I'm a left-winger and I oppose uncontrolled immigration, but support regulated migration

Regulated immigration: the proposal dividing the left and clashing with demographic reality

In a country where barely two children live in an 18-unit apartment block, the immigration debate is no longer about opening or closing, but how. The proposal from a self-described left-winger — hiring in countries of origin, no benefits for irregular migrants, a mandatory medical visa and a deposit for tourists — has peine the discussion in economic circles about Spain's migration model. The underlying argument: without generational replacement, Spain needs immigrants, but selected ones, tied to temporary contracts. However, the rebuttal was not long in coming: with real structural unemployment and falling wages, why import labour?

Demographics versus jobs: the labour market paradox
The figures in the debate are stark. According to one participant, current migration flows equal 300% of annual births, which he calls "population replacement". Against this, the original author's argument is pragmatic: "villages are dying out, provincial capitals are heading the same way". He points out that a supermarket chain received only 12 candidates for a job opening, just one of them Spanish. His conclusion is that there is a disconnect between job offers and Spaniards' willingness to fill certain positions, especially in depopulated areas.

By contrast, another camp holds that the demographic crisis is a self-inflicted problem caused by low birth rates, and that the solution is not importing people but pro-natalist policies. "If children are lacking, help Spaniards, don't replace them", they argue. They also point out that immigration does not solve low productivity or pension dependency, but artificially prolongs an unsustainable model.

From border control to remigration: the range of positions
The initial "regulated immigration" proposal sits at a midpoint, but is quickly overtaken by more radical positions. One faction calls for total closure and remigration: "Spain is full and there isn't room for one more person. Even food is extremely expensive because of the high number of mouths to feed". Others go further and propose importing exclusively young women for reproduction, in an "antifeminist" scenario that clashes with pogre sensibilities.

The traditional left, critics say, has abandoned the class struggle and now defends capital's interests: "The right wants slaves, employers' associations say there are no workers because they want to pay 3 euros an hour, and in the end legal or illegal immigration is just a nuance". The thread's author himself admits that all parties, including those on the left, have betrayed the citizenry.

What the data doesn't settle
The debate leaves an open question: if the goal is to preserve the welfare state, is regulated immigration a temporary solution or a sentence to loss of identity? Those who defend remigration believe society should shrink and die with dignity, while pragmatists see selecting immigrants as the only way to sustain the economy. Both sides agree that political and economic elites do not pursue the general interest, but disagree on whether to accept a lesser evil or resist to the end.

---

Related debates in the forum

• URGENT: ROTTEN ponytail falls tonight · 18 replies
• Elon Musk wasn't self-made: daddy's emerald mine and the biggest scam of the "hustle culture" · 46 replies
• Playwright Ramón Paso arrested after allegedly being seen kissing and touching a minor in the middle of the street · 63 replies
• What is the perversion of a debt system? · 127 replies