Driven by anti-immigration sentiment and supported by government policies, local governments in Poland are currently passing resolutions, targeting the relocation of migrants under the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum. The Polish managing authority and intermediate institutions of European funds responded quickly. Due to the risk of losing EU funds, some of these discriminatory resolutions were repealed shortly after enactment. These swift reactions indicate that, at least in part, some lessons have been learned from the previous involvement of local governments in discriminatory engagement of creating the so-called LGBT-free zones – where it took nearly six years of discrimination until the last free-zone was repealed only this year. Hence, despite all the big talk about alleged traditions, culture, and other safety concerns, it seems that when money talks, discrimination walks.

Local governments against the Migration Pact and refugee relocation

In March 2025, far-right activists and populist opposition party Law and Justice (PiS), which was in power between 2015 and 2023, drew on anti-immigrant sentiments and organized anti-immigration protests at the Polish-German border to stop alleged migrant deportations to Poland. The anti-immigration rhetoric was something that PiS politicians were using very effectively while in power.

Following these protests, some local governments in Poland started to adopt the resolutions against the Pact on Migration and Asylum. Opposition to the Migration and Asylum Pact is primarily related to the solidarity contributions specified therein, especially to relocation of migrants.

Some resolutions contain explicit discriminatory statements. In this context, it is worth mentioning the Resolution of April 29, 2025, adopted by Tarnogórki County, which justified opposition to the relocation of “illegal immigrants” under the Pact on Migration and Asylum in the following, discriminatory manner:

“We want to make it clear that our concerns do not come from any prejudice against foreigners in general, but are based solely on media reports about the behavior of illegal immigrants in other Western European countries. In these countries, residents are afraid to go out after dark, women are afraid to be in public places, children are afraid to play in playgrounds, and police are hesitant to intervene in many neighbourhoods settled by immigrants. The overrepresentation of illegal immigrants, especially from Africa and the Middle East, in crimes of a sexual nature, against life and health – including those involving dangerous tools – is very concerning. Most of these individuals show little interest in gaining employment or in respecting the laws, traditions, and culture of their host countries, and their presence only adds to the financial burden on those countries.”

Concerningly, resolutions opposing the Pact on Migration and Asylum were not adopted only by local governments, where most local assembly members come from populist right-wing parties. Instead, these resolutions also come from local governments with assembly members affiliated with liberal parties or local movements linked to the current liberal government. In these cases, the motion to adopt a resolution was most often submitted by residents inspired by populist parties. To avoid rejecting residents’ demands, the wording of these resolutions was amended to include support for government policy. The city of Białystok serves as a good example. In a Resolution of September 29, 2025, the city council, in addition to expressing support for the government’s policy, stated:

“The City Council of Białystok strongly opposes the forced relocation of illegal immigrants to our city and advocates for full respect for Poland’s right to decide on its own migration policy in the spirit of national solidarity and the safety of its residents.”

To complete the picture: these resolutions are not legally binding according to Polish law. They reflect the stance of a specific local government community. The government may or may not consider these positions. Hence, despite their lack of legal power, the main impact of these resolutions is to strengthen discriminatory and xenophobic views in Polish society towards migrants. These attitudes can lead to very real and serious consequences.

In addition, apart from the non-binding resolutions, the actual relocation of migrants to Poland is currently more of a political fiction due to the following two reasons. First, the government strongly opposes it. Second, on November 11, the European Commission published its first European Annual Asylum and Migration Report under the Pact on Migration and Asylum. The Commission classified Poland as a country “at risk of migratory pressure.” As a result, Poland will gain access to operational and financial support but will not be exempt from solidarity contributions. Hence, at least in the coming year, one cannot expect even an attempt to relocate migrants to Poland.

A change that (did not) happen

To better understand the phenomenon of anti-migration local government resolutions, it is worth outlining the current political and legal landscape in Poland. In 2023, a major shift took place in Polish politics. The populists who had been in power for eight years lost their parliamentary majority and their ability to form a government. While there are more differences than similarities between populists and the new democratic majority, some factors make the power transition hard to discern. This is especially true concerning migration, particularly across the Polish-Belarusian border.

