The EU refugee Coasian bargain evolves

by on March 7, 2016 at 2:10 pm in Current Affairs, Economics, Law, Political Science | Permalink

Turkey has made a host of last minute funding and political demands that threaten to derail a controversial EU-Turkey deal to dramatically reduce migrant flows to Europe.

Ahead of crunch summit between EU leaders and the Turkish prime minister on Monday, Ankara has called for an increase on the €3bn in aid previously promised by the EU, faster access to Schengen visas for Turkish citizens and accelerated progress in its EU membership bid, write Alex Barker and Duncan Robinson in Brussels.

Although talks remain fluid, the wishlist represents Turkey’s new price for giving the EU’s response to the migration crisis a harder edge by facilitating the systematic return of non-Syrian migrants from Greek islands to Turkey.

I don’t blame Turkey, but this is a good example of what happens when you rely on poorer, lower quality institution countries to solve your problems for you.

The story is hereBy some accounts, the Turks will be getting much of their wish list.  But here is Dani Rodrik’s comment — Schengen may collapse.

1 Amber March 7, 2016 at 2:48 pm
2 Peter Schaeffer March 7, 2016 at 2:49 pm

This is an old story (and definitely a U.S. story as well). Countries that lack the will to enforce their laws internally, try get others to do their work for them. The U.S. tries to stop illegals and drugs at the border because we aren’t willing to use internal enforcement. We try to get Mexico to keep Central American illegals out of Mexico because we aren’t willing to enforce our border (much less use internal enforcement).

China tried to stop Opium at the water’s edge because China lacked the will to stop Opium internally. Of course, the British decided that “free trade” was the highest god and went to war with China to impose opium. England and “free trade” won the war(s). China and the Chinese people lost. Mao and Communism were quite a bit more effective in suppressing Opium.

3 Sam Haysom March 7, 2016 at 3:16 pm

Would you really say that the federal government lacks the will to enforce anti-narcotic legislation internally. And for the Chinese government wasn’t it more a matter of ability than will.

I guess I just look at the issue differently-these efforts to get Turket and Mexico to policie borders isn’t about will or ability it’s about ensuring that open borders arrives in a drip drip fashion rather than as a deluge.

4 Peter Schaeffer March 7, 2016 at 3:30 pm

SH,

‘Would you really say that the federal government lacks the will to enforce anti-narcotic legislation internally”

Yes, I would.

“And for the Chinese government wasn’t it more a matter of ability than will”

Mao was willing to use firing squads to enforce his laws. His predecessors were not. Bullets are always cheap. One of the main reasons I oppose libertarianism is that weak governments get replaced by Mao. In my view (stated a bit simplistically), we have to chose between Mao and LKY (Lee Kuan Yew). Libertarians fantasize about a world without Mao or Lee. They get Colonge. My taste runs to Lee. Others differ.

5 Sam Haysom March 7, 2016 at 3:37 pm

Now I see. We are willing to pay Mexico and Colombia to kill drug producers and smugglers, but lack the will to enforce a Singapore level of strictness inside the US. Never though of it in those terms.

6 Peter Schaeffer March 7, 2016 at 3:58 pm

SH,

“Now I see. We are willing to pay Mexico and Colombia to kill drug producers and smugglers, but lack the will to enforce a Singapore level of strictness inside the US. Never though of it in those terms.”

Yes. Here is a great (and closely related) quote from Lee Kuan Yew.

“Let me give you an example that encapsulates the whole difference between America and Singapore. America has a vicious drug problem. How does it solve it? It goes around the world helping other antinarcotic agencies to try and stop the suppliers. It pays for helicopters, defoliating agents and so on. And when it is provoked, it captures the president of Panama and brings him to trial in Florida. Singapore does not have that option. We can’t go to Burma and capture warlords there. What we can do is to pass a law which says that any customs officer or policeman who sees anybody in Singapore behaving suspiciously, leading him to suspect the person is under the influence of drugs, can require that man to have his urine tested. If the sample is found to contain drugs, the man immediately goes for treatment. In America if you did that it would be an invasion of the individual’s rights and you would be sued.”

7 El Gringo March 7, 2016 at 7:53 pm

In the USA the real lack of will is in immigration/border enforcement.

We are willing to break down a citizens’ door off of a CI’s tip. We are willing to arm police with military equipment. We are willing to have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world.

We aren’t willing to bring those same tactics to our border, however.

8 AIG March 7, 2016 at 9:09 pm

“We aren’t willing to bring those same tactics to our border, however”

Strange. I wonder how those ~500,000 illegals get caught and turned back at the border every year. I wonder why drug lords have to resort to things like submarines to smuggle product in, if we weren’t doing anything to protect the border.

What planet do you people live on? Planet Trump?

9 Peter Schaeffer March 8, 2016 at 1:08 pm

AIG,

“Strange. I wonder how those ~500,000 illegals get caught and turned back at the border every year.”

The folks “caught” at the border are just returned to Mexico to try again. It amounts to a revolving door or stated directly, “it ain’t over until the illegal wins”. For some real-world data about the border try the history of Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez (the man who murdered Kate Steinle). He was deported (not just caught at the border) 5 times and came back each time.

Of course, that’s just an anecdote. However, the GAO did a major study of this issue. A few years ago, the GAO took at look illegals in the criminal justice system (Federal, State, and Local). The typical illegal (in the criminal justice system) had been busted 6-7 times without anyone even checking their immigration status.

See also “The US Border: A Revolving Door for Illegal Aliens”

“On July 8, 2014, a Fox news channel program interviewed Sheriff Paul Babeau of Pinal County, Arizona who reported that the federal government had released criminal illegal immigrants into his county. The sheriff stated that his deputies had arrested individuals who had already been deported ten or fifteen times. DHS current “catch and release” policies contribute to this predicament.

