Deportation to Lower Housing Costs: A Controversial Proposal

Lowering Housing Costs Through Deportation: A Flawed Calculation

A proposal to lower housing costs by deporting migrant populations has entered the Spanish public debate. An article in El Mundo presents this idea, and what's striking is not just the concept—expelling people to create a surplus of homes—but the reaction it has generated. Upon closer inspection, the argument unravels.

Fewer People, More Available Homes?

On paper, the equation seems simple: if people leave, the number of homes per inhabitant increases, and prices fall. The objection raised in the debate is that housing isn't distributed per capita: there's been a shortage of homes for many years, long before the latest migratory wave arrived, and the bottleneck wasn't created by newcomers. It's argued that millions of new homes are needed, and crucially, an immediate halt to hoarding and speculation that have been inflating the market for decades. Expelling a worker doesn't free up an apartment bought by a fund to keep it off the rental market.

When Did Affordable Housing Disappear in Spain?

Here, disagreement is total. One side places the sweet spot between 2014-2017, years in which—according to this view—there was sufficient housing and the labor market wasn't so strained. The rebuttal is swift: throughout the entire 'Régimen del 78' (Spanish transition to democracy), accessible housing for all has never truly existed. Speculation didn't appear with the last boat; it has been brewing decade after decade, with or without migrants. This dispute, moreover, is not innocent: it serves to blame outsiders for a failure that has persisted in the same place for forty years.

The Miracle of the Loaves and Fishes

A country with finite resources that absorbs a large population in a few years doesn't spontaneously generate more houses, water, or electricity. Labor grows; infrastructure doesn't. This gap, another current argues, isn't paid for by the newcomer or the existing resident: it's captured by those who profit from rent, land, or low wages. More fuel, but the same forest. And when a resource is scarce, prices rise. With or without migrants.

Why Does This Discourse Lose Votes Instead of Gaining Them?

According to one participant, because saying 'there are too many people' solves nothing. A superficial diagnosis, lacking proposals for construction or curbing speculation, doesn't resonate with voters who haven't been able to afford rent in their own neighborhoods for years. Those whose problem is on their paycheck don't want an enemy; they want a home. And on this point, the discourse falters after a couple of sentences and a headline.

Business Leaders, Rulers, and an Uncomfortable Date

Underlying it all is the suspicion, pointed out by one participant, that the real distribution of blame is different: business leaders abide by the laws, rulers don't, because they write them. Cui prodest (Who benefits?). And with these ingredients, the prediction offered in the debate is not exactly optimistic: one participant places the moment when Spain ceases to exist as the State it is today around 2040. The recipe offered by that same participant isn't political; it's about relocation: those who can, should flee.