Arguably the most notable example of this was the Polish government’s decision in February 2025 to suspend the right to asylum. The parliamentary majority, working with the populist President, passed a law allowing the government to suspend this right. The day after the President signed this law, the Polish Council of Ministers issued a decree suspending the right to apply for international protection at the border with the Republic of Belarus.

The new democratic majority did not halt the criminalization of humanitarian aid provided to migrants. A high-profile trial of the so-called Hajnówka Five serves as a good example. This group provided humanitarian assistance to people from the Middle East who had crossed the border irregularly. They were charged with “assistance in the illegal stay of foreigners,” facing up to 5 years in prison. In September 2025, the first-instance court found them not guilty of enabling illegal presence in Poland. However, the public prosecutor’s office announced it would appeal. The media covered the case, and several non-governmental organizations participated as parties. Despite public pressure, the prosecutor did not withdraw the charges.  In this context, it is worth noting that the Prosecutor General, who can issue orders to any prosecutor, is linked in the Polish legal system to the function of the Minister of Justice. Therefore, if the government had been willing to close this case, one could have expected a reaction from the Prosecutor General. However, this did not happen, which indicates that there was no such willingness.

Given these actions, it is not surprising that Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk was one of the signatories of the controversial open letter from nine European governments to the European Court of Human Rights. In this letter, European leaders called for a new and open-minded discussion about interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights regarding “irregular migration” and the possibility to “expel criminal foreign nationals”.

Lessons learned

In April 2025, when the first anti-immigrant resolutions were adopted, the last resolution establishing the so-called LGBT-free zones in Poland was repealed. This marked the end of nearly six years of discrimination against the LGBT community. Many actors contributed to the repeal of these resolutions, with the European Union playing a significant role through financial pressure related to the risk of losing EU funding.

The pressure is now further reinforced by Regulation (EU) 2021/1060 of the European Parliament and the Council of June 24, 2021. Under this Regulation, Article 9 requires that Member States and the Commission ensure respect for fundamental rights and compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union in implementing the funds. That contributed to some of the resolutions being repealed shortly after their adoption.

This was the case, for example, in Szczecin, which in the Resolution of June 17, 2025, claimed i.a.:

“The City Council fully endorses the actions of the Coalition Government on October 15 and Prime Minister Donald Tusk, which clearly and unequivocally oppose the idea of relocating illegal immigrants who have arrived in other European Union countries to Poland, including Szczecin.”

Following pressure from the Polish intermediate institution of European funds (Centrum Unijnych Projektów Transportowych), i.e. one of the authorities responsible for the administration of European funds in Poland, the Szczecin City Council repealed this resolution on October 18, 2025.

The same was true for the city of Bielsko-Biała, which adopted a Resolution on August 28, 2025, objecting to any relocation of immigrants to the city. Bielsko-Biała repealed its resolution shortly afterward, on October 8, 2025.

Law versus politics

When comparing reactions to resolutions opposing LGBT ideology and migration, the latter received a much quicker response. The experience of institutions managing EU funds proved effective. In debates within local government councils, the primary – if not the only – argument against them was the fear of losing funding for projects, often worth millions of euros. The same argument regarding the risk of losing funds was crucial for the Provincial Administrative Court in Wrocław. At the request of the provincial governor (the government representative in the local government), on 30 October 2025, case ref. IV SA/Wr 521/25, the Court issued an interim measure to suspend the enforcement of a Resolution adopted by the city of Jawor on May 22, 2025.

Unfortunately, these resolutions did not face as much public resistance as those on LGBT ideology-free zones. It is difficult to find voices such as that of Ursula von der Leyen criticizing Poland for creating LGBT-free zones or political acts such as the European Parliament’s Resolution declaring the EU an LGBTIQ Freedom Zone. However, the EU law and the fear of financial consequences for violating it have ultimately influenced the situation in Poland for the better, even though the adoption of the resolutions did not face strong political opposition from either a national or European perspective.