The Annual Report of the Department of Homeland Security, dated September 2014 and entitled Immigration Enforcement Actions 2013, provides some startling statistics. Section 241(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act states that when an alien departs the United States under an order of removal and illegally reenters the United States, the alien may be removed on the reinstatement of the prior removal order without an additional hearing before an immigration judge. The report indicates that in 2013 there were a total of 438, 421 removals and 170,247 of those removals were based on reinstatements. This means that 39 percent of all removals in 2013 involved aliens who had previously been removed. When considering DHS removal statistics, it must be understood that a large number of removed aliens are repeaters. This means that these aliens were previously counted in DHS statistical data.”

and

“The Revolving Door”

“The Department of Homeland Security has been publicizing “the most ever” deportations of criminal illegal immigrants. Not publicized is the fact that a significant percentage of these criminals had been deported at least once before. A minimum of 46 percent of criminals deported in 2011 were previously deported and had illegally returned to the United States, which is a felony. The failure to better address this problem does not bode well for our ability to intercept terrorists who try to gain access to our country.”

10 msgkings March 7, 2016 at 4:04 pm

@Peter:

“In my view (stated a bit simplistically), we have to chose between Mao and LKY (Lee Kuan Yew)”

That’s a really limited dichotomy and IMO incorrectly so. There’s really no other options? The US is a pretty good place, as are many other nations that haven’t chosen one of those two options.

11 Peter Schaeffer March 7, 2016 at 4:36 pm

msgkings,

The U.S. is pretty good for the elite. For the rest, not so much. Read Putnam (“Our Kids
The American Dream in Crisis”) and Murray (“Coming Apart”) for a sense of what is happening in the rest of America. Of course, Putnam and Murray are actually the optimists. The decline in life in urban America is even worse. Drug ODs now exceed murder and (deaths from) car crashes in many parts of the U.S. Median incomes have been declining for years. Most workers earned more in 1973 than they do now. The minimum wage was higher.

Things are not going well.

12 msgkings March 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Wrong, Peter, the US is pretty good for the vast majority of people here. As it is in most of Europe, Australia, NZ, and many other nations that have not had to choose between Mao and LKY. If we’re exchanging book recommendations have a look at Ridley’s “The Rational Optimist”. Doomsayers like you have always been with us, and always will be, but the reality is life just keeps getting better for most of humanity, and without the benefit(?) of dictators in charge.

13 John March 7, 2016 at 5:33 pm

“life just keeps getting better for most of humanity, and without the benefit(?) of dictators in charge.”

Apparently, the msgscum is dumb enough to credit the achievements of technological progress to the non-existent social one. Hint: they don’t go together.

14 msgkings March 7, 2016 at 5:38 pm

@John:

LOL, read that book I mentioned, it’s all about tech and individualism and free trade helping all of humanity, and how overbearing governments harm it. What, you want a dictator in charge like Peter here? Good luck with that.

15 Peter Schaeffer March 7, 2016 at 6:41 pm

msg,

Life isn’t getting better for a majority of Americans. It is getting worse. Median income is falling, not rising. Real wages are down over a 40+ year span. The minimum wage has declined over the same period. Family life has badly deteriorated. LFP peaked around 2000 and has fallen for men and women since then. Male LFP has been declining for decades. Life expectancy is now declining for some (but not all groups). Drug ODs now exceed murder and (deaths from) car crashes in many parts of the U.S.

If you have any contrary facts, please post them. All of the above claims are easily supported with BLS, CDC, FRED, etc. data.

16 msgkings March 7, 2016 at 6:53 pm

@Peter: I’m too busy to dig up facts about life expectancies, environmental improvements, lifestyle enhancements, etc, nor to get into it about whether the declining masses of which you speak would prefer to live in 1973 (not to say many wouldn’t). We can agree to disagree about whether the US and the rest of the West is a good place to live or not for most people.

I’m still waiting for you to explain how we ‘must’ choose between dictators, and how doing so will make things so much better for the US (and Europe and Aus/NZ and Japan and so many other places that have managed to do pretty well without them). That was my question, are there really no other options than Marxist or city-statist dictatorships?

17 msgkings March 7, 2016 at 6:56 pm

By the way some of your ‘facts’ about why the US is a dystopian hellhole aren’t so bad: LFP is declining because baby boomers are retiring (not solely but a large part) and perhaps car crash fatalities have declined dramatically so that’s why other things are more deadly now? But as I said, too busy to get into defending the US (I am curious is Singapore is the only country you think makes any sense). Just want to know if you really think dictators are the only ‘solution’ to the ‘problem’

18 AIG March 7, 2016 at 10:40 pm

“Life isn’t getting better for a majority of Americans.”

What nonsense. What nonsense…

19 prior_test2 March 7, 2016 at 11:19 pm

‘“Life isn’t getting better for a majority of Americans.”

What nonsense. What nonsense…’

All those Trump and Sanders supporters, wanting their life to start getting better, not worse – yep, just a nonsensical illusion.

20 Cliff March 7, 2016 at 11:46 pm

“Median income is falling, not rising. Real wages are down over a 40+ year span. The minimum wage has declined over the same period. Family life has badly deteriorated. LFP peaked around 2000 and has fallen for men and women since then. Male LFP has been declining for decades. Life expectancy is now declining for some (but not all groups). Drug ODs now exceed murder and (deaths from) car crashes in many parts of the U.S.”

Real compensation is well up over that 40+ year span. Minimum wage is meaningless and terrible. “Family life” is too vague for me to address. LFP is meaningless. Work is a cost, people don’t like to work. I would think if less people have to work, life is getting better. Life expectancy continues to rise for virtually everyone despite rising obesity. Drug ODs have increased but murder and car crash deaths have plummeted. I’ll take that trade-off.

21 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 9:08 am

Cliff – it used to be that a high school graduate could easily get a job, get married, buy a house a few years later, have a couple kids, and live comfortably on that income.

These days, a university or vocational accreditation does not even come close to guaranteeing that, and you have the student loans to pay.

Things are harder in the bottom 10-20% than they were 40 years ago. But hey, at least there are some free apps and video streaming to enjoy during the extended bouts of unemployment, and they can dream of one day being able to afford to enroll their kids in soccer club or what have you, even though buying a house is basically out of the question for people who fit the education and skills profile of the average 1960s high school graduate.

