Navarra without migrants: economic collapse or higher wages?

Navarra without migrants: economic collapse or higher wages?

Imagine this scenario: tomorrow, the 145,000 migrants living in Navarra, a region in northern Spain, decide to leave. The region, with fewer than 700,000 inhabitants, would suddenly lose one in five residents. The official narrative, repeated ad nauseam, is that without them the regional economy would collapse. But what if the ruin never came?

The figure that changes everything: 145,000 out of 670,000

Navarra has a total population of just under 700,000 people. If 145,000 migrants left, the demographic loss would be 21%. But the key lies not in the number but in the structure. Most of these migrants hold jobs in sectors such as agriculture, hospitality, cleaning and construction. According to the data discussed, their departure would leave thousands of vacancies. However, with an official unemployment rate of 10% (which some put at 20% if underemployment is counted), there is room to rehome native workers.

What about wages?

One of the most repeated arguments is that, without cheap labour, employers would be forced to raise pay. For some, that would spell ruin; for others, it is the solution. An economy that only works on low wages and precarious conditions is not sustainable. The law of supply and demand would kick in: fewer workers available, wages rising. That, in turn, would attract jobseekers from other Spanish regions, as already peine in the 1990s.

The fiscal cost of immigration

Another point that emerges from the analysis is the fiscal cost. It is mentioned that unaccompanied foreign minors cost around 4,000 euros per month each. Multiplied by the real number (there is no exact figure in the debate, but people talk of "thousands upon thousands"), the spending is enormous. Against that, the contributions of migrants in regular employment do not always make up for it, especially for low-skilled profiles. The fiscal balance, in any case, is complex.

The uncomfortable finding

The debate leaves an uncomfortable conclusion: if a regional economy depends on importing vulnerable people to sustain its margins, perhaps the problem is not the migrants but the economic model. As one analysis points out, the question is not whether all migrants contribute or cost, but rather a matter of segments: age, employment, contributions. And the real debate should be about wages, housing and productivity. Everything else is sarracena.