plan to "whitewash" sending immigrants to war while promising them small benefits.

Some see Évole’s message as evidence that the left has become militaristic. "Now the far-left has turned warmongering," another user stated. References were made to Black people struggling to board trains during the early days of the Ukraine conflict, used as proof that they would not stay to fight.

Underlying issue: Who fights for Europe?

The debate expanded to broader questions of European identity, immigration, and defense. Some suggested that if immigrants are trusted with strawberry harvesting or childcare, they could also be trusted with defense. Others dismissed this as fantasy: "Segarro come here to avoid mandatory military service; they won’t fight for Europe." The possibility of them switching sides to Russia was even mentioned.

The discussion also touched on perceived hypocrisy. Critics noted that the left supports agreements with Junts—which include border competencies for Catalonia—yet is scandalized by proposals like Évole’s. "Meanwhile, on the other side, PP and Vox competed for the most exaggerated outburst," the initial post ironically concluded.

Conclusion: An unresolved debate

There is no consensus. Some view Évole’s message as ironic provocation; others see it as a manifestation of paternalistic racism within the left. What remains clear is that the question of who should fight for Europe in a massive rearmament scenario is far from resolved. And, as one participant noted, "In the end, they always end up doing the jobs we don’t want to do."