The head of state’s response was based on a conceptual interpretation of the context in which the National Constitution was drafted, characterized by liberal principles, distinguishing it from the current reality.
The ultra-Kirchnerist governor used a quote from the National Constitution but ignored the context in which it was written
The head of state’s response was based on a conceptual interpretation of the context in which the National Constitution was drafted, characterized by liberal principles, distinguishing it from the current reality.
In the context of the anti-Argentina campaign, President Javier Milei confronted the ultra-Kirchnerist governor of the province of Buenos Aires, Axel Kicillof, following his statements about the National Constitution and immigration.
The president's response came after Kicillof referred to the criticisms against Argentina, highlighting the country's identity and its historical tradition. “They talk about Argentina without knowing it,” the governor stated, while emphasizing the “cultural diversity” of Argentine society and its openness to immigration.
In this regard, Kicillof evoked the founding spirit of the country: “The preamble was written for all the men of the world who want to inhabit Argentine soil, and for us, that is a mandate.”
However, President Milei responded directly through his account on the social network X, where he questioned the coherence of the governor's argument.
“One must be extremely foolish to quote the National Constitution (which is liberal/libertarian), and at the same time promote the 'Welfare State' (socialist/woke, not to mention if you are communist),” expressed the national leader.
The historical framework in which open immigration was promoted responded to completely different conditions than those in effect today.
In this sense, Milei argued that it is not possible to simultaneously maintain open borders and a broad system of state assistance without destroying the country's economy and the public accounts.
During the period when the Constitution was drafted, immigration primarily aimed at work and economic development, in a context where there was no state assistance system like the current one. In contrast, today there is a welfare state scheme, which significantly changes the dynamics.
For this reason, maintaining immigration opening policies alongside extensive social benefits ends up generating dangerous incentives, promoting the arrival of people with the sole objective of accessing free services, which leads to an imbalance in the system.