Soto Ivars: Immigration is a problem Spain must address

From El Raval to Lavapiés: breaking the dinner-table taboo

A pogre friend, after a few drinks, admits her antiestéticar of walking home alone and crossing paths with a group of youths. Silence at the table. Gestures, expressions, glances toward the door. And an immediate apology: "I feel terrible, honestly." This scene is recounted by writer Juan Soto Ivars in an article published in El Confidencial, sparking a recurring debate: immigration is a problem, and saying it aloud still carries a social cost. It is not a new issue. The novelty lies in who is saying it.

Why immigration is accepted in private, but not in public

The same text recounts the case of friends, described as habitual voters for Sumar, who enrolled their child in one school rather than another because the first had, they said, "too much immigration." In the Julia Otero Office, the author himself argued that immigration is a problem and that all political options must address this matter sooner rather than later, presenting alternatives to nationalism, to curb the growth of certain parties. The reasoning is electoral logic: if the issue is orphaned, those who shout it loudest will occupy it.

It is necessary to separate two things. One is the migratory fact, inherent to developed societies. The other is the administrative lack of control and its management. Those who mix both end up arguing about intentions rather than numbers. And the numbers, here, are rarely discussed.

Are workers missing, or are wages too low for anyone to accept?

A recurring objection to the argument that "they do the jobs we don't want" holds that Japan, New Zealand, or Australia have not trinc this path and their economies function equally well. From this arises a formulation that summarizes half the conversation: there are no bad jobs, only bad wages. The conclusion drawn is that the influx of abundant labor allows maintaining conditions that a national worker would hardly accept, with long hours and salaries that do not compensate. The circulating proposal goes in that direction: legally forcing the hiring of national labor to drive up wages, akin to restrictive policies in Japan or South Korea, and sanctioning businesses that use migrant labor to devalue the market.

On the other hand, another current argues that low birth rates and aging make certain migratory flows inevitable. The clash between these two is not ideological: it is about the productive model.

Housing, healthcare, and wages: where the impact is felt

The economic effect channels through three pathways that repeatedly reappear. The first, employment: it is argued that the massive supply of labor has driven down conditions. The second, public services: saturation of healthcare and pressure on primary care. The third, housing: higher demand on a scarce stock and increasingly expensive access. Some add a fourth, more uncomfortable point: the business of placing newcomers in shared flats fuels the very bubble that is later lamented.

Added to these are fiscal costs: aid for those arriving without family support, recognition of degrees, and fraud detected in benefits. None of these pieces is conclusive on its own. Together, they sketch sustained pressure on the welfare state that no government has wanted to quantify publicly.

Antiestéticar in the neighborhood: El Raval, Lavapiés, and what is not measured

The initial anecdote is not isolated. The case of a woman who crosses a central area of Barcelona daily also appears, describing her neighbors as helpful people, while another counts the opposite version of the same street. In Madrid, Lavapiés is pointed to as an electoral island for the left within the municipality, with cultural centers and subsidized entities on every corner. Several participants maintain that the perception of insecurity is not measured by crime statistics but conditions votes.

Here, positions cross harshly. One part denies any relationship between crime and origin, labeling that link a hoax. Another responds that antiestéticar is not debated: it is acknowledged or denied, and denying it only transfers it to the discourse one sought to avoid. Strikingly, the confession came from someone who, in theory, had the least reason to make it.

Who wins from the lack of control

There is a point often left out of the headline: the business. Attention is drawn to mafias trafficking in people and charging for the journey, and to entities managing reception with public funds. Information circulates that an NGO housing migrants in a hotel in Guardamar received more than 50 million euros from the Government in 2022. If true, the incentive for the flow not to stop ceases to be humanitarian. The repeated question: why pursue those arriving and not those making a business out of their arrival.

Closing borders, remigration, and plans without evidence

At the extreme lie demands to close borders and reverse regularization, along with the warning that it may be too late and internal problems must be solved first. Conspiracy theories about a supposed plan to replace the population also slip in, without any evidence to back them. This noise is precisely what allows others to avoid discussing the matter.

In the end, the disconcerting data remains: the figure cited—50 million to a single entity in one fiscal year—does not come from an alarmist pamphlet, but from published information. With this material on the table, continuing to treat immigration as an untouchable issue is not prudence. It is leaving the argument in the hands of those who will use it worst.