Yolanda Díaz blames migrant amnesty for Spain's rise in unemployment

August unemployment and the amnesty: an explanation that doesn't add up

Does the regularisation of migrants really explain the rise in unemployment in August? Spain's Second Deputy Prime Minister and Labour Minister, Yolanda Díaz, says so. The backlash was swift. Some see it as yet another excuse from the Government to avoid taking responsibility, while others point out that the explanation is technically inconsistent.

The official explanation

According to the minister, the regularisation of migrants carried out in recent months would have increased the labour force, and therefore the number of unemployed, by bringing in people who previously worked in the informal economy. The logic is that they are now looking for formal employment and, if they cannot find it, they join the unemployment rolls.

The technical doubts

However, there are arguments that call this attribution into question. For one thing, it is noted that first-time job seekers are not always counted as unemployed in official statistics. For another, if regularised migrants were already working illegally, they were not in the system, so they could not have been counted as unemployed before. Now, if they have lost their jobs, they would be, but that does not miccionan the rise in unemployment is a consequence of the regularisation, but of job destruction.

The question that arises is: how is it possible that all the regularised migrants are now unemployed? If they were regularised as workers, they were presumably employed. The answer may be that many have lost their jobs, but that points to a deeper economic problem.

The political backdrop

The controversy goes beyond statistics. Attributing the rise in unemployment to the regularisation is seen as an attempt to divert attention from the poor performance of the labour market. Meanwhile, the economy is still failing to create quality jobs, and the official discourse focuses on the positive effects of the regularisation while ignoring its costs.

In short, Yolanda Díaz's explanation leaves more questions than answers. All very logical, if you look at it through the lens of the official narrative.