Global competition is fierce. The working class is competing with people who are “content” to live on rice and tofu/beans and share a 2-bedroom apartment with 4-6 people.

Also, the real minimum wage has absolutely stagnated (in fact declined a lot) over the last 40 years. All the technological gizmos notwithstanding, rent has to be paid, houses heated/cooled, etc.

22 Daniel Weber March 8, 2016 at 10:48 am

You know what would help the bottom 10-20%? Insisting they go to college, or else.

23 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 11:40 am

Daniel – I tend to favour the German approach. I think the streaming is too early and too hard to break out of, but streaming kids who are not good at academics into apprenticeships seems to be working quite well for them. I loosely understand that streaming into trades orientation is common enough in China at the high school level, but even teachers I’ve met who work in these schools for some reason don’t seem interested in discussing it as a general strategy or phenomenon – I think they perceive it as giving up on these students for achieving high success, as opposed to practical considerations of preparing these kids for vocations where they will achieve more moderate success.

24 msgkings March 8, 2016 at 12:05 pm

@Nathan W: agreed, there needs to be a change in how vocational training is viewed. Plumbers and electricians can make serious money, or at least money comparable to what a guy in an auto factory could make in the 1960s. Enough for a decent middle class life. The culture generally moves when it has to, we may be seeing signs of it now where the ‘college at all costs!’ mantra is starting to be challenged with talks of student debt being too high, etc.

25 Peter Schaeffer March 8, 2016 at 1:43 pm

Nathan W,

“Things are harder in the bottom 10-20% than they were 40 years ago”

Make that the bottom 50-70%. Above that things are probably better than 40 years ago. For the top 1%, much better.

26 Peter Schaeffer March 8, 2016 at 2:05 pm

msgkings,

For many countries, there are other choices than Mao and LKY. They are lucky. However, times and the world change. Europe is facing its Mao vs. LKY moment. Europe has pretended that it could get away with liberal government (using both the European and American definitions of liberal) for a long time. Now liberal government is failing. Liberal government brought Europe the tragedy of the Euro. Clearly, the Euro experiment is doing rather badly. Liberal government brought Europe the calamity of Open Borders. Now Europe has die Rechte and migrants fighting battles with police.

Sweden in 1960 didn’t need (or want or have) an authoritarian government. However, the liberalism of 1960 Sweden (for example) is fading. In the end, Sweden will end up using force to either stop mass immigration, or to suppress the Sweden Democrats, or both. The same can be said for many other countries, in Europe, Asia, and of course the Americas.

My opinion obviously.

27 Ricardo March 8, 2016 at 5:17 pm

“Liberal government brought Europe the tragedy of the Euro. Clearly, the Euro experiment is doing rather badly.”

The problems of the Euro have little if anything to do with liberal (at least in the American sense) ideology. The Euro experiment was coupled with conservative monetary policy, a fiscal stability pact that discouraged deficit spending even during a severe recession and no fiscal union to go along with the monetary union. These are not inherently liberal ideas and, indeed, there have been many liberal economists who have criticized the way the Euro was established from the start.

28 Peter Schaeffer March 8, 2016 at 7:35 pm

Ricardo,

Liberal has a different meaning in Europe vs. the USA, a point I was careful to make. The Euro was definitely a liberal (in the European sense) project. It was (and remains) a project of the cosmopolitan elite (indeed, they remain fanatically committed to it).

29 Peter Schaeffer March 8, 2016 at 7:37 pm

DW,

“You know what would help the bottom 10-20%? Insisting they go to college, or else”

The bottom 10-20% lack the skills to graduate from high school, much less college. Get a grip.

30 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 11:25 pm

Peter – it was the “liberals” who have long advocated for a common defense body and standardization of border procedures, etc. It is the Euroskeptics and anti-integrationists (who have legitimate sovereignty concerns) who prevented such policy objectives from coming to fruition. Ironically, it was their obstruction against a common European border strategy or a common defense body/strategy which made Europe less prepared to deal with such a crisis, since there is presently no political or military/security body available to enforce any collective strategy to enforce borders, were this deemed to be the appropriate strategy – instead, we have a piecemeal approach with several governments lacking the resources to enforce borders even if they wanted to. Yes, the “liberals” are the ones who are presently more sympathetic to the refugees despite potential social costs (virtually certain to be positive costs in the short run), but it is the “other side” which is responsible for the fact that no body whatsoever exists to implement the polices they would prefer.

31 Steve Sailer March 7, 2016 at 6:20 pm

Here’s a recent book on the general subject:

Weapons of Mass Migration: Forced Displacement, Coercion, and Foreign Policy
(Cornell Studies in Security Affairs)
by Kelly M. Greenhill

http://www.unz.com/isteve/weapons-of-mass-migration/

The single most important defense is to have a patriotic ideology so you don’t get woozy about who should be in the country and who shouldn’t. For example, the Preable to the Constitution makes clear that the United States exists “for ourselves and for our posterity,” but that’s not something you hear much about these days.

32 Jeh March 7, 2016 at 6:23 pm

Can we vote to kick out Steve Sailer?

33 Peter Schaeffer March 7, 2016 at 6:42 pm

Can we vote to kick out Jeh?

Steve Sailer provides facts, logic, data, etc.

You provide….

34 cliff arroyo March 8, 2016 at 2:11 am

“Steve Sailer provides facts, logic, data, etc.
You provide….”

Goodthink!?

35 derek March 7, 2016 at 7:23 pm

Hence the 2nd amendment.

36 Ethan Bernard March 7, 2016 at 7:49 pm

Even if you disagree with Steve, you have to admit that his comments are interesting.

37 prior_test2 March 7, 2016 at 11:32 pm

So interesting that occasionally, they can only be read by a select few. Even this web site comment section has certain boundaries which the ever so reasonable and interesting Sailer strays across.

