Critics of the government's response argue that the administration has failed to adequately protect the national border, leaving the citizens of Ceuta vulnerable and exposed. They contend that the lack of foresight and the apparent absence of intelligence regarding the mass movement of 60,000 people reflect a significant breakdown in security protocols. For these observers, the crisis is not merely a humanitarian issue but a failure of the state to assert its sovereignty and maintain the integrity of its territory.
Opposition voices have been particularly vocal, describing the situation as an 'invasion' and calling for more decisive action, including the permanent militarization of the border. They argue that the government's reliance on diplomatic goodwill with Morocco has left Spain in a position of weakness, susceptible to being manipulated by external actors. These critics suggest that the government's reluctance to take a firmer stance has emboldened those who seek to use migration as a tool of political pressure, thereby compromising national security.
Additionally, there is deep skepticism regarding the effectiveness of the current policy of 'loyal cooperation' with Rabat. Critics point to the recurring nature of these crises as evidence that the existing diplomatic framework is insufficient. They argue that without a fundamental shift in strategy—one that prioritizes deterrence and clear consequences for border breaches—the country will continue to face similar threats. For these stakeholders, the primary concern is the safety and security of the Spanish population, which they believe has been neglected in favor of maintaining fragile diplomatic ties.