Forum debate: does Vox curb immigration or is it a 'patch for the system'?

Vox and immigration: the vote that doesn't stop arrivals

During the November election campaign in Spain, one message is spreading fast on economic forums: voting for Vox to fix immigration won't work. The argument is not new, but this time it comes with a concrete example: Japan's LDP, which the author of the post compares to Vox, has spent years promising a tough line and, according to him, the Nigerian presence in Tokyo has kept growing. The thesis of the opening post is that radical right-wing parties are 'patches for the system' that fail to attack the real cause: the demand for cheap labour and Europe's 'pension-payer' model.

The discussion quickly turned to economic analysis. Several participants pointed out that Vox is not anti-immigration in general, but specifically 'anti-Muslim immigration', and that most foreigners arrive by plane from South America, not in dinghies. The thread cites the estimate that 80% of foreigners in Spain come from South American countries, a flow that, according to that post, Vox does not question. Against this, defenders of the tactical vote argue that even if Vox doesn't solve the underlying problem, it is 'the lesser evil' and can at least dismantle NGO outfits and toughen the rhetoric.

The debate also brought in the Italian experience as a 'spoiler': if Vox governed, they say, it would do the same as Meloni in Italy, that is, nothing. And the case of Ceuta was cited, where the arrival of 80,000 people in an irregular situation —a figure repeated throughout the thread— has not been accompanied, according to the author, by restrictions on Spaniards, but quite the opposite. Many conclude that the political system needs migrants to sustain the welfare state and that right-wing parties will not turn off the tap because it would hurt their funders.

The alternative proposed in the opening post —not voting— was met with scepticism. The argument is that abstention legitimises the system and, in any case, benefits the left. The discussion grew heated with accusations of 'binary thinking' and of recommending a socialist vote. In the end, the thread became an exchange of tweets about corruption, lawfare and the campaign, with one fact hanging over it all: immigration is the issue that mobilises voters most, but the parties that promise to curb it have no intention of doing so.

---

The 'pension-payer' model and cheap labour

The core of the economic argument is that right-wing governments will not reduce immigration because the system needs workers paying contributions to fund pensions. The opening post calls this 'European pension-payerism' and claims that restrictive measures are not aimed at migrants but at citizens themselves: surveillance cameras, controls and obstacles to studying or residing legally. It is an idea that appears in several posts: 'pension payers are very necessary for the system, which is why right-wing governments won't throw them away'.

Automation and artificial intelligence deepen the contradiction, according to this thesis. If production is robotised, national workers become less and less necessary to the system, while migrants remain useful as semi-slave labour. That is the case made in the thread: Vox represents the large corporations and business groups that benefit from immigration, making it 'the political vehicle for bringing in immigrants'.

The Japanese example is used as a mirror. The LDP, Japan's governing party, promised to solve the immigration problem but, according to the author of the post, the Nigerian presence in Tokyo has only grown over the last 10 or 15 years. At the same time, procedures for studying or residing legally have been tightened. The conclusion is that radical right-wing parties do not close borders, they only make them more selective for ordinary citizens.

Vox is not anti-immigration, it is anti-Muslim immigration

One of the posts in the thread argues that Vox is not an anti-immigration party in the broad sense, but a specifically anti-Muslim-immigration party. The argument is that most foreigners arriving in Spain do so by plane from South America, not in dinghies, and that Vox does not question that flow. It is estimated that 80% of foreigners in Spain come from South American countries, although the figure is not backed by any source.

That distinction matters, according to this view, because it explains why Vox's discourse focuses on dinghies and Sarracin while ignoring other migration realities. The only party that, in this view, would be genuinely anti-immigration in Catalonia is Aliança Catalana, and nationally the Frente Obrero, though the latter has no representation.

The thread also discusses the case of Ceuta. It mentions the arrival of 80,000 people in an irregular situation and criticises the fact that, far from restricting immigration, measures are taken against Spaniards. It is a reference repeated in several posts, used to illustrate the idea that the system is not designed to stop immigration but to manage it for the benefit of a few.

The Italian 'spoiler' and the Meloni mirror

The Italian experience is cited as a warning. If Vox came to power, they say, it would do the same as Giorgia Meloni in Italy: nothing. Meloni came to power with a hard line against immigration and, in this view, arrivals have not decreased. It is the 'spoiler' thrown into the thread: radical right-wing parties promise on the campaign trail what they fail to deliver in government because economic decisions are constrained by the markets and by the need for labour.

The comparison extends to other countries: the AfD in Germany, Le Pen in France, Vox in Spain. All of them would be part of the same system and, once in power, would simply manage immigration without reducing it. The only difference is the tone of the discourse, which hardens during campaigns and softens in government.

The conclusion drawn is that voting for these parties does not change the economic structure that generates immigration. At most, it changes the rhetoric. And for defenders of abstention, that is a reason not to vote.

Abstention as an alternative: does it legitimise or delegitimise?

The opening post proposes not voting as the only alternative. The response was swift: several participants argued that not voting legitimises the system and that, in practice, it benefits the left. 'It has long been known that not voting legitimises the System', one post states. Others accused the author of recommending a socialist vote, to which he replied: 'I never said that, binary minds'.

The debate drifted into the left-right dichotomy. For some, the only option is to vote for Vox as the 'lesser evil', even without believing in its programme. For others, voting for Vox is feeding the very system they criticise. The discussion grew heated, with accusations of 'sheep mentality' and 'binary thinking'.

In the end, the thread filled up with tweets about corruption, lawfare and the election campaign, diverting attention from the central issue. Immigration took a back seat, replaced by an exchange of political propaganda. The fact hanging over it all is that, despite the rhetoric, none of the parties promising to curb immigration intends to do so.

---

The debate leaves an uncomfortable conclusion: immigration is the issue that mobilises voters most, but the parties that promise to curb it will not do so because the economic system needs workers. Vox, like Japan's LDP or Meloni in Italy, is a patch that does not attack the cause. And meanwhile, citizens keep asking the system to take the wolf off their backs.