38 prior_test March 7, 2016 at 11:30 pm

‘so you don’t get woozy about who should be in the country and who shouldn’t’

There is a new (or old – depends on your viewpoint) party in Germany, die Rechte (the Right). They aren’t woozy at all, as their campaign signs make clear – ‘We don’t just hang signs.’

Of course, to use Sailer’s latest phraseolgy, die Rechte are exactly the sort of people who are willing to stand up to his ever so cutely named ‘Merkel Youth.’

Germany for the Germans – thankfully, we can finally get beyond all that political correctness and cut to the chase.

‘the United States exists “for ourselves and for our posterity”’

And at the time that was written, ‘ouselves’ explicitly excluded slaves and Native Americans. Maybe we could follow a certain German tradition (die Rechte certainly seem willing), and start to get rid of ‘ourselves’ of anyone who can be shown to have only been included into ‘ourselves’ due to degenerate law making and an unwillingness to use science to guide the necessary social policy to restore the purity of America’s true essence.

39 msgkings March 7, 2016 at 11:46 pm

Total mulpian gibberish

40 Careless March 8, 2016 at 12:56 pm

lol

41 JWatts March 8, 2016 at 2:01 pm

Well msgkings, you’ve coined a new adjective.

42 Cliff March 7, 2016 at 11:47 pm

Newsflash, the slaves were freed 150 years ago and the Native Americans are citizens too

43 prior_test2 March 8, 2016 at 12:00 am

Not a newsflash – the Constitution’s Preamble came into force into 1789.

Also not a newsflash – all Native Americans granted American citizens in 1924. See below.

44 prior_test2 March 7, 2016 at 11:57 pm

No, the sign is completely real – just saw one yesterday, and considered it so extreme that I thought it was an effective parody until checking into it. There really is currently a German party running for office with its slogan being ‘We don’t just hang signs.’ They are not ‘woozy’ about who Germany should belong to, and they apparently have an answer to the problem of Sailer’s cutely named ‘Merkel Youth.’

As for ‘ourselves’ in the U.S. Constitution, the definition of citizenship excluded both slaves (being property) and (many, if not all) American Indians – ‘On June 2, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act, which marked the end of a long debate and struggle, at a federal level, over full birthright citizenship for American Indians.

The act read that “all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided that the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property.”

American Indians had occupied a unique place since the drafting of the Constitution in citizenship matters. Originally, the Constitution’s Article I said that “Indians not taxed” couldn’t be counted in the voting population of states (while slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person).

American Indians were also part of the Dred Scott decision in 1857, but in a much different way. Chief Justice Roger Taney argued that American Indians, unlike enslaved blacks, could become citizens, under congressional and legal supervision.’ http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/06/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens/

45 Chip March 7, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Mao and the communists grew and sold opium to fund their war against the Nationalists. He suppressed it after he won.

46 Nathan W March 7, 2016 at 9:37 pm

If the USA weren’t enforcing supply restrictions internally, there would be no international trade in drugs. Also, it’s a lot easier to control at the border than to try to chase it down once its through.

47 wiki March 8, 2016 at 3:23 am

We could dramatically enforce immigration laws in a credible way if we really wanted to do it. And we could also exempt the one offs (nannies, etc.) by simply imposing a huge fine on any companies caught hiring at least 3 illegals (say 50k per illegal?) and paying 25k to anyone who rats out the companies. Demand for illegals would collapse and the internal flow would severely decrease.

48 JB March 7, 2016 at 2:52 pm

Having open borders in your country is like having a beach in your city waterfront.

Most of the time, it has its benefits, and you can organize your institutions to maximize those and minimize the costs. If you do that, it’s great; if you don’t do that, it’s a hassle. But when there’s a flood you’ve got to put up sandbags, regardless of what you did before.

49 Anon. March 7, 2016 at 3:19 pm

Too much carrot, not enough stick. Slap them with a 1% tariff on all goods and services for every immigrant who comes from Turkey, they’ll get their shit together fast.

50 Mike March 7, 2016 at 5:26 pm

it depends a lot on whether paying a Coasian bribe is a one-time cost or if it won’t lead to repeated problems. IMO it would be worth spelling out some consequences if Turkey fails to control the flow.

51 Bill March 7, 2016 at 6:26 pm

Build a wall

And

Make Turkey pay for it.

52 Nathan W March 7, 2016 at 9:41 pm

Turkey has elections. No public of any country would stand for that kind of threat. Enforce your own borders if it’s that big of a concern, it is not their business to enforce your border for you. Your border, your responsibility.

53 Anon. March 7, 2016 at 10:21 pm

And when the Greek navy picks up illegal immigrants coming from Turkey on a tiny boat, what should they do then to “enforce their borders”? They can’t send them back to Turkey. They can’t send them back to their country of origin. They can’t let them drown. There is no border enforcement scenario.

54 ivvenalis March 7, 2016 at 10:57 pm

The boats constitute an attempted invasion; sink them if they won’t turn around. I guess if you wanted to be humane you could build a navy strong enough to drag them back to Turkey’s beaches, but if the Turks build shore defenses against such acts I doubt the Greeks could afford it to overcome it (doing this to Libya wouldn’t be a problem, though). Then again, Turkey has been antagonizing Russia lately. Maybe the Russians would be willing to offer a discount on long-range naval munitions in return for a few measly naval maintenance outposts or something.

Otherwise just admit you don’t have a border (this seems to be the favored option) and be done with it.

55 Anon. March 8, 2016 at 7:56 am

What do you think Merkel will do to Tsipras if he orders the navy to shoot at the immigrants?

56 ivvenalis March 8, 2016 at 10:56 am

If Tsipras is content with his country being a vassal of Germany then it stands to reason that Germany insists on Greece following the German program. Obviously if Greece went its own way on border enforcement/sovereignty it would mean cutting their current ties of fealty to Merkel.

57 mikeInThe716 March 7, 2016 at 11:53 pm

Australia’s navy and coast guard seem to make this work. Is it really that hard?

58 Alain March 8, 2016 at 1:13 am

I’m interested. What policy do they enforce?

