Germans shutting down immigration because they are tired of getting wealthier and enjoying lower crime rates?

“Merkel, to Survive, Agrees to Border Camps for Migrants” (nytimes) is about the world’s smartest leader (she has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry!) substantially shutting down the pipeline of migrants into Germany’s welfare state.

The greatest American minds say that unskilled immigration makes a society better off. For example, “Immigrants Do Not Increase Crime, Research Shows” (Scientific American, from February 2017, just after the Trumpenfuhrer moved into the Reichskanzlei):

There are a number of ideas among scholars that explain why more immigration leads to less crime. The most common explanation is that immigration reduces levels of crime by revitalizing urban neighborhoods, creating vibrant communities and generating economic growth.

Several different Facebook friends recently posted this as a status. I responded with

If low-skill immigrants boost an economy and lower crime rates (as this article says), why isn’t there competition among countries to attract low-skill immigrants? Why would the U.S. have a big supply at the southern border, for example? Shouldn’t Mexico have snapped up Spanish-speaking migrants from Central and South America before they get a chance to cross the U.S. border?

The response was that wages were lower in Mexico.

If wages in Mexico are low and low-skill immigrants make an economy richer, shouldn’t Mexicans be even more eager than Americans to persuade migrants to settle? Why are Mexicans rejecting migrants? (see “Mexico fails to offer migrants asylum, Amnesty International reports”)

If you’re against inequality, which I hope that you are, shouldn’t you be upset that a lower-income country such as Mexico is being denied the opportunity to benefit from settling low-skill migrants? A rich country such as the U.S. getting yet richer by vacuuming up all of the low-skill migrants (and also enjoying a reduction in crime) is not a reasonable goal for anyone passionate about equality.

World Bank data show that Mexico has nearly the same labor force participation rate as the U.S. (61 percent versus 62 percent) so should be equally boosted by immigrant labor.

Ultimately the answer from the pro-immigration believers was that Mexicans are not intelligent enough to see the true value of unskilled immigrants and/or that Mexicans are racist. Somehow the topic switched to Europe. A low-skill immigration enthusiast wrote “For a while Merkel’s German govt seemed to be arguing that it was their answer to an aging population and growing need for workers. Sweden also. In the past year or so there has been a lot of pushback on that less for economic reasons than nativist.”

(i.e., it turns out that the people who disagree with him are nativist/racist)

My response:

so after several years of experiencing increased wealth and reduced crime due to low-skill immigration, Germans and Swedes have decided that it would be intolerable to keep getting wealthier and safer?

Apparently it is now official. Germans are so tired of getting wealthier and safer that they are building, well, concentration camps.

European readers: What happens now? Do all of the migrants who wanted to settle in Germany now go to some other European country? Do millions end up camped out at the German border indefinitely? Do fewer migrants show up because it is now tough to transition into the normal welfare lifestyle anywhere within Europe?


12 thoughts on “Germans shutting down immigration because they are tired of getting wealthier and enjoying lower crime rates?

  1. I’m impressed with the indefatigability of your continual attempts to apply logic to liberal progressivism. You treat them like the religious believers they are, but the problem is that unlike other religions, theirs doesn’t have an official Book Of True Things, the way they make it all up as they go along makes it impossible to engage them in any kind of debate.

  2. Germany and the Sweden were pretty much the only countries that welcomed them, and both hesitate to continue. Eastern Europe refused to take any immigrants, and most other countries took far fewer and were less enthusiastic. So, I don’t have any idea what to do with them. I guess that’s the general issue.

  3. Polymath’s excellent comment hits the nail right on the head.

    Not only do progressives make it up as they go along, but they keep changing their True Things as rapidly as possible, marking as taboo beliefs they held firmly just a decade ago. (Obama swerved from opposing to supporting gay marriage in just one presidency.) This moral flexibility is a feature, not a bug. It helps them identify and ostracize people who aren’t sufficiently woke to the revolutionary struggle. Also, it serves their true secret purpose, the envy-driven destruction of all Truth, Beauty, and Virtue.

