Immigration is the most important thing that is happening to us as a society, and it is regrettable that the dominant discourse we receive is based on a naive do-goodism that celebrates multiculturalism while closing its eyes to the difficulties it poses (TV3 is the paradigm), which is only opposed by the xenophobic hysteria of a minority that precisely dominates a minority, which precisely demands that we oppose a more solid discourse.
This speech must begin by reminding everyone that coexistence in our society is based on solidarity, which is realized through citizens contributing taxes according to their means and having the right to universal services: primarily healthcare, education, support for long-term care, and a decent retirement pension.
The system is based on solidarity between those with the most income—who end up contributing more throughout their lives than they will ultimately receive—and those with the least income—who will ultimately receive more than they have contributed—and, as regards the aforementioned rights, the first are those with an average income of more than €50,000. Between these two figures, the balance is approximately neutral.
We consider it natural that any immigrant, from the moment they set foot on national territory, will be integrated into this system, regardless of the likely outcome they will bring to society, which will depend fundamentally on their job qualifications. Well-educated immigrants will tend to end up with a positive outcome; however, poorly educated immigrants will tend to have a negative outcome. It is primarily for this reason that countries that strictly select their immigration—Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.—prioritize skilled immigrants. Obviously, this fact is also a powerful argument in favor of a high minimum wage.
The immediate impact of low-skilled mass immigration on the aforementioned public services—public health care, etc.—can be represented by the image of a frog in a pot on the fire: the immediate effect is imperceptible because the immigrant arrives at working age and requires little public support.
Now, the Constitution—and common sense—establishes that housing is also a universal right that public authorities should guarantee ("All Spaniards have the right to decent and adequate housing. The public authorities will promote the necessary conditions [...] to make this right effective").
Until now, we have tried to avoid thinking about housing and immigration simultaneously, so much so that the discourse on the housing crisis rarely mentions the fact that Catalonia has grown from six to eight million inhabitants in record time, and prefers to focus on the property ownership system, as if the problem hadn't presented itself with the same virulence if it hadn't been completely resolved.
Just as we don't want the substandard housing in which many immigrants live to become chronic, serious discourse on immigration must take into account that providing decent housing to every immigrant from the moment they set foot on national territory entails an economic burden on public authorities incompatible with the frog metaphor: we're talking.
When Ernest Lluch spearheaded the approval of the universal right to public healthcare, fertility in Spain had been plummeting for over a decade, and it was still more than a decade away from the start of massive immigration. It was this circumstance that allowed the reform to succeed. Maintaining the universal provision of quality healthcare in the current wave of immigration is a major challenge that is unlikely to be achieved; extending it to the guarantee of decent housing, as established by the Constitution, is a pipe dream.
In short, when Idescat publishes an "average" projection of the Catalan population for the next decade of 8.55 million, the responsible reaction, both on the part of the public and our leaders, can only be to ask what measures we can put in place to prevent this from becoming a reality.
Consequently, when Mayor Collboni presents us with the "Barcelona Impulsa" program and tells us it will create 180,000 new jobs in the metropolis, we should ask him where he plans to house them, and we've told him that there isn't a need for that many. And when someone insists on the merits of the Hard Rock Project because it would create many jobs, we should also seek that.
