Daniel- I just want to make explicit one point that you don’t refer to directly. In general, most immigration advocates take a human rights based perspective. People have rights- right to life, freedom of religion, freedom from torture, and much more. These rights are inviolate. So if a person shows that returning them to their home country means there is a likelihood these rights will be violated, they cannot be returned. Whether they have entered their new country legally or illegally, whether they are just one individual or whether there are a million others with the same claim, none of that matters, because these are fundamental rights that cannot be violated no matter what.
And truth is, most countries have more or less agreed to this. There is a treaty called the Covenant Against Torture, for example, which says that torture is such an affront to human dignity that no one can be returned to a place where they are likely to be tortured, no matter what. 171 countries have signed. The right to asylum, saying that no one can be returned to a place where they face persecution based on membership in a protected class, no matter how many asylum seekers there are and independent of any other factors related to the host country, is codified in the refugee convention. That convention was signed by 149 countries.
If I understand correctly, in your article you are advocating a different, non-rights based way of looking at immigration. You are saying that immigration, even from a war zone or place where a refugee may face death, is not a right but rather a privilege that may or may not be granted. There is certainly an appeal to looking at it that way, especially when today the number of aspiring refugees is so vast and the great majority of them have a mixture of political, security, and economic motives. I just point out that in doing so you are also implicitly challenging the entire underpinnings of the human rights movement.
Hi Shlomo, thanks for the comment. I feel that I am affirming the current law at least in so far as refugees need to be housed in the first safe country which almost always is a neighbour with a similar culture. A refugee from Afghanistan should first try India - a free, safe, local country, -before travelling all the way to the UK. That is illegitimate.
There is distinction between homeless nations (like Jews) where the duty to house is universal and major cultures (Arabs, South Americans etc) where there are plenty of compatible and local nations. Why are they coming to Europe / the US?
Congratulations Daniel. As others here have remarked, this is by far the best analysis of immigration that I have read. I loved the parallels you drew between the abortion debate and immigration; as well as the distinction between what is justified and what is moral. With your permission I would like to share this on my Substack.
👏👏👏 A tour de force of an article, Daniel! A piece that every European and western leader needs to read. The immigration crisis is one of the most pressing issues facing Europe today. As you do an excellent job explaining in this incredible piece, Immigration to Europe must be controlled, must have the consent of the population and must be based on the best interests of that country. Mass immigration to Europe over the past thirty-years has been a disaster. Is multiculturalism in Europe a failure? No, I’d say for the most part it’s a success actually. But now we must sand out it’s rougher edges and place limits on it. Europe can take thousands of immigrants per year but NOT millions. Also, the people of that country and their elected officials must be allowed to debate and decide for themselves what their immigration policy will be and how many people they will let in. No European country has any moral obligation to take in an immigrant, refugee or asylum seeker.
Here would be what measures I would suggest Europe does: place common sense restrictions on immigration, switch their focus to high-skilled labor so they get the best and brightest and those in turn who are most likely to assimilate, build a border fence, have their navies patrol the seas and detain anyone trying to illegally get in, put the military on the border, push integration and patriotism hard to newcomers, set up classes where they can learn about the host countries’ culture and values, deport any immigrant or migrant who refuses to integrate or respect Jewish life in Europe, and start government programs that can help lift minorities and immigrants out of poverty and become middle class.
In addition, all European countries should tighten rules for who gets can claim asylum. The EU also needs to reform its rules around immigration and free movement of workers. You can have a degree of freedom of movement in the EU but it has to have limits. The dream of a Europe united in all ways on everything is just totally unrealistic. I never supported Brexit or thought it was a good idea and I still don’t. But there were some legitimate complaints about the EU the Brexiteers had no doubt. You mentioned Britain being forced to take in thousands of Polish workers, Daniel. That is absolutely wrong and the EU needs to change its policies. Workers from the EU can have a degree of freedom of movement. But they must get permission to enter that country and the EU should set limits for how many can come at once. The European Union is warts and all, a great thing and which I believe on balance has done more good than bad. But they must realize that there are limits to European integration.
