MENA and the Social Contract: Sustainability of the Welfare State in a Context of Identity Tensions

The sustained increase in the arrival of unaccompanied foreign minors (MENA) to various European countries has ceased to be a phenomenon strictly linked to migration and humanitarian policies, becoming instead a structuring axis of contemporary debates on national identity, resource redistribution, and political legitimacy. In Spain, France, Germany, and Sweden, this phenomenon has gained public visibility and political weight at a time of fragile democratic consensus and growing pressure on welfare systems. The issue is not merely operational how many minors arrive or how they are managed but profoundly structural: what kind of social contract can sustain universal protection policies in increasingly diverse and polarized societies?

European welfare states were built upon an implicit pact of solidarity, in which members of a political community agree to contribute fiscally to a system that redistributes resources and guarantees basic social rights. The legitimacy of that system depends both on its economic sustainability and on its social acceptance. The arrival of MENA challenges this balance, since the protection of unaccompanied children is not a political option but a legal and moral obligation derived from international commitments and constitutional frameworks. However, the impact on public perception is considerable: a significant portion of the population interprets the prioritization of care for migrant minors as a distortion in the distribution of resources, especially in contexts of internal social precariousness. The central challenge is not technical but one of legitimacy. When citizens perceive that the system no longer protects fairly, trust in the social contract deteriorates—even if objective data suggest otherwise.

There is a structural tension between the universal character of fundamental rights and the popular perception that solidarity should be tied to community belonging. The management of MENA makes this dilemma particularly clear: on the one hand, the state must guarantee basic rights without discrimination; on the other, it must sustain public trust in order to maintain the fiscal and political consensus that makes redistribution possible. Recent experience shows that in the absence of clear public narratives and effective institutional communication, the feeling of competition over limited resources housing, healthcare, education, social assistance is amplified. This phenomenon is exploited by populist political movements that do not openly question rights but instead instrumentalize perceived grievances to erode social consensus.

The media overexposure of isolated incidents, combined with a lack of context, has contributed to the consolidation of discursive frameworks that portray the presence of MENA as a threat rather than a public management challenge. This narrative does not reflect statistical reality but directly influences the political legitimacy of the welfare state. The phenomenon cannot be understood solely as a migration issue: it is a field of narrative dispute revealing broader tensions between openness and identity retreat, solidarity and exclusion, universalism and communitarianism.

An effective political response does not lie in denying these tensions or embracing simplistic solutions. What is at stake is the ability to update the European social contract to preserve its legitimacy in a context of structural diversity. Some key lines of action include institutional transparency and public pedagogy communicating clearly and verifiably the real scale of the phenomenon, the resources allocated, and their results to reduce misinformation and strengthen trust; early investment in integration, since comparative evidence shows that effective integration through education, language support, and community mediation significantly reduces future social and fiscal costs; the establishment of mechanisms for European co-responsibility, as the management of MENA cannot fall disproportionately on a few member states, making effective European-level solidarity a condition for maintaining internal political stability; and the strengthening of community ties through policies that facilitate interaction between local populations and young migrants, reducing the symbolic distance between “them” and “us” and mitigating identity tensions.

The management of the MENA phenomenon is not an isolated issue of migration policy but a sensitive indicator of the resilience of the welfare state in democratic societies. A system perceived as fair and efficient reinforces institutional legitimacy, while one perceived as arbitrary or unbalanced fuels political fragmentation and polarization. In this sense, the debate around MENA functions as a mirror, revealing not only the scale of the migratory challenge but also the strength or fragility of social consensus regarding redistribution and belonging.

The European social contract was designed in a historical context of relative social homogeneity and economic stability. The present demands a more flexible and deliberate pact, capable of integrating diversity without eroding cohesion. The protection of unaccompanied foreign minors must be addressed as a structural issue of democratic governance rather than merely an operational problem. The key lies not in opposing rights and security, but in articulating policies and narratives that strengthen citizens’ trust in the state’s ability to manage complexity with fairness and efficiency. How Europe confronts this challenge will be decisive for the political sustainability of the welfare state and for the renewal of a social contract that, far from disappearing, must evolve.