The people attempting, and mainly succeeding, in migrating to Europe certainly feel it will benefit them. This article lists why it is not in the people of Europe’s interest to accept them.
1) Mutual Benefits.
The people and sites which support migrants focus on the benefits to the migrants but make no attempt to explain what if any are the benefits to the host country. This is odd in that normally in charitable works it is for the giver to decide what they want to give not the other way around which amounts to coercion, theft or plunder.
It’s reasonable to expect in the dealings between men that there are benefits to both sides. Indeed in the societies which the migrants are leaving this is also the case, so the migrants are apparently expecting others to behave in a way which differs from their own pattern of behaviour or morality. The only people on the planet who think we should help regardless of any disadvantage to ourselves would be utopian international communists who think everything should be provided for free in any state of the world at the recipients choosing.
2) Obligations to people are not equal.
A moral code can be anything you want it to be so I cannot prove the proposition that obligations to people are not equal. It’s an assertion but one that most people would accept. It is not moral to harm the fortunes of those closer to you for the benefit of those for whom you are less responsible.
The effect of migration is to increase the supply of labour mainly at the low paid end. Some richer groups, such as employers of labour or people wanting cheaper services can benefit. The less well-off will face lower wages and more unemployment. The effect of this will be to increase the disparities between rich and poor. It will reduce productivity improvements because with cheap labour the benefits of automation are reduced. It may reduce training opportunities also if employers can find the skills already within the migrant population. Housing costs will increase and the education and health services will be under more strain particularly as migrant families tend to be larger and pay lower taxes. With the higher population the GNP should increase whilst the GNP per capita may decline.
My argument here is that by being generous to people from elsewhere you are undermining the benefits to your own people who you are more directly responsible for. European parliaments should look after the interests of European electorates.
3) Charity should be under the control of the giver not coerced
The difference between charity and theft is consent. By travelling to Europe the migrants are able to disrupt Europe and demand charity whether people want to give it or not. Having a unified border or national borders does not affect this issue. The problem is that the outer border is not policed. This makes not only the number of migrants uncontrollable but also the nature of who is coming across. The illegitimate can freely mix with the genuine refugees.
4) The commitment is unbounded and not under Europe’s control
There are always going to be wars and famines. It’s unwise to give an open ended commitment for things you do not control. Its equivalent to giving the people of North Africa a blank cheque. Accepting migrants under these circumstances will encourage more to make the journey. As conditions in Europe are better for most people the number of people who would want to make the journey if they thought it was likely to be successful could be very high.
European solidarity cannot occur unless you find a solution which is likely to work and therefore people can agree on. Spreading migrants evenly around Europe would make things worse not better because it would only encourage more to arrive. It is continuing the pull factor and undermines people who want to control the problem. To fix things you have to:
a) stop wars and famine happening elsewhere and raise living standards to European levels! I mention this for completeness but I don’t think its achievable.
b) control entry to Europe at the borders. If you can’t do this there is no point in having a debate in Europe as no-one is in control anyway. You don’t need UN approval to defend your own borders. If you don’t control the borders jointly then countries will eventually go their own way. Europe has the capacity to police its borders but the contradictory policies undermine this. The front line states have no incentive to police the borders if other countries are willing to accept them.
c) Refugees to be collected at the nearest place of refuge. The refugee camps can be funded by Europe as is probably needed. Genuine refugees can be given papers to travel to Europe. At this stage refugee sharing may make sense. Other people get turned back. Admittance should only be made from the refugee camps that way there is an incentive for genuine refugees not to enter Europe illegally.