What and who feeds xenophobia?

The fact that xenophobia is increasing in Catalonia is a fact, and it is a repugnant fact for those of us who venerate the concept of universal human rights.The trigger for this phenomenon is the migratory flow we have been receiving since the beginning of the century, and if we want to combat it, the first thing we must do is face an uncomfortable truth: that immigration inevitably harms some, and very specifically, members of the popular classes. Why? Because immigration puts downward pressure on wages (when employers have difficulty filling vacancies, the alternative to raising wages is to hire an immigrant), because it puts upward pressure on housing prices (does the fact that we have gone from 6 to 8 million inhabitants so rapidly and without planning have nothing to do with it?), and because it makes access to public services difficult ("if I am poor but the immigrant is poorer, they take my school lunch scholarship"). Faced with these facts, well-meaning people —on the left and on the right— tend to respond with two arguments. The first, that the phenomenon is inevitable (due to our aging, due to their lack of alternatives...); the second, that immigration is good for the economy because it increases GDP, and therefore allows us to dedicate more resources to financing public services and thus compensate those who may be adversely affected. Unfortunately, both arguments are false.

The phenomenon is not inevitable. Japan has an economy that works reasonably well (GDP per capita has risen in the last 24 years almost double ours) and not only has it experienced practically no immigration, but it has lost nearly three million inhabitants. Closer in every respect, the Basque Country has been receiving half the immigrants we do in relation to the population, and this has not prevented its GDP per capita from growing more than double ours. There is no relation to Catalonia being in the Mediterranean, because immigrants do not arrive by sea (quantitatively, rafts continue to be an anecdote, which, on the other hand, affects the Canary Islands).Regarding the argument that GDP increases would allow compensating those affected, it is a mockery. Firstly, because those affected are never compensated, but rather the improvement in GDP is used to cover holes and to postpone the tax increase that would be required by the commitments made (public debt, an unsustainable pension system...). Secondly, because the impact is positive in the short term but negative in the long term: low-skilled immigrants – just like natives – receive more public sector services than they contribute. Solidarity is the basis of the welfare state, and it is only sustainable if the number of those who contribute little does not grow too much.That the IMF and The Economist congratulate us? Of course, because for those who think like them the public welfare system should be replaced by a private insurance system that would be immune to migratory movements. We have said that immigration harms some, but we have not said that it benefits some others: employers in sectors based on cheap labor and real estate owners, in particular.

If we truly want to combat xenophobia, the first thing we must do is stop deceiving ourselves. When we do this, we quickly arrive at three conclusions:The first, that immigration must be slowed down as soon as possible, if only because we have a huge housing problem, and if we continue to receive immigrants at the same rate as in recent decades, the problem will be impossible. The second is that the way to stop it is not by militarizing the sea, but by being more demanding with economic sectors that rely on abundant and cheap labor (please, let's stop applauding the creation of jobs even if they are cheap, because it is doing us a lot of harm!)

The third, that we must dedicate much greater efforts to the education of the children of immigration, because what we know tells us that they have all the odds of inheriting their parents' poverty, and we do not want a caste society. Those born now should be compulsorily schooled from the age of one in a nursery school, and the older ones should receive more personalized treatment than simple inclusive enrollment in the middle of the course with a guaranteed pass at the end. Because it is very much in our interest that many of them become doctors or engineers, and as we understand inclusivity, the probability that they will is very low.What is fueling xenophobia? If it were social media and simple lies, we would have been governed by the Bolsheviks long ago. I fear that what truly fuels xenophobia is the good faith of the fainthearted.