Three Axes of Refugees

Posted on by

The crisis du jour is once again aligning people along the three-axis model. The freedom-coercion axis says that borders should be open. The oppressor-oppressed axis says that people fleeing Syria are oppressed, and anyone who would keep them out is evil. The civilization-barbarism axis says that European countries that take in large numbers of refugees are committing cultural suicide. Just one of many examples in this genre:

Few intend or desire to adapt to European society. They may want to ride Europe’s gravy train, but by and large they feel contempt for its values. Many scorn Christians and Jews. They reject freedom of speech and religion. Most openly subjugate women and think that homosexuals should perish. Yet to hear Europe’s political class talk, accepting these newcomers and many more like them constitutes a moral test for liberal and Christian principles.

The author goes on to cite Gibbon on how Rome succumbed to barbarians.

My guess is that:

1. Most of those who support allowing more migration from the Middle East live in affluent neighborhoods.

2. Wherever the migrants from the Middle East end up, it will not be in affluent neighborhoods.

Libertarians should not be so quick to align with progressives on this issue. Be as suspicious about government involvement in “solving” the crisis as you are about government’s role in enforcing borders.

Imagine the decisions about taking in Middle Easterners being made by individuals, rather than by government. That is, imagine that it were up to individual households to take them in.

Or imagine that refugee resettlement had to be funded entirely through private donations. What if the political leaders doing their moral posturing on behalf of refugees had no access to taxpayer money. Instead, suppose that they had to contribute their own money or money that they raised through private charity.

30 thoughts on “Three Axes of Refugees”

  1. “What if the political leaders doing their moral posturing on behalf of refugees had no access to taxpayer money. Instead, suppose that they had to contribute their own money or money that they raised through private charity.”
    Fair enough. Would we fund the military this way too or just things we want to find a excuse for not doing?

  2. The same old libertarian trick, Arnold: pretend that politics can be conjured away from our life (politics – that evil thing that may empower people who think differently from us libertarians),

    and then, from the politics-free world of our imagination we can cut out a specific piece of the illusion (immigration without politics) and contrast its supposed merits with that terrible political world in which we live.

    In reality: in a free society, free people will naturally and justly participate in politics and this will cause politicians to represent or pander to very different ideas concerning immigration, and these will eventually show up in government conduct.

    Many of us free citizens will demand that government resources are being utilised in connection with immigration issues, as they are (or appear to be) more effective in achieving certain goals.

    The demand for political solutions, whether one likes or dislikes this or that specific measure, is endogenous and natural to a free society – it is not primarily ascribable to those putatively bad types that become politicians.

    The libertarian utopia of a world without politics is a red herring. In a society with millions of free (politically emancipated) people, any set of policies concerned with immigration will be highly politicised, in no small measure because the (morally/economically/philosophically) perfect solutions of those wishing for a world without politics do not exist – instead, we are forced to compete politically.

    And of course, in the above post, there is no thought wasted that might look for and understand the constructive role of government in migration issues.

    Even Hoppe, who opposes open borders, reverts to the help of the state (if I remember his characteristically muddled argument correctly) to keep out the intruders. He seems to sense – rightly – that if the issue were left to individual agents alone we would get highly contradictory policies and still more reasons for civil strife/war (leading to the bloody rebuilding of the state).

    Caplan who favours open borders prima facie, eventually goes on to qualify his initial demand for open borders with any number of ad hoc provisos which create a multi-class society that can only be enforced by the state.

    Dreaming of a world without politics cannot do the intricate issue any justice.

  3. Kling is dead right on this. The government is forcing immigration and settlements on non-affluent residents, pushing deep into their lives using local schools and gymnasiums for refugee housing, and vilifying any resistance. The locals don’t really have a choice in this matter and it is big university elites and politicians forcing coercion.

  4. Canada in fact has a private refugee sponsorship program. Would that the US had the same. I would happily take the deal that said refugees had to have a sponsor willing to put up some initial funds for their maintenance, but anyone who had such a sponsor could come.

    • We do. It is called Canada…zing!

      But seriously, some libertarian told me about that a long time ago and 5 seconds later I was like “sounds good, I’m for that the rest of my life.” And I probably will be.

  5. Why would anyone think relocating people half a world away from anyone or place they know into an alien culture and language they may not understand would be helping?

  7. This is a somewhat unusual situation because a large number of displaced Syrians should be assimilable with current technology. Although standard predictors of their socioeconomic potential (test scores, etc.) aren’t impressive, they are artificially depressed by traditional Islamic practices like cousin marriage (note that it takes only one generation of outbreeding to remove most of the resulting excess homozygosity) and undereducation; thus, any Western country with a sufficiently assertive culture to say “we’ll let you stay as long as you’re willing to leave aggressive Islam behind (or weren’t Muslim in the first place) and learn to live by our rules” should be able to accept a large number of Syrian refugees without hurting itself in the long run.

    It remains to be seen whether Germany, or any other country which chooses to follow Germany’s lead, will prove to be sufficiently assertive. But I reject the claim that Merkel’s decision to accept 800k Syrian refugees this year is itself an act of national suicide; a healthy country of ~80 million should be able to handle that. What really matters is what happens next: will Germany expect these refugees to live up to the same standards of civilization as it holds its preexisting citizens to (starting with rejection of “refugees” with falsified papers)?