What is needed in Europe is a balanced situation where the states of Europe collaborate to a degree but also have autonomy in others. A Europe where it’s people see themselves as both European AND British, French, German, etc. Where they are loyal to their continent AND their country! Furthermore, your right Daniel immigrants need to be settled in countries that they are culturally closest to as the first priority. The Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Morocco, and Turkey should be the first to take Middle Eastern immigrants or refugees. China, Japan, the Asian Tigers, and India should be the first to open their doors to Asian immigrants and refugees. Nigeria, Ghana, Botswana, South Africa, Sechyelles, Mauritius, and Gabon should be the first to open their doors to African immigrants and refugees. Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Guyana, Uruguay, and Mexico should be the first to accept in Central or South American refugees. For example, Gazan and Syrian refugees should be resettled in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Bahrain.
In order to ensure a reasonable, safe and sustainable immigration policy for European nations they need to strictly limit the amount of immigration they take in. This will help in prevent ghettoization and make it easier to integrate these folks. Also, the Indigenous people of those European countries should remain the demographic majority and their culture predominate. Allow me to quote the great Charles de Gaulle: “It is very good that there are yellow Frenchman, black Frenchman and brown Frenchman. They prove that France is open to all races and that she has a universal mission. But [it is good] on the condition they remain a small minority. Otherwise France would no longer be France. We are, after all, primarily a European people of the white race. Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion.”
For example, white ethnic Brits should remain the majority in Britain, white ethnic French remain the majority in France and white ethnic Germans should remain the majority in Germany. Should Asian, Arab, African, and Latino immigrants be allowed to come to Europe? Of course! Welcome! Welcome! But they must not outnumber the native population. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with African, Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese Brits nor Vietnamese, Algerian, Moroccan, or Senegalese Frenchman nor Turkish, Ghanaian, Spanish, or Italian Germans. But the native people have a right to ensure ethnic and cultural continuity and to keep their nation’s culture and traditions in place.
Thank-you for the detailed and excellent reply Noah. It is essential that refugees are settled in their own region as a first resort and that immigration which, prior to the last 20 years, was controlled and beneficial, again receives the consent of the host populace.
Imaginary lines based on historical malfeasance have zero ethical relevance and they certainly cannot grant legitimate power to exclude anyone from anything.
This is strange. I did not write it. I walk a lot with the phone in my pocket. Perhaps this happened accidentally. Please excuse me. I look forward to reading and absorbing this article.
Suppose a woman says, “I know a child was conceived. Sure, I took no precautions, but I am not ready to handle the responsibilities of being a parent. I want to go to Europe this summer and a pregnancy would ruin my plans.” The feminist response is to say that we will do everything in our power to let you continue to control your own parental destiny, even if it entails destroying this unborn child.
Contrast this with a man who says, “I know a child was conceived. I was very careful, but our birth control failed. Now, I am not ready to handle parental responsibilities. I want to finish my education and prepare myself financially before parenthood.” The feminist response suddenly replicates the very heart of the pro-life movement and says “You should’ve thought of that before you had sex. Once you have sex, you have to take the consequences.”
So, I have to disagree that the abortion debate is about "choice." It's about "choice for women-only."
This is the best analysis of the morality of migration that I have ever read
Thanks so much Stephen. You are very kind.
Agreed
Daniel- I just want to make explicit one point that you don’t refer to directly. In general, most immigration advocates take a human rights based perspective. People have rights- right to life, freedom of religion, freedom from torture, and much more. These rights are inviolate. So if a person shows that returning them to their home country means there is a likelihood these rights will be violated, they cannot be returned. Whether they have entered their new country legally or illegally, whether they are just one individual or whether there are a million others with the same claim, none of that matters, because these are fundamental rights that cannot be violated no matter what.
