Proponents of Morocco's decision to halt the repatriation of unaccompanied minors argue that the move is a necessary step to ensure the safety and well-being of the children. From this viewpoint, the primary responsibility of any state is to protect minors from the risks associated with rapid, forced returns, which can often lead to further exploitation or neglect. By refusing to accept these individuals until more robust safeguards are in place, Moroccan officials are prioritizing the humanitarian needs of the youth over immediate political expediency.
Furthermore, supporters suggest that the burden of managing migration should not fall disproportionately on transit countries. They argue that the current European approach often focuses too heavily on border security and rapid expulsion, rather than addressing the root causes of migration or providing adequate support for the children once they are returned. This perspective holds that Morocco is asserting its sovereignty and demanding a more equitable partnership with Spain and the European Union, one that recognizes the complexities of child welfare in a migration context.
This position also emphasizes that the administrative processes for verifying the identity and family status of minors are often flawed. By pausing the returns, Morocco is effectively calling for a more thorough and humane process that prevents children from being sent back into potentially dangerous situations. For those who hold this view, the standoff is not merely a diplomatic dispute but a necessary intervention to force a more responsible and child-centered policy framework that respects international human rights standards.