If we begin to think about migration, the first proof is that, before relating the issue to the national issue, there are other urgent issues, such as the situations of exploitation suffered by migrants in general in our country, or the relationship of the issue with relations of oppression worldwide. Having said that, I would like to connect immigration with the nation today.

If you want at an analytical level, migration is an ideal field for the study of nationalisms. In a way, immigration raises the relationship between the State and the nation; or, if preferred, they show us the bases that nationalisms use when thinking about their nation: who is the member of the nation, who has historically been thought to be a member of the nation, who has been expelled from that representation, etc. All this occurs through different means and resources, regardless of whether or not the nationalism under study has a State. But in both cases, immigration is a productive field of study. As Pierre Bourdieu recalled, the migrant is in a special social position, not entirely outside or completely inside, often between the native and the other.

Moving the issue to Euskal Herria, the activity of Spanish and French nationalisms is invisible in this area, probably because this activity is naturalized. However, the position of nationalism is different, because many times it is part of a stigma: Basque nationalism, from its origin, created a national project closed to migrants – here many nuances can be made – and some simply underline it, with clear political objectives, academic works or audiovisual products. On the contrary, I believe that the evolution of nationalism must certainly be underlined; that is, the change that took place in the 1960s and 1970s, initially from left-wing nationalism, and the Basque national project, theoretically and in practice, opened the door to such abundant immigration at that time.

In the last fifteen years, especially in Hego Euskal Herria, the reality of immigration has changed a lot, highlighting other origins. The vast majority of new migrants lack official citizenship, which makes a fundamental difference compared to previous migration processes. But, in spite of everything, I believe that the response to previous migration periods should be an important reference. Nationalism renewed its national project, which also opened up migrants. It could be otherwise, but so it happened; and nation and immigration is the perfect starting point for thinking today, without falling into idealizations.

As underlined by the political scientist Eunice Romero on the Catalan process (Revista Talaia, number 10), talking about migration is also about nation, and the challenge is to create an open discourse on the subject and complement these theoretical approaches with effective practices. I believe that when we think about immigration in the Basque Country we should also take into account the national variable. Always delving into an open definition of the nation and, at the same time, without circumscribing the reflection on the nation to language, as we do on many occasions in the Basque Country. I believe that the actions of 50 years ago on this road are a treasure.