Is it simply that very few make it so far that Australia can afford to send them back to their nation of origin?

59 carlolspln March 8, 2016 at 3:53 pm

Australia doesn’t have a Coast Guard [but, we need one]

60 Massimo March 7, 2016 at 4:46 pm

Turkey is basically blackmailing Europe to serve as border police? Three billion Euros for now plus faster Schengen visas plus fast tracked EU membership? Why not call the bluff, and instead of paying the blackmail, pay a fraction on building super border fences to keep out the unwanted mass migration?

61 JWatts March 7, 2016 at 5:33 pm

Most of the routes are water crossings. Border fences aren’t going to do much good. An aggressive naval patrol might work.

62 AIG March 7, 2016 at 6:12 pm

They have it. But all the patrols do is pick them up and bring them into Europe…anyway. They don’t send them back or block them.

63 Cliff March 7, 2016 at 11:49 pm

Do the Australian strategy. Send them to an island until they can be returned

64 Massimo March 7, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Europe says don’t come to Europe, but actively rescues and gives permanent residence and aid packages to those that ignore the warnings and push their way in. It’s like a parent telling a child, don’t do XYZ, and not following through on a consequence. The migrants know, you can get full aid and make Europe home, just ignore the hollow laws to the contrary and keep pushing until you get in and get full residence.

Europe has a simple lack of will to seriously enforce borders like Japan or India or Israel or the Gulf States. India will literally shoot to kill at migrants entering from Bangladesh and migrants react accordingly.

The logistics of fences or naval barricades are moot, the problem is a simple lack of will. If Europe actually stopped people, and really stopped people, and didn’t just let people push their way in, people would get the message. The question is will Europe do that?

65 AIG March 7, 2016 at 7:44 pm

You don’t seem to have much of an idea at all. How many people are looking to emigrate to….India? How many Arabs are looking to emigrate to…Israel? Gulf states? You’re kidding right? They have more “illegal” immigrants in their countries than they have natives (and total immigrant population is several times that of natives in each of those countries). Japan? Who is going to emigrate to Japan? South Koreans? Or North Koreans? They’ll be shot first by the North Koreans before ever getting to Japan.

66 Massimo March 7, 2016 at 10:51 pm

“How many people are looking to emigrate to….India?”

Millions. Enough that they built giant border walls and have armed guards who literally shoot to kill at incoming migrants to stem the tide. Are you being serious?

“How many Arabs are looking to emigrate to…Israel?”

Tens of millions. If you expand to Africans, easily many hundreds of millions. That’s why Israel built super high tech border fences and is hyper aggressive about removing unwanted non-Jewish immigrants and suppressing bad press.

“Gulf states?”

Saudi Arabia has to pay German engineers to build high tech security fences to keep hordes of Sunni Muslim Arab migrants from nations like Syria out.

“Japan? Who is going to emigrate to Japan?”

Large fractions of Sub-Saharan Africa would move their tomorrow if they could.

“They’ll be shot first by the North Koreans before ever getting to Japan.”

Sure, it’s hard to get there. And the Japanese will be a heck of a lot more aggressive about blockading incoming refugee ships than Europe and they will be a lot less willing to rescue refugees and give them permanent residency and aid packages for a life in Japan.

This is a lack of a practical way to Japan, not the lack of a want to live there.

67 Horhe March 7, 2016 at 8:16 pm

Defense in depth. Pay Rwanda to take in any migrant who refuses to disclose his country. Evict illegals when they are found within the country. The border should not be the place where immigration control starts and stops. What was it like hundreds of years ago? No passports, no real border control, but, if you ticked off the locals or aroused their suspicions, you would be killed. If you refused to assimilate, you would die of hunger. And so on. Defense in depth and internal cohesion is what allows you to have diversity in your face and still keep your country and society. Like the Imperial Brits. They knew who they were. They learned every damn language on Earth. Enoch Powell, sometimes spoken of as an ur-racist of the period, spoke fluent Urdu and translated stuff. In the US, Revilo Oliver was an expert in Sanskrit, among other languages. These were men who were well aware of other peoples’ cultures, and they admired and studied them, but they never lost sight of who they were, where they belonged and whose culture is the best.

68 AIG March 7, 2016 at 9:11 pm

But, cultural enrichment? Isn’t it great to have all those Ethiopian restaurants next to GMU? Imagine how much better it would be if we imported all of Ethiopia into Washington DC.

69 Nathan W March 7, 2016 at 9:46 pm

Rwanda already has farm size under 1 hectare on average. Why send them there?

70 ivvenalis March 7, 2016 at 11:00 pm

Yeah, Rwanda has its own issues and at any rate Kagame of all people isn’t dumb enough to let a bunch of foreign settlers into his country.

Better to pick somewhere basically lawless and dump them off on the shore. Libya is convenient; Somalia is a longer trip but would probably work about as well.

71 Horhe March 8, 2016 at 5:35 am

@ ivvenalis:

Israel already sends people to him (and Sweden, apparently). I don’t know what he does with them after they arrive, but he gets a pretty penny in return. I assume he lets them go in the wild.

72 Horhe March 8, 2016 at 5:37 am

Here is a link.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4644066,00.html

You may find plenty more online. I did not pick Rwanda at random, I had the Israeli connection in mind. I would have picked the Congo if I just wanted a dumping ground.

73 ivvenalis March 8, 2016 at 9:28 am

Interesting about Rwanda, thanks. If I were Kagame I’d settle them along the border with Congo if there were a lot of them. If they’re few he probably just lets them free. Might be worth looking into.

74 So Much For Subtlety March 7, 2016 at 5:23 pm

So instead of Europe being over-run by people pretending to be Syrians it will be over-run by people pretending to be Turks?

If that is preferable I do not see how. And it will only cost $6 billion!

75 Dzhaughn March 7, 2016 at 5:40 pm

$6 Billion of public money seems a low price for a plausible story about solving such a problem. But, one might want to continue to think about how to actually solve it.

