The confusing thing about the migration debate is that its advocates do not declare the principle they are espousing. They are trying to appeal to compassion, morality, European values, etc. When I spoke to liberals on the subject, they eventually admitted that they thought that everyone should have the right to live in any country, but at the same time, many did not think deeply about it and did not understand why the answer to this question should be important. Moreover, they were reluctant to declare this position publicly.
A common argument is that migration is natural and has always been here. However, there is a question of quantity. Rain is also natural, yet we try to prevent floods and build roofs. The truth is that the rate of migration into and within Europe over the last 50 years is extraordinary – it is not comparable to anything that has happened in Europe in the last millennium. We would only find a parallel in the age of the migration of peoples.
The truth is that the rate of migration into and within Europe over the last 50 years is extraordinary – it is not comparable to anything that has happened in Europe in the last millennium.
Liberals believe that there is no problem with migrants becoming part of the society they come to. However, more migrants means less willingness to integrate, because it is much easier to live in one’s own cultural community. Moreover, multiculturalists encourage immigrants to preserve their native culture, which is also counterproductive in terms of successful integration.
The United States of America is cited as an example of the successful integration of large numbers of immigrants. However, its situation is specific. The US has successfully integrated immigrants coming from the same or at least similar cultures (i.e. European), but these immigrants have also become colonists who have helped the Americans to colonise – i.e. to occupy and alienate – Native American territories.
Ultimately, European social benefits are feeding a huge smuggling industry. It is a kind of clever tunnelling of public resources for the benefit of criminal organisations.
The serious argument remains that migrants are fleeing oppression and war. However, if we accept this argument, it means that we should accept asylum seekers, but not all migrants. That would, of course, be fine. However, if the asylum system is being abused to such an extent that host countries cannot effectively deport unauthorised applicants, they have to look after them, and migration is beginning to have its unfortunate social and security consequences, then it is time to change the system. The asylum system can perhaps be seen as a compromise in the sense that states retain the right to refuse migrants but take on the obligation to help refugees in certain cases. However, the asylum system should not be used as a Trojan horse to push for the complete liberalisation of migration.
The truth is that the main driver of mass migration is not political persecution, but the desire for an easier livelihood. This is also evident from the fact that migrants do not go to the first safe country, or to any safe country, but prefer the countries with the highest social support – Germany and Sweden. Paying the smugglers thus seems to be an investment that will pay off over time, even if the sums are by no means small. Considering African salaries, they are roughly the same as if we were to pay 1.5 million. Ultimately, European social benefits are feeding a huge smuggling industry. It is a kind of clever tunnelling of public resources for the benefit of criminal organisations.
As long as migration was low, there was no need to regulate it, but the moment it became a mass issue, the question arises as to what to do about it.
If we say that migration is natural, then we are effectively saying nothing. As long as migration was low, there was no need to regulate it, but the moment it became a mass issue, the question arises as to what to do about it. Even phenomena that are ethically indifferent on a small scale can become a moral challenge on a larger scale. As long as there were enough forests everywhere, it was fine for anyone to cut wood freely as they wished. If this principle were to apply today, we would soon be without forests and the planet would be uninhabitable. It’s the same with migration – harmless in small amounts, but in large amounts it can cause disaster.
Adam Votruba is a Czech historician.
