El Confidencial on housing: no immigrants means no supply, article claims

The article that blames immigration for the housing shortage while also calling it the only solution

Does Spain really need millions of foreign workers to build the homes it is missing? The El Confidencial article by Ruth Ugalde argues that immigration pushes up housing prices by increasing demand, but that without those workers there will be no future supply because the construction industry depends on them. The piece, titled "The two faces of immigration: it pushes up housing prices, but without them there will be no more supply," has unleashed a storm of criticism on the economics forum. The journalist argues that the share of immigrant population in construction has soared, and that banning immigration would not solve the crisis but would worsen the labor shortage. Readers, however, see a rhetorical trap in this approach: first you import a population that needs housing, then you justify more immigration to build it.

The article's thesis: immigration that pressures and builds

The El Confidencial text starts from an apparent contradiction. Spain's population is growing through immigration, which pushes up housing prices as demand outstrips supply. Up to that point, the diagnosis is shared by many analysts. But the article adds that, in the long run, that same immigration is the key to the solution: without foreign workers, the housing supply cannot be expanded. The share of immigrant population in the construction sector has soared, and the article presents this as an objective fact that shapes any housing policy.

The journalist warns that one of the most dangerous narratives to emerge around the housing crisis is that it can be solved by banning immigration. A message that, beyond the risk of fueling xenophobic rhetoric, would not solve the supply problem. The article therefore takes a stand against restrictive arguments and defends the idea that the solution lies in integrating immigrants into the construction workforce.

The reaction: "without immigrants there are too many homes"

The response on the economics forum has been mostly critical of the article. One of the most repeated arguments holds that if the immigrants who arrived in recent years were expelled, there would be surplus housing for several generations. The calculation circulating is that with 15 million fewer people, three million homes would be freed up, without building a single one more. It is an estimate not backed by official data, but it reflects the perception that the problem is not a lack of supply but an excess of demand caused by immigration.

Another line of argument says the article confuses cause and effect. It argues that immigration is not the solution to the housing shortage but the cause of the demographic pressure that creates it. "Without immigrants, there are homes. With immigration, far fewer," sums up one of the most upvoted comments. The underlying idea is that the construction labor market does not need more foreign workers, but better wages and conditions to attract domestic workers.

The wages argument: pay more and there are plenty of bricklayers

One of the most frequent criticisms is that the article ignores working conditions in the sector. Several readers argue that if Spanish workers were paid decent wages, bricklayers would not be in short supply. "If they paid on site what they paid in the 2000s, adjusted for today's value, I tell you half of Spain would become a bricklayer," one comment says. The argument is that immigration is not the only source of labor; it competes with local workers who would be willing to work in construction if conditions were right.

This line of thought ties into the idea that the construction sector has driven down wages and that immigration has helped sustain that precariousness. Employers stand accused of wanting cheap labor and of failing to invest in training or better working conditions. From this perspective, the article would be legitimizing that dynamic by presenting immigration as indispensable.

Empty homes: the map that contradicts the shortage

Another focus of the debate is the geographic distribution of housing. The argument is made that Spain has surplus homes across wide areas: Asturias, Castile and León, Castile-La Mancha, Galicia. With a population of 40-43 million and job creation in those regions, the housing problem would not exist. The conclusion is that the problem is not a lack of supply but the concentration of demand in big cities and the lack of labor mobility.

The El Confidencial article, however, does not go into that detail. It focuses on the need to build more housing and on the dependence on immigrant labor. Readers criticize the fact that empty homes are ignored and that construction is presented as the only solution. "Propaganda for idiots. If you remove 15 million invaders, that's three million homes available. No need to build anything," one comment states.

Grid capacity and permits: the real bottleneck

One of the more technical contributions to the debate points out that the supply problem is not a lack of labor but a lack of permits and electrical grid capacity. "There is no supply because there are neither permits nor grid capacity. Nothing is being built," one message notes. This line of argument holds that the article is wrong to focus on immigration when the real obstacles are bureaucratic and infrastructural.

Grid capacity is mentioned as a physical limit on development. Without it, new housing projects cannot be built, no matter how many workers are available. Municipal permits and bureaucracy are also cited as brakes. By focusing on immigration, the article would be diverting attention from these structural problems.

The political backdrop: 29-N and the migration narrative

The article appears in a highly charged political context. The headline mentions "THE CHALLENGES AFTER 29-N," referring to an election date or key date that the material does not detail. Several readers interpret that El Confidencial is aligned with the Government and that its article is part of a strategy to justify mass immigration. "Well, this is the ideology of the PP and Vox, and El Confidencial is one of their paid media outlets. Zero surprises," one comment quips.

The discussion drifts toward distrust of the media. The journalist is accused of serving business interests and promoting a self-serving narrative. "Propaganda for idiots," another message sums up. The perception is that the article does not inform but legitimizes an immigration policy that benefits employers and harms local workers.

Automation and the future of construction

One of the most distinctive voices in the debate brings up automation as an alternative. "By 2026, homes should be built by any of the automated systems we've been seeing for years. Time we finally jumped to a productive economy with more automation and fewer unskilled immigrants," the comment proposes. The idea is that construction can become more technology-driven and reduce its dependence on labor-intensive work.

This view clashes with the article's outlook, which takes for granted that construction will remain a labor-intensive sector. Readers who favor automation argue that the problem is not a lack of workers but a lack of investment in technology. If the sector were automated, there would be no need to bring in millions of people to build homes.

The bottom line: a contradiction that doesn't hold up

The El Confidencial article poses a contradiction many readers are unwilling to accept: first it says immigration pushes up housing prices, then it claims that without it there will be no supply. Their conclusion is that the article is designed to justify an expansionary immigration policy, not to analyze the housing problem rigorously.

The journalist, Ruth Ugalde, bears the brunt of the criticism. Her independence is questioned and it is suggested that her analysis is shaped by economic interests. One participant even hurls a derogatory insult at her, which is not reproduced here because of its offensive nature. The tone of the debate reflects a deep distrust of the media and of the official narrative on immigration.

Meanwhile, the data on construction and housing still don't add up. The article provides no concrete figures on how many immigrant workers are in the sector or how many homes are missing. The readers, for their part, offer no official data either. The debate remains in the realm of perceptions and rough calculations. And so, amid headlines and outbursts, the housing crisis goes on without a solution that convinces everyone.