  4. I imagine if you read the NY Times article that you referred to at the top of your post you also saw the 2 sidebars that accompanied it (at least on which report that migration to Europe is today at a 25 year LOW and that the persistence myths about migrants and unemployment and crime, which are promoted by many on the right, are, sadly, affecting public opinion.

    Today’s news is about POLITICS not the actual migrant situation in Germany or Europe. Politicians trading on people’s fears and Merkel forced into a corner by opponents eager to gain leverage over her. The facts do not support the fear.

  5. “[NYT] report that migration to Europe is today at a 25 year LOW”

    That’s an odd statement. Can it be that the NYT is lying ? What’s the statistical source for the assertion ?

    According to Eurostat ( ), the number of asylum applications in 2017 was about 700,000, slightly higher than in 2014, with the peak of 1.3 million in 2015. In 2006, the number was about 200,000.

    What’s the NYT definition of “25 year LOW” ?

    If we look at the number of illegal entries into EU, the trend is similar to that of asylum applications ( Again, 2017 is NOT the “25 year LOW”.

    Likewise, in Germany, there were about 25,000 asylum seekers per year on average between 2006-2009. After the drop from its peak of about 890,000 in 2015, it was still about 222,000 in 2017, nowhere near the “25 year LOW”.

  6. Ivan: Let’s see what we would need for the NYT assertion to be true. World population would have to be smaller than it was 25 years ago and/or mobility would have to be significantly lower and/or the disparity of lifestyle between Europe and Africa or the Middle East would have to be smaller (so as to make migration less attractive).

    Bill: Why it is “trading on people’s fears” and “The facts do not support the fear”? Suppose that someone is trying to figure out whether Tide is better than the Seventh Generation purportedly organic laundry detergent swill that they sell at Whole Foods. The curious person does a few loads of laundry and comes to a conclusion. Shouldn’t that direct experience with Tide supplant any “fears” that the person previously had regarding Tide? You’re saying that with 1.6 million asylum-seekers currently living in Germany (see ; the Reuters folks and the NYT folks perhaps should coordinate on their message to the Great Unwashed!), the typical German is basing his or her opinion regarding asylum-seekers on abstract fear rather than concrete personal experience?

  7. I like that last article that Bill cited, . It says “rich countries should probably start writing new rules and creating new institutions to manage the large immigration flows of the future. They could work to promote new destinations and develop mutually beneficial forms of migration (say, varieties of temporary work visas). They could establish mechanisms to assist vulnerable native-born people, whose jobs might be at stake.”

    These NYT geniuses are full of great ideas!

    Maybe these rich countries could create a program where if you don’t work you get a free house? And also you would get free health care? And if you were hungry you could get free food paid for with a sort of government-provided “stamp”? And maybe you should also get a free smartphone? If we did all of that then surely nobody would have an issue with millions of freshly arrived migrants, regardless of their proficiency in the host country’s language, education level, and skills!

  8. The following article is very interesting in the way EU is addressing immigration issues:

    This makes me thing: what if the US does the same? How will the liberals response?

    Civilization migrating for a better life is nothing new and will continue to be the case no matter what. This is not a rich / poor country problem, it is how society evolves. The problem is, once you make it easy to accept new comers, others will follow expecting the same benefit that first generation / wave of immigrant receive. This is fine, until when things get out of control which is what we are seeing now.

    Liberals will want you to believe that the sky is always blue and your backyard swimming pool can hold infinite swimmers! And if you do not have a swimming pool, you will be required to build one!!

    One last point, a good number of immigrant, especial those who do not fully adopt to the new life / country the migrated to, are never happy and as a result, they will not contribute. I know and have seen it on firsthand.

  9. Guest1: Thanks for that link. No wonder Singapore is doing so well! I hadn’t even heard of the “Senior Wrangler.” Incredible that Maxwell was ranked only #2. It was 96 degrees here in the Boston area today. Without Maxwell’s Equations it would have been very uncomfortable indeed!

    I guess we have to recognize Lee Hsien Loong as the smartest leader. He was smart enough to earn the top math prize. Then he was smart enough to realize that anything STEM was likely to be a ghetto job so he didn’t bother with a STEM Ph.D.

  10. Can’t believe I reached age 80 and never heard of the Senior Wrangler. Mr. Loong is indeed very accomplished.

Comments are closed.