Not-so-open Government Borders, Market Borders and Europe's 'Génération Identitaire'

In case you missed it, @Lukewearechange filmed "Génération Identitaire" and Lauren Southern in their newest activism exposing a NGO vessel heading off to Libya in order to shuttle refugees back to Sicily. While those NGO's create a whole rescue(=human trafficking) industry and incentivize refugees, increasingly risking their lives, to be picked up in international waters by their vessels, they are doing so in coordination with the Italian coastal guard. I urge everyone to read the article from GEFIRA for more chilling insight and details about the shady, deadly, corrupt and thus lucrative nature of these activities, which are solely built around the paradox of an actual prohibition of migration and a factual open borders mandate. 

A state of limbo in immigration policy, that doesn't get mentioned often. To call our policies regarding migration 'free immigration' or 'open borders' is simply not true. We rather have highly restrictive immigration and badly managed borders, with devastating incentives for refugees and migrants, while some shady black market cooperation with activists and criminals are added on top of it. Needless to say, that these 'government interventions' to counter the 'government-created crisis' are backfiring and even worsen the problem we face today. An excerpt from the article:

 Since 2015 more and more private NGOs are involved in the illegal migrant ferrying from Libya to Italy. They all claim to be on a rescuing mission, but are they? “We can now confirm that at least 3,800 people have died, making 2016 the deadliest ever,” William Spindler, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), declared last week. The previous record, 3,771 lives lost, was set in 2015. Despite a sharp drop in the number of refugees fleeing across the Mediterranean, from 1.01 million last year to 327,800 so far this year, more and more people drown at sea or die as a result of other causes 

That is centralized government for you. 

Apart from a devastating currency, protectionism and corruption, we witness how a single chancellor of a leading European country can create a chaotic and deadly ripple effect worldwide with nothing more than an unprofessional PR-stunt and cause havoc in the core functions of its own and neighbouring countries, namely security and maintenance of borders. And of course, not without creating thousands of casualties on the go and even more on the long run. 

Maybe not entirely deliberate, but sure as hell systematically, the government creates a crisis in a matter, that wouldn't even be a problem in a first place (in this case is even under the control and management solely by the state itself), just to later channel the stirred up anger of its citizens and misuse any striving opposition into new expansionary laws of the state apparatus. As I look at it, we are now left with the decision between a huge, unsustainable social industry, or a just as huge and authoritarian security industry in order to deal with the unnatural migrant influx and the highly paradoxical bureaucracy-jungle. The latter is an intervention, the alt-right or identitarians will be cheering on. But these are a lesser evil at best, if such solutions as a high security state, remigration and repressive laws, like headscarf bans or immigration quotas do not backfire and hurt migrants, refugees or natives themselves.

The topic of immigration policy is particularly important to me,

as I myself came to Germany with my parents, as I was a Baby. I'm not at all opposed to a natural right to migrate, even with state borders and would argue to anyone, who thinks of immigrants as "parasitic" or a threat in any kind, that even the lowest skilled worker is able to create more value, than he consumes. I often try to simplify my stance into this question: "how much bread can a person bake in one day, and how much does he have to eat"? I think most people fall into the category of being able to bake more bread than to eat. The works of Brian Caplan or Steve Davies from a free-market standpoint make clear, how immigration typically is a net win. Any broad-brushed suggestions of data, that asylum seekers and migrants are leeching of the welfare state, apart from being examined closely for misinterpretation, should as well hold as a good reason to get rid of the welfare state as an obstructive factor in creating value in society. The person who wants to restrict immigration, referring to the welfare state, already resigned himself to its existence. 

Immigrants living off of welfare? Taking our jobs? No good workers?

Contrary to the common wisdom of migration skeptics, migrants do not migrate into another country, just to "live off of welfare". This is an unbacked claim, thrown around far to often. Many, if not all, come with the naive notion, that Europe is a place, where you find a job easily and fulfill your dreams. Of course there is incentive to come to places, where social security is the highest and surely there are groups of criminals, who make money of defrauding the welfare system. But this is nothing more than a symptom of the badly managed welfare state, just as the rescue vessels are a symptom of the even worse managed migration policy. We have to keep in mind, that in order to extinguish fires, we have to fight it at its source. The crisis we have with immigration today is unnatural and purely systematic. 