And truth is, most countries have more or less agreed to this. There is a treaty called the Covenant Against Torture, for example, which says that torture is such an affront to human dignity that no one can be returned to a place where they are likely to be tortured, no matter what. 171 countries have signed. The right to asylum, saying that no one can be returned to a place where they face persecution based on membership in a protected class, no matter how many asylum seekers there are and independent of any other factors related to the host country, is codified in the refugee convention. That convention was signed by 149 countries.
If I understand correctly, in your article you are advocating a different, non-rights based way of looking at immigration. You are saying that immigration, even from a war zone or place where a refugee may face death, is not a right but rather a privilege that may or may not be granted. There is certainly an appeal to looking at it that way, especially when today the number of aspiring refugees is so vast and the great majority of them have a mixture of political, security, and economic motives. I just point out that in doing so you are also implicitly challenging the entire underpinnings of the human rights movement.
Hi Shlomo, thanks for the comment. I feel that I am affirming the current law at least in so far as refugees need to be housed in the first safe country which almost always is a neighbour with a similar culture. A refugee from Afghanistan should first try India - a free, safe, local country, -before travelling all the way to the UK. That is illegitimate.
There is distinction between homeless nations (like Jews) where the duty to house is universal and major cultures (Arabs, South Americans etc) where there are plenty of compatible and local nations. Why are they coming to Europe / the US?
Congratulations Daniel. As others here have remarked, this is by far the best analysis of immigration that I have read. I loved the parallels you drew between the abortion debate and immigration; as well as the distinction between what is justified and what is moral. With your permission I would like to share this on my Substack.
Thank-you so much for your kind review. How do you wish to share it? Cross-stack?
What do you suggest? I've never shared anyone else's essays on Substack before.
The best method is "cross-stack". Here's how:
-When signed into your Substack account, locate the Substack post you'd like to share.
-Click the three dots (usually found under the author's byline) and select "Cross post".
-In the pop-up window, add a blurb explaining why you're sharing the post with your subscribers.
-Choose who you want to send the cross-post to (Founding members, Paid subscribers, or Everyone). You can also schedule it to publish later.
-If you want the cross-post to also appear as a regular post on your Substack, check the box next to "Publish cross-post to web".
-Your subscribers will receive an email containing your blurb and the shared post.
You can add an intro about why you are sharing it ("the blurb")
Thanks, it might take me a few days but I'll do it!
Intelligent, thoughtful, original and what Substack (should be) about.
Thanks HappyDays. You are very kind.
👏👏👏 A tour de force of an article, Daniel! A piece that every European and western leader needs to read. The immigration crisis is one of the most pressing issues facing Europe today. As you do an excellent job explaining in this incredible piece, Immigration to Europe must be controlled, must have the consent of the population and must be based on the best interests of that country. Mass immigration to Europe over the past thirty-years has been a disaster. Is multiculturalism in Europe a failure? No, I’d say for the most part it’s a success actually. But now we must sand out it’s rougher edges and place limits on it. Europe can take thousands of immigrants per year but NOT millions. Also, the people of that country and their elected officials must be allowed to debate and decide for themselves what their immigration policy will be and how many people they will let in. No European country has any moral obligation to take in an immigrant, refugee or asylum seeker.
Here would be what measures I would suggest Europe does: place common sense restrictions on immigration, switch their focus to high-skilled labor so they get the best and brightest and those in turn who are most likely to assimilate, build a border fence, have their navies patrol the seas and detain anyone trying to illegally get in, put the military on the border, push integration and patriotism hard to newcomers, set up classes where they can learn about the host countries’ culture and values, deport any immigrant or migrant who refuses to integrate or respect Jewish life in Europe, and start government programs that can help lift minorities and immigrants out of poverty and become middle class.
