Ayuso to Abascal: 'Without migrants, Madrid would empty out'
Spain now has over 50 million inhabitants, a historic record. Yet, villages are emptying, and rural Spain is more depopulated than when the population barely reached 20 million. Madrid's president, Isabel Díaz Ayuso, replied to Santiago Abascal that without immigration, "Madrid would have a real depopulation problem." The statement, made in the Madrid Assembly, has peine the debate on the economic role of foreigners in a community receiving about 300,000 new foreign residents annually.
The depopulation argument: reality or slogan?
Ayuso argues that without this flow, the capital would lose population and activity. But a recurring analysis highlights the paradox: total population has never been higher, yet rural density is the lowest. "With 20 million, villages were inhabited; now with 50, they are abandoned," notes a critical trend. Immigration has concentrated in cities, aggravating Madrid's overcrowding while empty Spain empties further. The discourse on demographic necessity clashes with the evidence that the problem is not quantitative but distributional.
Who benefits from massive immigration?
On the opposite side, the thesis grows that massive immigration only favors business elites and politicians who need more taxpayers to sustain public spending. "Housing would be 35% cheaper without the invasion," some analyses claim. Wages are suppressed, security suffers, and the working class loses purchasing power. "Immigrants come to do jobs Spaniards don't want to do," is repeated as a mantra, but increasingly voices point out that this willingness is overvalued: many Spaniards would work if conditions were decent.
The official narrative vs. the data
Ayuso has become the visible face of a right wing that has shifted towards defending immigration as an economic engine, contrasting with Vox's discourse, which links it to insecurity and loss of identity. The Madrid president, often labeled "menopausal able" in the most excited forums, insists that without foreigners, the pension system would collapse and the economy would contract. But critics counter that the real pyramid scheme is the pension system, which needs continuous population growth to sustain itself.
The discussion does not close. Why, with all incentives to repopulate the countryside, does immigration continue to flow to the same saturated cities? Perhaps the answer lies not in demographics, but in who keeps the surplus value of having millions of people competing for an apartment and a salary.
Most Shared
Related forum debates