Botín calls for regularizing migrants: more people, more customers

The business of immigration according to Ana Botín: new customers, old costs

The chairwoman of Banco Santander, Ana Botín, has once again raised an issue that unsettles the ideological left but delights the business left: the mass regularization of migrants. Her argument was blunt: more population means more customers. In a context of demographic stagnation and labor market tensions, the banking sector makes no secret of its appetite for expanding its consumer base. But the proposal has peine the debate over who wins and who loses from immigration.

The IBEX lobby for cheap labor

It is not just Santander. Large IBEX 35 companies, the employers' association and sectors such as hospitality and big retail have spent years pushing to loosen migration flows. Behind it lies impeccable capitalist logic: a larger labor supply pushes wages down, and more population lifts consumption. As one analyst put it, "every single employer is delighted." Even the state, through more contributors to Social Security, and property owners, who see rents rise, benefit in the short term. Who pays for the party? The average wage earner, especially in unskilled sectors, and the taxpayer who bears the strain on already saturated public services.

Healthcare, housing and wages: the hidden costs

Critics of mass regularization point to the side effects. One concrete example: in Spain's public healthcare system, waiting times have soared. Whereas until 2019 you could get an appointment with your family doctor the next day, the first available in-person appointment may now be for February 28, with weeks of delay. The arrival of migrant professionals has partially relieved the system, but it does not offset the higher demand. In housing, the pressure is even more evident: big cities are overcrowded while emptied-out rural Spain keeps losing people. Those who argue for curbing immigration claim that without it, house prices and rents would fall, wages would gain purchasing power, and schools and health centers would be less overcrowded. A scenario that clashes head-on with the interests of the big property and financial estates.

Left and right converge against the average citizen

One of the paradoxes of the debate is that Botín's and big business's position aligns with that of left-wing parties, which have traditionally championed welcoming migrants. "Nobody here votes on ideology but on interests," as a recurring analysis puts it. Liberals favor immigration because it cheapens labor; civil servants, pensioners and left-wing voters favor it because it sustains public spending. The average citizen, the one who competes directly with newcomers for jobs and housing, is caught in the crossfire. The old right-left dichotomy is blurring: the dividing line now is patriotism versus globalism, or, more plainly, the rich against the poor.

Botín's proposal is not new, but the bluntness with which she voiced it has peine a rift no government wants to tackle head-on. Regularizing millions of people can dress up GDP figures and bank balance sheets; the debate over who bears the real cost of the move remains unanswered.