VOX accused of blocking critics over Latin American migration shift

Debate in forum on VOX's migration drift and social media blockages

What happens when a party that made border control its banner starts silencing those who criticize its migration policy? The answer arrives in the form of a block. According to several messages collected in the discussion, VOX leader Santiago Abascal has begun blocking on social media those who criticize the party's shift towards favoring Latin American immigration, a practice that, it is claimed, is also being applied by other officials and allied figures such as MEP Hermann Tertsch and former MP Juan Carlos Girauta.

The trigger: Latin American immigration and the "call effect"

The discussion stems from a specific issue: the perception that VOX has moved from denouncing irregular immigration to tolerating — if not encouraging — the massive arrival of Hispanic American population. "VOX has always been in favor of uncontrolled Hispanic American immigration," summarizes one of the most cited interventions, which adds that the party is also "in favor of Jews, in favor of nonsense." The thesis running through the thread is that this shift responds to an electoral calculation: securing votes from a population that, it is argued, will continue to grow.

The reproach does not stop at migration issues. Several messages point out that the party leadership, with Abascal at the head, blocks people on social media who disagree without any insults having been exchanged. "The beloved lidl blocks people who haven't said anything to him for reaching his eyes," reads one contribution, claiming that the practice extends to sympathizers who stop agreeing with the official line. The accusation, launched without providing screenshots or verifiable evidence, is repeated throughout the thread with various examples.

Why is VOX changing its discourse on immigration?

The answer given by the material is twofold. On the one hand, demographic and electoral calculation: the population of Latin American origin is growing, along with its weight in the census, so a party aspiring to govern needs their vote. On the other, the realization that harsh rhetoric against immigration has not prevented the PP and PSOE from alternating in power, pushing VOX to seek a different space. "When VOX fails, then you can complain. For now, you are just doing the dirty work for PPSOE," replies one of the party's defenders, accusing critics of playing into the hands of the left.

The contrast with the party's public discourse is what irritates part of the thread the most. It is recalled that VOX presented itself as the only party willing to stop irregular immigration and that now, according to these voices, its leaders avoid the topic or qualify it. "They are laughing in your face, and they aren't even governing yet," warns a message anticipating a worse scenario if the party reaches Government.

Voters' response: "Millions of Spaniards will keep voting for VOX"

Not all messages go in the same direction. One current defends that the party remains the only real alternative and that criticisms are functional to the system. "Millions of Spaniards will keep voting for VOX. And more each time," states an intervention that qualifies the thread as "failed" and accuses its promoters of being "the usual troll on duty." For this sector, blocking on social media is an irrelevant anecdote compared to what they consider the true problem: that the PP and PSOE share power while VOX grows in polls.

The discussion derives into an exchange about what it means to be a patriot. One sector argues that authentic patriotism cannot serve foreign interests — mentioning Zionism and NATO — while another responds that these geopolitical subtleties interest no one and that the real problem is uncontrolled immigration. "Pro-Russians are not patriots. Here NO ONE gives a damn about your geo-strategic neurosis," concludes one message.

The precedent: the pandemic and the denialist shift

One of the most valued messages introduces a contextual element: VOX's change of position during the pandemic. "All the fools in the forum were pandemic lovers and furiously criticized us few who criticized it... and then when their great messiah Pagascal decreed the opposite... well all the fools in the forum became lifelong anti-pandemics," it reads. The argument is that the party has demonstrated capacity to change discourse depending on the winds, and that its voters trinc it without complaining.

The comparison with the PP is constant. "What happens is that the pépé also (and worse things), and given the choice...," summarizes a message reflecting the dilemma of much of the right-wing electorate: voting for VOX knowing it doesn't deliver, or abstaining and facilitating a left-wing government. The conclusion drawn from the overall debate is that blocking on social media is the tip of the iceberg of a deeper tension between the party's base and its leadership.

---

In the end, the question is not whether Abascal blocks or stops blocking. The question is how many of those complaining today will still vote for him tomorrow. And the answer, judging by what is read, is far from clear.