Ex-MP Warns of 'War in Lavapiés' if Police Continue Patrols

Ex-MP Warns of 'War in Lavapiés' if Police Continue Patrols

The quote comes from a former regional MP of Senegalese origin: if the Police continue patrolling the neighborhood, "a war will be declared in Lavapiés." The statement, circulated on social media, landed like a bomb in an economic forum that had been discussing something else for months: what happens when a country tries to expel those who refuse to leave. The initial message of the thread summarized it with a screenshot: migrant groups threaten to respond "with violence" to those opposing what the text calls the invasion. From there, 162 replies and a pattern repeated on every page: the same word, invasion, and the same underlying question, whether a State can or cannot remove someone from its territory.

What exactly the ex-MP says and what is attributed to him

The material sparking the discussion is a social media message attributing to Serigne Mbaye, a former regional MP of Senegalese origin, the warning that "a war will be declared in Lavapiés" if the Police maintain their presence in the area. The claim is reproduced as is, without independent verification in the available material, and should be treated as what it is: an attributed statement, not a proven fact. The same thread links other episodes used by the discussion as ammunition: a stabbing in Cambrils of a cleaning worker, an alleged plan by a Latin gang to ambush agents in Madrid, and police confirmation that the Vallecas attack trinc a jihadist pattern.

The thread does not distinguish between cases. It piles them up. And from this emerges the framework that dominates everything else: if there is violence, it comes from one side; if it is insinuated from the other, the insinuator is targeted. This is the thesis summarized in one of the most repeated messages: "If they exercise violence, then all is well. If you insinuate it, you are a fascist."

Threat as proof: why the thread uses it to its advantage

There is a curious twist in the conversation. The threat, instead of causing outrage, is received almost with argumentative relief. "It is good that they say it directly, so we know what to expect," argues one intervention. The logic is that of those who prefer explicit conflict to latent conflict: if someone says they will respond with violence, the discussion about whether there was a problem ends.

Another current in the thread goes further and raises reciprocity: "we are legitimized to defend ourselves in the identical way." This is the most uncomfortable part of the debate and also the most discussed, because facing it appears the argument that the response cannot be the same without becoming what is criticized.

The economic argument: papers, handouts, and who pays

Under the noise runs an economic axis throughout the thread. The dominant idea is that the solution does not pass through force but through the pocket: "cut off all handouts at the root and they will leave themselves quickly to another country to parasitize." The thesis, debatable and debated, is that much of the permanence depends on public transfers and that without them the incentive disappears.

To this adds the complaint that the State treats newcomers better than locals: "if here we have a hospital bed and a school desk it is because our great-great-grandparents did have the courage...". The comparison with the past works as a generational reproach, not as data. And some take it to the terrain of colonial history: it is recalled that Equatorial Guinea had the highest GNP in Africa in 1965 and 89% literacy, using that data to discuss the narrative about what Spain left behind or not.

National security and migration as a weapon

In the final part of the thread documents enter. Three National Security reports are cited alerting to the possible hostile use of irregular migration against Spain, and a Maritime Security Strategy pointing to the risk that "state actors" use "uncontrolled waves" to destabilize. Also linked is information about Segarro emptying prisons and pushing convicts toward Spain.

This is the stretch where the conversation stops being an exchange of opinions and relies on official paper. There is no resolution: the documents describe a risk, not a fait accompli, and the thread stays exactly there, with suspicion installed and no verdict.

What is really discussed when this is discussed

The underlying question is not whether someone threatened. It is whether a country can decide who enters and who stays, and what happens when that decision meets resistance. The thread poses it with a phrase that summarizes the tension: "We are not an NGO, we are not their parents, nor do we have to support them or give them anything."

Facing it, the argument that violent response only confirms the problem and that the solution passes through clear rules applied to everyone. No one wins the debate. And with the National Security reports on the table, the question remains unanswered: What does a State do when the threat comes not from outside but from within?