• A_norny_mousse@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    The news cycle always seems to hype the initial action/reaction, and often remains silent about the actual thing, does not report how exactly it happens, and more importantly, rarely follows up.

    In about a year from now on I’d like to read a headline like “Spain’s legalising of immigrants a full success despite nazi whining” or some such.

    The same applies to e.g. Trump/Greenland - social media was ablast with his outrageous threats, but now that they actually made some sort of deal (which disgusts me btw), it isn’t talked about anymore?

    • Zombie@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Despite the shrill political opposition to regularisation, it is far from unprecedented in Spain; PP and socialist governments enacted similar programmes between 1986 and 2005. Research suggests such initiatives can yield economic benefits for newly legalised workers and for government coffers.

      Joan Monràs, one of the authors of a study into the 2005 regularisation of almost 600,000 non-EU immigrants, said tax revenues increased by about €4,000 per regularised immigrant a year, adding that the policy had not led to “magnet effects” in encouraging further arrivals.

    • Kissaki@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      20 hours ago

      I watch a lot of reporting and documentaries, which does cover things like that.

      News formats, sadly, mostly have this reactionary and initial reporting of change like you say. Sadly, it also covers change and outliers more than by significance.