Also, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying, that many asylum seekers and migrants right now aren't living of the welfare state. But it would be foolish to ignore the false incentives this system is signaling, as well as the obvious fact, that these people are not even allowed to work. The process of getting a workers licence in Germany for example is abnormal and unbearable. Even if they have a workers license, the employer is forced(!) to hire an unemployed native, before he is allowed to employ a migrant. My father has a fast-food store and naturally for this industry always has problems finding a motivated and good worker. It was a painful and long lasting hurdle, still going on today to have his favorite worker (low skilled, highly motivated African Muslim) be fully employed in his business. We can be sure, that there won't be many, who manage to go through all of this crazy bureaucracy apparatus. Criminal activity and violent behavior is also a direct outcome of this. For both unemployed migrants and natives, who can't just work for whatever interventionist reasons.

German anarcho-capitalist Stefan Blankertz engaged the topic of unskilled, poor labor and immigration in a great way, by pointing out, how the USA built up its capital mostly by the working class. In his book "Anarchokapitalismus - Gegen Gewalt" (Anarcho-Capitalism - Counter Coercion)  he also writes:

Up until the 19th century immigration into the USA didn't state a problem. Immigrants brought different languages, cultures and religions, but most notably they were poor and unskilled. Only in the second half of the 19th century it was tried to contain and channel immigration. From this moment on formal education was lauded as the instrument of "integration" (instead of the integration through working life) 

He goes on to talk about immigration quotas, which are actually another statist (non-)solution discussed in public and politics:

The USA issued the earliest quotas against immigration in the so called "Progressive Era" in the beginning of the 20th century, as where centralism, interventionism and the first social reforms showed there first disastrous effects. Incidentally, Jews obtained the smallest quota, which of all immigration groups featured the smallest average IQ. To save the USA from a "mental enfeeblement", their immigration got restricted, especially. These quotas were still in place, when Jews tried to flee from Europe and Germany in the times of national-socialism.

Well, I hope you see, how these quotes are a huge blow to both the left and the right at the same time. You got to love Blankertz for this. He is a natural in exposing flawed arguments, coercive implications and the downright hypocrisy of both factions, while addressing the elephant in the room. (Granted, having a libertarian perspective on such things also makes it easier to strike blows against the collectivists.) Especially the notion of the early progressive policies, like quotas based on an average IQ, which is flawed in so many aspects and yet used time and again by the alt-right and identitarians. Just one of many hints of how left-leaning and collectivist these groups tend to be, without noticing. 

Immigration today, regarding Security 

We have the problem of security today, regarding the concerns of terrorism and a deeper look at the rise in criminality. There is also this huge portion of skeptics, who focus their criticism on Islam as a root cause of many problems. This is another matter and has to be dealt with cautiously, since many arguments I keep hearing are flawed in my opinion. Even though there are some, that should be emphasized and dealt with. But I will discuss this in future posts by publishing more work of libertarian thinkers and the translation of my articles around that topic. For now I want to keep it to the fundamentals of migration and government run borders.

If you are interested in the realistic and effective libertarian solution, I would like to share this article from Jeff Deist from the Mises Institute with you. The fact that this article holds a tiny bit more skeptical approach to the migration issue, implicates the beauty of the principled libertarian stance and the cause for market-borders. No matter what opinion you hold personally on migration, the libertarian solution is the only effective and applicable one to manage this issue in favor of all parties involved.

Conclusion? 

So, the only logically consequent approach is laid out clearly: End government borders and security. Open up  market based/ private industry for it and the ideal of open borders and free immigration can be achieved in a voluntary and thus much more effective, secure and humanly way. Make the regions and individuals decide, how many people they can and want to invite. Let private persons stand surety for the individuals brought onto their own property. Do not take away every persons right to privately managed borders, just to mess it up in a centralized, collective mismanagement. Also, never get tired stop pointing out how wars, famine and other state-created disasters are the root causes of our migrant-crisis today.

What are your thoughts on migration as a whole and facing the situation today? 

And what do you think about the activism of the identitarians? Is there any question or remark you want me to ask Martin Sellner, who was part of that project, in an upcoming interview?

P.s.: I beg you to keep your rants against Islam, muslims and subsaharan Africans to a minimum. There is plenty of occasions, where we can discuss this topic in a serious manner in my future posts. Just look at the trending comments in the videos I shared. Some of them are simplistic, others downright racist and hateful. And all of them are leading and trending in the section as ever. Such comments are the opposite of valuable discourse and that's exactly what I want to counter with my work here. If you feel the need to say something about muslims, africans or religion, be sure to make your notion in a solution based, factual and neutral manner. Thank you a lot!