Vox seeks to strip citizenship from 2.5 million immigrants

Stripping citizenship from 2.5 million immigrants: The debate nobody wants to have

Vox’s proposal to revoke the nationality of 2.5 million immigrants has peine the discussion on how much each person costs the state. A report circulating in recent days estimates the average lifetime cost of an immigrant at €158,000 and sets a salary threshold of €40,000 above which a taxpayer stops being a burden on public coffers. Powerful figures, but with shaky foundations: the report groups data by origin and education level, and not all analyses agree on the methodology.

The €40,000 threshold: A double-edged sword

The most inflammatory figure is the income threshold. If earning less than €40,000 makes someone a fiscal deadweight, the criterion does not discriminate between an immigrant and a Spaniard with the same salary. Some voices go further, pointing out that indirect taxes, such as VAT, are not correctly accounted for: those who spend almost everything they earn also fund public services. Viewed this way, the study ceases to be an argument against immigration and becomes a snapshot of the welfare state.

But that nuance does not stop supporters of the measure. For them, the conclusion is different: if low-income taxpayers are a drag, migration policy should be pure selection. The problem is that this selection relies on an origin-based criterion that is uncomfortable: according to the cited data, Europeans, Indians, or Chinese show a positive balance, while Africans, Turks, or Syrians have a negative one. This is where the economic discussion ends up as an identity debate.

Legal viability: From idea to wishful thinking

Stripping citizenship from millions of people is not an option available to any government, especially one that needs coalition partners to rule. Revocation of nationality is limited to very specific cases: fraud in obtaining it or convictions for serious crimes. Economic criteria do not appear anywhere. That is why skeptics remind us that the proposal is pure electoral propaganda: neither the coalition partner would accept it nor would the courts allow it.

Some participants in the debate go further and point out that the measure, besides being unviable, falls short. If tightening is the goal, calculations reach 10 million or more depending on how it is measured. But that figure, far from reinforcing the proposal, sinks it into ridicule: it is not a public policy, it is a campaign slogan.

Comparison with other countries: The Swiss mirror

The debate has revived the Swiss model, where naturalization requires 15 years of residence and a rigorous exam, compared to the ease attributed to the Spanish case, where a electricity bill seemed sufficient in the shared anecdote. Germany has also been cited, with estimates of €200,000 per unskilled immigrant. The comparison reinforces the thesis that the problem is not just how many arrive, but under what conditions and with what expectations.

The discussion leaves hanging the uncomfortable question: if the criterion is fiscal contribution, why not apply the same standard to low-income Spaniards? Or better yet: to what extent does a migration policy based on income turn the welfare state into a results-driven business? Meanwhile, the 2.5 million nationalities that Vox wants to review remain, at least today, untouchable.