76 AIG March 7, 2016 at 6:03 pm

“And it will only cost $6 billion!”

Europe has already spend that much money keeping the Syrian refugees in Turkey. No news here. This was going to continue either way.

As for Turkey’s other requests, I suspect the EU will indulge Turkey for a while, and once the crises is over, or once Europe gets its border controls between EU and non-EU countries fixed, then they will backtrack. Turkey doesn’t seem to realize that “fast track” will still mean 10-15-20 years, and that this “refugee” crises isn’t going to last that long. Once its over, Europe will backtrack.

77 AIG March 7, 2016 at 6:11 pm

Of course, this was always the plan, and one of the main reasons for the “refugee” crises: Balkan countries want EU handouts and benefits in exchange for blocking migrants. Not just Turkey, but Greece, Macedonia, Albania, Serbia etc all followed the same game plan: “oh, you don’t want to give us visa-free regimes, bailout money, or EU entry? Ok, guess we’re not going to be guarding the gates against the hordes.”

78 ivvenalis March 7, 2016 at 6:45 pm

Well if the EU is going to contract the security of its frontiers out to foreigners they ought to be prepared to pay for services rendered.

79 AIG March 7, 2016 at 7:05 pm

Most (W) European countries don’t have a choice. Their internal politics are strangled by Leftists and Greens who view it as their moral duty to turn Europe into the Third World at any cost. So it’s difficult, if not impossible, for many (W) European countries to have functioning borders with non-EU countries. They have to export this either to East European countries (which have no scruples about turning back the hordes), or non-EU countries.

All this discussion about the follies of relying on poor institutions of other counties etc…is missing an important point. EU countries aren’t stupid. They know they shouldn’t rely on Turkey or Greece or Albania or Macedonia to stop the flow of immigrants, or drugs etc. But they have no choice, because the other alternative is no border controls at all, if they had to rely on internal institutions. Internal institutions are run by bleeding heart Leftists who want none of this.

So this is the best solution left for EU countries: export the duty to a country which doesn’t mind throwing people back into the sea.

I pity them, because they’ve had to do this for a couple of decades now. But thankfully it seems the sentiment in Europe has turned against the brain-less policies of the Left, big time.

80 Nathan W March 7, 2016 at 10:58 pm

” Their internal politics are strangled by Leftists and Greens who view it as their moral duty to turn Europe into the Third World at any cost.”

It is this kind of utterly absurd statement that makes it easy to write you guys off as cranks. If you are able to acknowledge how they ACTUALLY feel about it but proceed to defend your concerns without slandering a quarter of the planet in the same breath, there is some chance that someone other than the choir will take you seriously.

And anyways, looking at the longer term, the actual reason that Europe has no common defense force or effective external border policy is NOT because of Greens and Leftists, who have been advocating for a common policy for decades, rather, it is precisely the same Euroskeptics who were unwilling to give up a little sovereignty for an effective common policy. It is the Euroskeptics who bear the historical blame for Europe being unprepared for such an event.

Also, if you’re just writing people off people who disagree with you as brainless, you’re not going to get anywhere, except for maybe feeling a little superior and generally better for having vented your anger.

81 prior_test2 March 7, 2016 at 11:40 pm

‘Their internal politics are strangled by Leftists and Greens who view it as their moral duty to turn Europe into the Third World at any cost.’

Just need to apparently remind someone again of just how Merkel and her ‘Christian Democrats’ are the epitome of leftists and greens, not to mention that whole Christian thing about charity, feeding the hungry and clothing the naked. Why yes, it does appear that that Christianity stuff sounds really radical, doesn’t it, and is clearly strangling Europe in its vicious grip with Merkel leading the charge.

82 msgkings March 7, 2016 at 11:51 pm

He pities them, not the people being thrown back into the sea. Classy.

83 Peter Schaeffer March 8, 2016 at 1:49 pm

NW,

”Their internal politics are strangled by Leftists and Greens who view it as their moral duty to turn Europe into the Third World at any cost.”

You need to get out a bit more. I read the Guardian and Der Spiegel with some frequency. Thinking along the lines of the above statement isn’t just commonplace, but dominant (with no dissent allowed). Strangely, the Guardian’s readers are (apparently) hostile to mass immigration.

84 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 11:29 pm

P S – Yes, I am perfectly aware that certain media outlets are pushing the narrative that certain political factions are intentionally TRYING to destroy Europe, perhaps even with the objective of colluding with Islamists to turn Europe into a theocratic sharia state. While I understand concerns about maintaining cultural identity, etc., such conspiracy theories are, I think, bordering on lunacy, but yes, I also understand that some people actually believe such narratives which are being fed to them by certain media outlets.

85 Horhe March 7, 2016 at 8:17 pm

There will always be refugee crises, so long as there will be an excess of unemployable young men in Africa, the Middle East and parts of Asia.

86 AIG March 7, 2016 at 9:12 pm

There have always been an excess of unemployed “youth” in those countries. They didn’t rush in by the millions into Europe, however. Strange how that was.

87 Nathan W March 7, 2016 at 11:00 pm

Question: why the scare quotes on “youth”?

What’s not strange is that this movement of people coincides with a bunch of conflicts. Why would that be strange?

88 ivvenalis March 7, 2016 at 11:02 pm

When one of these invaders does something bad in their new countries the media, if they report it at all, describe them as “youths” and go no further. It has become a sort of joke/buzzword on the alt-right.

89 Careless March 8, 2016 at 2:06 pm

Because a lot of them have been lying about their ages.

90 Horhe March 8, 2016 at 5:42 am

I agree with your point. That’s what I’m saying. If we place such a low bar for being declared a refugee and having the moral right to move wherever you want, aided by the governments there in defiance of the interests of the natives, then there shall be no end to the refugees.

Although, to be frank, while there has always been an excess in those countries, relative to the population, the issue is that populations have exploded throughout the third world, so the pressure is even higher. Niger grew six times since the 1970s. Ethiopia has doubled since the 1980s. The combined population of the civilized Scandinavian nations is less than the growth of Egypt’s population from 1990 to 2015. Gaza’s population has grown four times since the 1980s, despite the obvious difficulties which would give pause to anyone who cares for the their children’s welfare etc.