  9. Point 2, which you do not raise is that there is an unlimited pool of refugees. If you let some in, then those in their home countries notice and a lot more come.
    Once in discussing open borders, some ask a person from Nigeria home many would come to the US if there were no restrictions. The answer was “everyone”. But letting this group of refuges in, the Europeans have just created a larger problem down the road. At some point they have to say no or most in the Middle East and North Africa end up in Europe.

  10. I recognize that I’m on the civilization-barbarism axis with regards to immigration, but here’s another frame:

    – Governments want more immigration because the native populations of most european countries aren’t having children at a high enough rate to sustain the current size of govt.
    – Businesses want more immigration because immigrants work for less and also they pay higher prices for the goods and services than they would if they lived in their native countries.
    – And lastly, governments “want” more immigration because it causes social discord and thus requires more authoritarian power to keep the peace. There isn’t anyone thinking about this or planning it, but government decision-making is run not by profits but by power, what will increase the prestige/power/etc of my position, and thousands of bureaucratic decisions move the margin a little every day, week, month in that direction. It’s the same reason why police departments don’t want marijuana legalized, because that would lead to a lower need for their services, lower budgets, personnel, etc.

  11. The situation, as of today, in Germany, resembles Bryan Caplans’ libertarian dream come true.

    Let them in, just let them in, I promise you, nothing bad can come of it.

    Says Caplan, for those of you who do not believe me or in case problems do occur, there are tons of ways to come up with special laws and provisions for ad hoc tweaking here and there by the government.

    So don’t worry, libertarian laissez faire is absolutely the way to go, it is fail-safe, and should I have misestimated the situation, we have the power and the resources of government to avert problems.

    As for reality: at this stage, we have a fully laissez faire situation in Germany – no bias (unlike suggested in the above post) in favour of the well-to-do – just chaos, utter chaos, with those responsible for refugee issues totally confused and overwhelmed.

    If anything, the government offers its capacity for coercion to defend total laissez faire, and suppresses the law.

    • I would guess Germans have Nazi guilt which strikes me as nothing like libertarianism and kind of silly to suggest otherwise.

      Getmans are suddenly cosmopolitan libertarians? It strikes me as more likely that Germans assumed their government could handle something like this but when the rubber meets the road government just sucks when it comes,time to actually do anything rather than just waving their hands.

      Btw, few of us agree entirely with what is probably even a caricature of Caplan’s views.

      • My impression from here in Sweden is that the current government (Social Democrats and Greens, but supported by every party on the political spectrum except one) and media have asserted the current situation is a humanitarian disaster, so let everyone in, and laws and consultation be damned.

        In the larger scheme and somewhat oddly, it seems a considerable part of the flow is just transiting Stockholm and heading for Finland. Not sure what’s going on there, but I guess it’s Finland’s turn to be broken. No hard numbers on this, just some repeated TV color.

        The big push began roughly with that evil picture of the dead kid in Turkey. After that, it’s been a comfortable hysteria of holiness.

        • So, let’s say it is a humanitarian disaster. What makes it any particular country’s duty to provide aid over any other?

          Not counting anything they might have done to destabilize regimes, of course.

  12. I have made the following remarks in my above comments relating to Caplan’s ideas concerning immigration:

    “Caplan who favours open borders prima facie, eventually goes on to qualify his initial demand for open borders with any number of ad hoc provisos which create a multi-class society that can only be enforced by the state.”

    And:

    “Says Caplan, for those of you who do not believe me or in case problems do occur, there are tons of ways to come up with special laws and provisions for ad hoc tweaking here and there by the government.”

    Form your own opinion about it:

    Caplan writes in his conclusion of a paper on immigration (see link below):

    “Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American workers. Most Americans benefit from immigration, and the losers don’t lose much. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American taxpayers. Researchers disagree about whether the fiscal effects of immigration are positive or negative, but they agree that the fiscal effects are small. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American culture. Immigrants make our culture better—and their children learn fluent English. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American liberty.

    Immigrants have low voter turnout and accept our political status quo by default. By increasing diversity, they undermine native support for the welfare state. And on one important issue—immigration itself—immigrants are much more pro-liberty than natives.

    Even if all these empirical claims are wrong, though, immigration restrictions would remain morally impermissible. Why? Because there are cheaper and more humane solutions for each and every complaint.

    If immigrants hurt American workers, we can charge immigrants higher taxes or admission fees, and use the revenue to compensate the losers. If immigrants burden American taxpayers, we can make immigrants ineligible for benefits. If immigrants hurt American culture, we can impose tests of English fluency and cultural literacy. If immigrants hurt American liberty, we can refuse to give them the right to vote. Whatever your complaint happens to be, immigration restrictions are a needlessly draconian remedy.”

    The source: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whyimmigration.pdf

  13. Is it worth thinking of migration as a simple flow from high pressure to low pressure? European birth rates are low so low pressure. North African birth rates are high and death rates are dropping so high pressure.

    Takes the politics out of it.
    Makes the “solution” more obvious.

Comments are closed.