elpais.com
Mauritania's Crackdown on Migration Causes 40% Drop in Canary Island Arrivals
A 40% decrease in migrant arrivals in the Canary Islands from Mauritania in 2025 is attributed to Mauritania's intensified border controls and expulsions, fueled by a €500 million agreement with Spain and the EU, prompting accusations of human rights abuses and impacting refugees and asylum seekers.
- What is the primary cause for the significant drop in migrant arrivals in the Canary Islands from Mauritania in 2025?
- The number of migrants arriving in the Canary Islands from Mauritania has decreased by 40% in 2025 due to Mauritania's intensified border controls and expulsions, targeting migrants and refugees, including those with UN refugee status. This crackdown has led to widespread fear among the affected populations.
- How do the recent changes in Mauritanian immigration policies affect refugees and asylum seekers, and what are the main accusations leveled against the government?
- Mauritania's stricter immigration policies, implemented since early 2025, coincide with a €500 million investment agreement with Spain and the EU. Opposition members and human rights groups accuse the Mauritanian government of human rights abuses and xenophobia, alleging that the measures disproportionately affect Black Mauritanians and refugees.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the current migration control policies in Mauritania, considering the involvement of Spain and the EU, on both the human rights situation and the migration flows?
- The increased cooperation between Mauritania, Spain, and the EU on migration control raises concerns about the potential for further human rights violations. While Spain aims to shift towards more regular migration pathways, the current focus on border security and expulsion suggests that human rights abuses may persist. The long-term impact on the affected populations remains uncertain.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline (not provided, but inferred from the text) and the introduction immediately establish a negative framing, highlighting the sharp decrease in migrant arrivals and attributing it to Mauritania's harsh policies. The article consistently uses language that emphasizes the suffering of migrants and refugees, while the government's justifications are presented later and with less emphasis. This sequencing and emphasis shape the reader's interpretation towards a critical view of the government's actions.
Language Bias
The article employs emotionally charged language to describe the situation, such as "hand dura" (iron fist), "caza de brujas" (witch hunt), and "viven aterrorizados" (live terrified). These terms are not neutral and evoke strong negative emotions towards the Mauritanian government's actions. More neutral alternatives could include "strict enforcement," "crackdown," and "experience fear." The repeated use of words like 'expulsión' (expulsion) and 'detención' (detention) reinforces the negative tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative consequences of Mauritania's stricter migration policies, quoting critics and those negatively affected. However, it omits potential positive aspects of these policies, such as any reduction in crime or improvement in security that the government might claim. The perspectives of Mauritanian citizens who support the government's actions are also absent. While acknowledging space constraints is important, including a broader range of views would enhance the article's objectivity.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified dichotomy between Mauritania's stated aim of controlling immigration and the reality of alleged human rights abuses. It doesn't fully explore the complexities of balancing national security with humanitarian concerns, or the possibility of alternative solutions that could achieve both. The narrative leans heavily towards portraying the government's actions as solely negative.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights human rights abuses and xenophobia in Mauritania's crackdown on migrants and refugees. The government's actions, driven by agreements with Spain and the EU, contradict international human rights laws and principles of justice. The expulsion of recognized refugees, like Mady Diallo, and the poor conditions in detention centers demonstrate a failure to uphold justice and the rule of law.