91 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 11:34 pm

I think the bar is generally quite high. It has just been relaxed in response to the massive exodus from Syria, and presumably traditional standards will soon apply again.

92 Horhe March 9, 2016 at 11:33 am

Until the next Syria? What’s the purpose of rules if you relax them when the necessity is greatest?

93 Ray Lopez March 7, 2016 at 8:45 pm

Just to state the obvious, and I live in Greece on occasion (in the Philippines now): boooorrrriiiinnng. Ho-hum. These stories are going to get as boring as Obamacare soon.

94 AIG March 7, 2016 at 9:13 pm

Do you know what was Greece’s policy on its northern border with Albania and Macedonia? (at least up until a few years ago)

Go ahead, guess.

95 jim jones March 7, 2016 at 11:02 pm

The EU has a policy of undermining genetic homogeneity, they will never do anything to restrict Third World immigration:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

96 prior_test2 March 7, 2016 at 11:47 pm

‘The EU has a policy of undermining genetic homogeneity’

Not precisely, according to your link – but die Rechte are more than willing to take care of such a potential problem. Unless we are using the latest scientific findings (things that say Poles and Germans are not all that different), in which case die Rechte are probably not really following the latest scientific racial guidelines of who is and who isn’t part of that ‘genetic homogeneity.’

Germany for the Germans – let’s not get woozy, as Sailer notes above, let’s make sure we are all marching in the correct direction, taking big steps into a much better future.

97 Cliff March 7, 2016 at 11:55 pm

Who cares about civilization when you can get high on self-righteousness? Better than cocaine, amiright?

98 prior_test2 March 8, 2016 at 12:10 am

I’m not sure about the self-righteousness. After all, I am currently living in a country where a political party is currently trying to win votes with the slogan ‘We don’t just hang signs.’ And here is Sailer writing this – ‘The single most important defense is to have a patriotic ideology so you don’t get woozy about who should be in the country and who shouldn’t.’

So many people here seem to be so binary. But then, I’m a bit closer to living in the sort of patriotic ideology which Sailer seems to favor, with a group of dedicated believers, apparently with the will to decide who should and who shouldn’t be in a country.

And yet commenters here seem obsessed with radical leftists and greens ruining Europe. Almost as if they cannot remember who ruined Europe the last time round.

99 cliff arroyo March 8, 2016 at 3:39 am

“I am currently living in a country where a political party is currently trying to win votes with the slogan ‘We don’t just hang signs”

So? What has the current government done to incite such strong feeli….. oh.

“-‘The single most important defense is to have a patriotic ideology so you don’t get woozy about who should be in the country and who shouldn’t.’-”

If Frau Merkel hadn’t been so intent on whatever it was that she was trying to accomplish (what on earth was she trying to do?) by inviting millions of new dependents to the country then maybe passions wouldn’t be so enflamed?

I live in a country directly to the east of Germany that has born the full brunt of agressive German expansionism in the past – and Merkel and the Merkeljugend in Cologne is seen as far more dangerous to most people than those opposing her.

Human nature is what it is. If politicians weren’t so hellbent on changing it for ideological reasons then there would probably be a lot less threats of political violence.

100 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 6:20 am

I had been led to believe that Merkel thought it was the Christian thing to do, and hence consistent with the moral fibre of the nation.

101 Alain March 8, 2016 at 1:25 am

I wonder, with CCTV becoming more and more prevalent and facial recognition becoming more adept, won’t it become far easier to identify illegal immigrants in the next 10-ish years?

Of course it will be hard to throw out those that have been in the country for some time, but stopping the flow should be somewhat easy.

102 Horhe March 8, 2016 at 5:44 am

Only if you apply the technology universally, to other countries as well. The Internet and online databases have made vetting people ever easier between civilized nations, but how has the FBI described the vetting process for the prospective Syrian refugees that the US would take? If there are no databases, if the refugees throw away their ID, if there is no interconnectivity, then the tech fall flat on its face.

103 Daniel Weber March 8, 2016 at 11:03 am

You don’t need a database of the known-bad. You can do it with a database of the known-good, and then investigate the exceptions.

This approach is really scary, but if the do-gooders leave no other enforcement method available, it’s going to happen.

104 Alain March 8, 2016 at 11:41 am

> You can do it with a database of the known-good,

Exactly and we have that. This seems like how it will play out.

105 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 9:22 am

I would rather “too many” illegal immigrants than to live in an “Enemy of the State” sort of world. Many traditional means (workplace spot checks, high fines against employers who hire illegals, etc.) would have high effectiveness if there was a will to fund them.

106 Horhe March 8, 2016 at 10:55 am

Diversity gets you to the “enemy of the state” type of world, because the state has to keep a clamp on natural frictions between groups and their divergent interests. That’s why you can’t have free speech, why you need affirmative action, why you can’t have freedom of association. This is why empires and not republics were generally multi-ethnic, multi-confessional and treated populations like pawns, to be settled along frontiers and so on. It takes a strong central ruler to elicit both loyalty from disparate groups (as opposed to loyalty to abstract concepts) and also to keep a lid on tensions… until they inevitably come to a boil and pop goes Yugoslavia, the Austro-Hungarian Empire etc etc.

107 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 11:45 am

Not necessarily. A sort of post-nationalist politics with shared humanist values might do the trick. Canada, for example, does not have (much of) the sort of problems with identity politics found in the USA, despite a very high foreign born population.

While I understand the motivations of affirmative action in the USA, it is becoming increasingly obvious that it is highly inconsistent with ever achieving a post-racial politics.

108 Careless March 8, 2016 at 2:41 pm

Your country is like 92% white

109 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 11:46 pm

Toronto is majority minority (whites are less than 50% of the population). It is a great place to live and has low crime rate.

