The recent proposal for an extraordinary regularization of immigrants announced by Pedro Sánchez's government has once again exposed, yet again, the erratic course of the Popular Party on immigration matters. The reaction of its leader, Alberto Núñez Feijóo, has not only been predictable but also profoundly disappointing. Far from offering a solid, realistic, and liberal alternative, the PP has opted to compete in the discursive arena of Vox, as if the only way to oppose the current Executive were to mimic the positions of the far-right.
One cannot imitate the simplistic, identity-driven delirium of Santiago Abascal's followers simply because the proposal comes from the government and has the support of Podemos. Politics should not function as a conditioned reflex where everything the adversary proposes is rejected without prior analysis. Much less when we talk about immigration, a structural, complex, and profoundly human issue that cuts across our country's economy, demographics, and social cohesion.
Those of us who consider ourselves liberal – and not in the caricatured sense of the term – are witnessing with growing concern the disappearance of a truly centrist political option in Spain. A liberal, reformist, and pro-European right seems orphaned today, trapped between a left-wing government that often confuses public policies with symbolic gestures and a right-wing that, for fear of losing votes, is sliding towards increasingly reactionary positions. The result is a political vacuum that leaves thousands of citizens unrepresented, citizens who recognize themselves neither in left-wing populism nor in the authoritarian nostalgia of the right.
Because it's worth saying clearly: Vox is not simply a conservative party. It is a formation that unashamedly claims the legacy of Francoism, openly questions the constitutional consensus, the existence of the autonomous communities, and unequivocally adopts the racist, nativist, and exclusionary rhetoric imported from Trumpism. The explicit admiration for Donald Trump is not anecdotal, but ideological. And it is particularly striking that this discourse is accompanied by an epic of effort and meritocracy pronounced, in many cases, by those who have never contributed to the private sector. Abascal has never done so.
Accepting that framework, even for electoral opportunism, represents an ethical renunciation. It is not just about losing one's own profile, but about abdicating a liberal tradition that has always defended the rule of law, equality of rights and obligations, and integration over exclusion. All of this in the name of supposed electoral effectiveness, which, moreover, rarely materializes
The regularization of immigrants currently being debated is not a call for future irregular immigration, no matter how much certain media outlets may try to present it as such. It refers, simply and plainly, to people who are already here. People who work, who care for our elderly, who build buildings, who serve tables, and who sustain entire sectors of the Spanish economy in conditions of absolute legal precariousness. People who pay rent, consume, and are part of the daily life of our cities, but who lack full rights and, paradoxically, also formal obligations.
The question, therefore, is uncomfortable but inevitable: what is the realistic alternative to regularization? Expel them all? Pretend they don't exist while they work in the underground economy? Create a sort of immigration police in the style of the US ICE to hunt down waiters, construction workers, and caregivers? I greatly fear that Feijóo does not walk around or is out on the street. Because if he were, he would know firsthand a reality that anyone perceives in neighborhoods, bars, construction sites, and homes: a good part of those who keep essential sectors afloat are already here, even if the State denies them legal recognition.
Denying rights does not eliminate the migratory phenomenon. It only makes it more opaque, more unjust, and more profitable for those who benefit from irregularity. The absence of papers does not protect the national worker, as is repeatedly claimed, but rather generates unfair competition, lower wages, and exploitation. Precisely the opposite of what a party aspiring to govern from economic liberalism and respect for the rule of law should defend.
It is particularly cynical that, in order to compete with Vox, the PP seems not to care that there are thousands of people working without paying contributions, just as Spain faces one of the greatest demographic challenges in its recent history. The progressive retirement of the baby boom generation will strain the pension system for decades. It is not an ideological issue, but pure arithmetic: fewer contributors and more pensioners mean less income and more expenditure. In that context, rejecting a regularization that would broaden the contribution base and reduce the underground economy can only be explained by the fear of upsetting an electorate fed on simple slogans.
The paradox is exacerbated when one observes who supports the measure. The Catholic Church has repeatedly requested it, appealing not only to humanitarian reasons but also to the dignity of work and social integration. Business employers have clearly defended it, aware of the labor shortage in strategic sectors. Unions, NGOs, economists, and demographers agree, with different nuances, that regularization is a pragmatic solution to an existing problem. Are they all really wrong? Is the only valid analysis truly the one dictated by Vox?
The PP's incoherence reaches its peak when Feijóo's own words from 2024 are recalled, stating that he would vote in favor of the Popular Legislative Initiative on regularization. At the time, Borja Sémper even showed enthusiasm, articulating a reasonable, empathetic discourse comparable to the European liberal right. What has changed since then? The answer is as simple as it is disturbing: pressure from Vox. Today, moderate profiles seem to be in excess and voices daring to think beyond easy headlines are lacking, while figures like Miguel Tellado, more concerned with frontal clashes than political coherence, gain weight
Frankly, I believe the Popular Party is one step away from losing something more important than an election: its political dignity. Imitating Vox will not snatch votes from the far-right. Experience shows that the electorate usually prefers the original to the copy. However, it could indeed cause a silent exodus of liberal, moderate, and pragmatic voters. Citizens who, faced with the lack of a sensible alternative, will opt for abstention or disillusionment.
Politics is not just about winning elections, but about deciding how they are won and for what purpose. Spain needs reforms, it needs a change of direction, and it needs leadership. But not at any price. When a party gives up thinking for itself and limits itself to competing in radicalism, it ceases to be a governmental alternative and becomes a mere echo. And echoes, sooner or later, fade away.