In addition, all European countries should tighten rules for who gets can claim asylum. The EU also needs to reform its rules around immigration and free movement of workers. You can have a degree of freedom of movement in the EU but it has to have limits. The dream of a Europe united in all ways on everything is just totally unrealistic. I never supported Brexit or thought it was a good idea and I still don’t. But there were some legitimate complaints about the EU the Brexiteers had no doubt. You mentioned Britain being forced to take in thousands of Polish workers, Daniel. That is absolutely wrong and the EU needs to change its policies. Workers from the EU can have a degree of freedom of movement. But they must get permission to enter that country and the EU should set limits for how many can come at once. The European Union is warts and all, a great thing and which I believe on balance has done more good than bad. But they must realize that there are limits to European integration.
What is needed in Europe is a balanced situation where the states of Europe collaborate to a degree but also have autonomy in others. A Europe where it’s people see themselves as both European AND British, French, German, etc. Where they are loyal to their continent AND their country! Furthermore, your right Daniel immigrants need to be settled in countries that they are culturally closest to as the first priority. The Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Morocco, and Turkey should be the first to take Middle Eastern immigrants or refugees. China, Japan, the Asian Tigers, and India should be the first to open their doors to Asian immigrants and refugees. Nigeria, Ghana, Botswana, South Africa, Sechyelles, Mauritius, and Gabon should be the first to open their doors to African immigrants and refugees. Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Guyana, Uruguay, and Mexico should be the first to accept in Central or South American refugees. For example, Gazan and Syrian refugees should be resettled in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, and Bahrain.
In order to ensure a reasonable, safe and sustainable immigration policy for European nations they need to strictly limit the amount of immigration they take in. This will help in prevent ghettoization and make it easier to integrate these folks. Also, the Indigenous people of those European countries should remain the demographic majority and their culture predominate. Allow me to quote the great Charles de Gaulle: “It is very good that there are yellow Frenchman, black Frenchman and brown Frenchman. They prove that France is open to all races and that she has a universal mission. But [it is good] on the condition they remain a small minority. Otherwise France would no longer be France. We are, after all, primarily a European people of the white race. Greek and Latin culture, and the Christian religion.”
For example, white ethnic Brits should remain the majority in Britain, white ethnic French remain the majority in France and white ethnic Germans should remain the majority in Germany. Should Asian, Arab, African, and Latino immigrants be allowed to come to Europe? Of course! Welcome! Welcome! But they must not outnumber the native population. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with African, Indian, Pakistani, and Chinese Brits nor Vietnamese, Algerian, Moroccan, or Senegalese Frenchman nor Turkish, Ghanaian, Spanish, or Italian Germans. But the native people have a right to ensure ethnic and cultural continuity and to keep their nation’s culture and traditions in place.
Thank-you for the detailed and excellent reply Noah. It is essential that refugees are settled in their own region as a first resort and that immigration which, prior to the last 20 years, was controlled and beneficial, again receives the consent of the host populace.
Imaginary lines based on historical malfeasance have zero ethical relevance and they certainly cannot grant legitimate power to exclude anyone from anything.
There is no consent for your viewpoint.
EX SF f
This is strange. I did not write it. I walk a lot with the phone in my pocket. Perhaps this happened accidentally. Please excuse me. I look forward to reading and absorbing this article.
Can you explain?
Suppose a woman says, “I know a child was conceived. Sure, I took no precautions, but I am not ready to handle the responsibilities of being a parent. I want to go to Europe this summer and a pregnancy would ruin my plans.” The feminist response is to say that we will do everything in our power to let you continue to control your own parental destiny, even if it entails destroying this unborn child.
Contrast this with a man who says, “I know a child was conceived. I was very careful, but our birth control failed. Now, I am not ready to handle parental responsibilities. I want to finish my education and prepare myself financially before parenthood.” The feminist response suddenly replicates the very heart of the pro-life movement and says “You should’ve thought of that before you had sex. Once you have sex, you have to take the consequences.”
So, I have to disagree that the abortion debate is about "choice." It's about "choice for women-only."
I hear you Fred. Thanks for commenting.
Sorry Anna, I didn't mean to delete it. Please can you reinstate your comment!