As one of the most diverse large cities on the planet, and having among the lower crime rates of major cities, I’m surprised that so little attention is paid to how Toronto got it right. Among other things, some public services specifically cater to minorities, in the sense of making information available in many languages and using census data (except the most recent one which struck such information from the census, but to be reintroduced under the new federal government) to target specific offerings of services known to be important to specific communities. Also, we’re just not that racist in Toronto, so there’s not much resentment, backlash, and what have you.

The two notoriously bad neighbourhoods I know of (Jane and Finch area and Regent Park) are over-represented by minorities, but, not likely coincidentally, are also the location of unsuccessful large scale housing projects – the lessons of these projects are that public housing is now more evenly distributed throughout the community.

110 Horhe March 9, 2016 at 11:42 am

“Canada, for example, does not have (much of) the sort of problems with identity politics found in the USA”

http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/02/henry-yu-canada-must-become-asian-to-overcome-white-supremacism.html

I think your argument would be attractive, but it fails at the shared humanist values part. Look at Germany’s post-nationalism. Has it imparted any shared humanist values to the new arrivals? I think your universalism is too euro-centric. Canada is the way it is because of those that built its common culture, overwhelmingly of European and Anglo-Saxon extraction. The rest of the people are along for the ride, so long as Canada can maintain that successful culture. That is not clear yet and, if I were a Canadian, I would not be happy for Canada to be that experiment.

Crime isn’t everything when it comes to judging immigration, but it is a lot, so I’ll grant you that about Vancouver, though I remember reading an article on the loss of social capital in Vancouver and its surrounding towns because of the rapid influx of Chinese owner-investors.

111 Horhe March 8, 2016 at 10:56 am

What you meant to say is that you would rather most of the trouble be caught on the border, so an inconvenient and possibly dangerous defense in depth would not be needed. Two choices – either more illegal immigrants through not enforcing, or better borders.

112 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 11:49 am

Well, unlike you, I do not see mass surveillance as being a necessary reaction to social discontent. But anyways, if i were to accept your priors for a moment, then yes, i would certainly prefer strong border protections to a police state.

But I think it’s a false choice, based on the premise that immigration NECESSARILY causes all sorts of problems, whereas I’m inclined to believe that the reality of racism, discrimination on the part of some minority of employers and the public in general, in addition to identity politics, and not the fact of immigration per se, is what drives a lot of the social problems which lead you to think a police state would be needed. If I’ve got you more or less accurately, then we’re probably in an “agree to disagree” sort of thing – which is fine for the purposes of discussion, but I’m not sure what that means for practical purposes when such a division may also appear in large numbers at the level of the entire electorate.

113 Thomas March 9, 2016 at 3:06 am

Immigration doesn’t necessarily cause the problems that people are suggesting, however the type of immigration that is occurring in Europe does. Selective immigration which I assume is the case in Toronto is not similar to the immigration in Europe. Unless you can find a population willing to redistribute their income and wealth to the point that economic migrants no longer desire to enter their country, there will always be social problems in response to immigration at some level.

114 Alain March 8, 2016 at 11:47 am

Those methods cause many to get up in arms about spot checks and the tactics that are required to make them work.

This will likely play out in a painless fashion. As coverage and technology increase the amount of aggression the state will need to impose upon violators will be reduced. The end state will be one where illegals are identified somewhat quickly, they are given a few fines in the ‘mail’, the fines ratchet up and the vast majority leave. It will be as boring as paying taxes.

115 cliff arroyo March 8, 2016 at 9:11 am

Nathan W: “I had been led to believe that Merkel thought it was the Christian thing to do, and hence consistent with the moral fibre of the nation”

How had you been led to believe that? I don’t recall her making any public invocations to Christianity regarding her great folly. And since when does Christianity call on believers to take in those who will harm their family (a sly reference to Cologne)?

116 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 9:33 am

“Love your enemy”. It’s one of a very small handful of critically core teachings of Christianity. Along with “love your neighbour as you love yourself”, various teachings about helping the poor, and that religious faith in the divinity of Jesus and asking forgiveness will guarantee an eternity of lovely things.

I think it was an article in The Economist that introduced me to the idea that it was consistent with Merkel’s Christian background.

117 Adrian Turcu March 8, 2016 at 11:03 am

The question was what makes you think that motivated her actions. Short of your capacity to read Merkel’s mind, do you have any proof she said the Christian imperative guided her actions?

118 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 12:04 pm

I read it somewhere, didn’t I just say that? It seems reasonable to me that the daughter of a pastor may be motivated by Christian morality. An alternative viewpoint is that she is intentionally plotting to Islamacize Europe and destroy Western civilization entirely, something that I do not so easily attribute to the daughter of a pastor. While pastor’s children can be easily grouped into goodie two shoes and highly rebellious types (I grew up with a strangely large number of friends who were pastor’s children, and I think this stereotype is quite true), they tend to uphold the general precepts of Christian morality even when they turn out to be gay, drugs users, atheists, and all manner of things. This makes it very easy for me to take this interpretation at face value, although I’m open to the idea that she may have had other motivations as well.

119 Alain March 8, 2016 at 11:53 am

Sigh.

Charity is the avenue for Christian values. Attempting to allocate resources which are not yours is narcissism along with a deep need to dominate others.

120 Nathan W March 8, 2016 at 12:09 pm

The Bible absolutely recognizes the right of “Caesar” to take what he/she demands and do with it as he/she pleases. If done in a manner more broadly consistent with Christian values than the average Roman emperor, this can hardly be painted as un-Christian. This line of argumentation, however, is popular among Christians who do not like to see their resources redistributed to people who they don’t think are “deserving” of help.

121 Thomas March 9, 2016 at 3:08 am

Jesus was clever enough to say so.

122 Dan Cole March 8, 2016 at 5:59 pm

Once again, I have to ask, what’s the difference between a bargain and a “Coasian bargain”? I have yet to see a plausible answer to that question, especially given the fact that all bargains in the real world must overcome positive transaction costs, whether the bargain involves settlement of some actual or potential dispute over property rights or an agreement with a neighborhood kid to mow your lawn.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: