Poland itself is not isolated from migration. In recent years, the country has experienced significant demographic changes, including the arrival of large numbers of Ukrainians following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
According to international organizations and European institutions, millions of people fled Ukraine after the invasion, with Poland becoming one of the principal countries receiving those seeking safety.
This experience demonstrates that Poland can and does receive large numbers of foreign nationals.
However, Bosak and other Polish conservatives distinguish between accepting refugees connected to a major regional crisis and accepting mandatory migration policies determined at the European level.
For them, the critical issue is control.
A sovereign state, they argue, should have the ability to decide:
-
who crosses its borders;
-
under which legal conditions they may remain;
-
how long they may stay;
-
whether they qualify for asylum or other forms of protection;
-
what integration requirements apply;
-
and how national security concerns are addressed.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees recognizes the importance of international protection for people fleeing persecution and conflict while also acknowledging the role of states in maintaining functioning asylum systems and managing their borders within international legal obligations.
The political disagreement lies in determining where the balance should be drawn.
For Bosak, that balance must never be imposed externally.
Poland and the European Migration Debate
The European migration debate has repeatedly exposed deep divisions between Western and Eastern member states.
Countries on the EU's external borders often demand greater assistance from their European partners. Meanwhile, governments further from the main migration routes have questioned why they should be required to accept relocation arrangements developed at the EU level.
The European Union's Pact on Migration and Asylum was designed to reform how member states manage migration, asylum procedures and responsibility-sharing. EU institutions have described the framework as an attempt to create a more predictable and coordinated system while balancing responsibility and solidarity among member states.
But political opposition remains strong in several countries.
Critics fear that once a system of mandatory burden-sharing is established, national governments may gradually lose control over immigration policy.
Supporters of the reforms argue that no country can effectively manage migration challenges entirely alone and that shared European mechanisms are necessary because migration is inherently a cross-border issue.
This disagreement represents a broader philosophical conflict within the European Union.
How much authority should remain with national governments?
How much should be shared?
And when European cooperation conflicts with domestic democratic preferences, which should take priority?
Bosak's answer is clear.
Poland must come first.
Borders as a Symbol of National Survival
For many supporters of Bosak's position, a national border is not merely a line on a map.
It represents political authority.
A country that cannot control who enters its territory, they argue, cannot fully control its future.
This belief has particular resonance in Poland because of the country's history. Poland has experienced partitions, foreign occupations and repeated struggles over political independence. National sovereignty is therefore not simply an abstract political concept in Polish public life.
It is closely connected to historical memory.
Poland's modern political identity has been shaped by the desire to preserve independence and maintain the ability to make decisions without domination by foreign powers.
That historical background helps explain why EU policies perceived as limiting national authority can generate strong political resistance.
The argument is not necessarily that Poland should reject cooperation with Europe.
Rather, politicians such as Bosak argue that cooperation must remain voluntary and must not override national self-determination.