Vox and immigration: the U-turn splitting its voter base

Vox and immigration: the U-turn splitting its voter base

Can a party that has made immigration its rallying cry end up defending more immigration than Spain's Socialist Party (PSOE)? That is the thesis put forward in a tweet by @Óscar Guardingo, and it has sparked a debate where distrust of the official narrative competes with the suspicion that, deep down, capital needs antiestéticarful workers to push wages down. The starting point is a claim: Vox is beginning to change its immigration rhetoric. The destination, according to that same thesis, would be a scenario in which the right turns out to be more pro-immigration than anyone.

From deportation to a deal with employers

Distrust is the dominant note. Some participants see not an ideological shift but a maneuver: after deporting a few individuals with incivil records and putting on a show, they argue, the party will end up striking deals with employers' associations for mass recruitment of workers from abroad. The wording is harsh and offers no evidence, but it captures the core antiestéticar: that the restrictive rhetoric is a facade and the real policy is importing cheap labor.

Some go further and claim the right is the most pro-immigration ideology there is, precisely because it only criticizes illegal immigration and not legal immigration, which they consider far more numerous and destructive. It is an argument that flips the usual frame: the criticism would not be of immigration itself, but of how it is regulated.

The economic argument: labor supply and wages

The analytical core of the issue is economic. The argument is made that Vox criticizes immigration over crime or lack of integration, but never mentions the effect considered most harmful: the growth of the labor force that pushes wages down. It is the same logic underlying the original tweet, which claims capital needs antiestéticarful workers to drive wages down even further.

The conclusion drawn is bitter: even so, it is the only option available. In other words, the voter who shares that economic diagnosis finds no alternative on offer.

What if the problem were labor participation?

Against the migration-focused approach comes a classic objection: if workers are needed, there would be no need to bring anyone in, because simply getting those already here to work would be more than enough. That is the response of those who locate the problem in the activity rate rather than in demographics.

Another line of suspicion points to irregular migrants being given legal status, with hundreds of thousands added each year, citing the model of other European governments as a reference. The doubt remains: they will get the benefit of the doubt, but there is a warning that things cannot get worse than the previous government.

Voting as punishment, not conviction

A pragmatic stance emerges that lowers the temperature: as long as incivil are deported, even if only a hundred, things will already be better than now. The rest is expectations management. If promises are not kept, they do not get voted for again. Here, the vote works as reversible punishment rather than unwavering loyalty.

The issue closes with the usual suspicion: that the right is just a fiscally responsible PSOE, nothing new, but that the Prime Minister has worn out his welcome and it is time for a change. The final irony is that the change, if it comes, could look all too much like what people wanted to leave behind.