The Mass Migration

Immigration is one of the most debated subjects in contemporary America. Lately, it has evolved (or degenerated) into the movement across the border of very large numbers of people. This mass migration deserves to be examined, and contrasted with orderly immigration,
There are some basic fallacies on the subject, which have endured because they have not been critically examined. It is appropriate to discuss a few.

1. This is a country of immigrants [1] and always will be. The first part of the statement may still be true, but the second part has to be changed. There were other representations in the past that have had to be changed. For example, the United States was once known as a country of farmers and many thought that it always would or should be so. Jefferson even wrote: “Carpenters, masons, smiths, are wanting in husbandry: but, for the general operations of manufacture, let our work-shops remain in Europe. It is better to carry provisions and materials to workmen there, than bring them to the provisions and materials, and with them their manners and principles.”[2]
The statements on the continuing need for immigration was true when there were large areas that could not be developed for lack of manpower. One cannot, however, envision the U.S. with the population density of Singapore. Like transfer through a membrane, an equilibrium has to be established, when immigration and emigration balance each other.
2. Give me your tired. [3] This is a case in which poetry got the better of reality. Historically, the immigrants were young, healthy, and itching for work. The immigration authorities rejected the sick, the feeble, the polygamists, anarchists, strikebreakers, etc.[4]
3. Taking masses of immigrants will alleviate world poverty. This fallacy has been already exposed.[5] As the most active and capable people predominantly migrate, were they to stay in the original country they could bring the latter forward. It is also common sense that one cannot relocate six billion people to the U.S.; the solution is to raise the economic level of people in their countries.
4. There must be no discrimination in accepting immigrants. This is a sensitive r topic, but the fallacy is easy to prove. First, it should be understood that discrimination is natural and plays an essential role in the life of an individual and of the society.[6] Otherwise, we must affirm a universal right to immigration and that the recipient country cannot have any say in it. On the contrary, whereas any man has the right to live in some country, he does not have the right to live in any country; otherwise, the concept of country disappears. This is as true as to state that any man has the right to marry, but not all men living within the right time frame had the right to marry Brigitte Bardot. She had the choice of husbands, fully, arbitrarily, and unquestionably. For a country, it is naturally desirable and expected to favor immigrants who would conform with and would not weaken the national character, laws, and customs. Upon seeing the ruins of the great Roman cities of the Asia Minor, H.V. Morton wrote that modern politicians should visit those places to learn how quickly a flowering civilization can be brought to ruin.[7] For example, America cannot offer life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to those for whom rejection of the concept of inalienable rights of individuals is a matter of religion. In this light, the immigration law prior to the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 appears wiser than what came after.[8]
The idea of discrimination being inadmissible led to the criticism of President Trump’s decision to halt immigration from certain Muslim countries that were a source of terrorists. (In fairness, he would have been criticized no matter what he did, as he was when he stated the elementary fact that he did not need vaccination against an infectious disease from which he had just recovered.) A food ingredient showing a tenfold increase in the incidence of cancer will be banned. Nevertheless, if the cancer incidence background is 0.1% of the population, only 1% of those consuming that ingredient will develop cancer. Likewise, if only 1% of the Muslim immigrants accept terrorism as a valid course of action (not to count 10% that are sympathizers), that fraction represents more than a tenfold increase over people from other backgrounds and religions. Everybody understands this principle in other areas. For example, the drug Vioxx was withdrawn when it was found out that 88,000 to 140,000 patients taking it had developed serious heart disease. Yet, this represented 0.125 – 0.175% of those who had taken it.[9] Many people who had their suffering alleviated by that medicine resented the decision bitterly.

With those general truths established, an examination of the phenomenon of mass migration and of the policy that allows it can be presented.

1. The current wave has occurred to a large extent from a few small countries in Central America. For them, the result is a depletion of human resources. This process has been also observed in Europe for Romania, from where very large numbers of people have left, especially for Italy and Spain (because of similarity in languages). The result is described, appropriately as cultural genocide, term applicable to the Central American countries as well. Moreover, various reports have placed the sums paid by those trekking to the U.S. to the shady characters guiding them to there, at $4,000 to $9,000. That money could go a good way toward establishing some business in the country of origin, particularly if resources were pooled by several individuals. U.S. business and government would do better to assist such endeavors, also pressing the governments of those countries to establish conditions for capital accumulation, protection of land and business ownership, etc.[10]
Fifty years ago, the promotion of immigration to the U.S. of the most capable individuals from other countries was criticized as “brain drain.” A consequence (or a cause?) of recruitment from abroad is the neglect of developing the talent and skills of local people. A colleague of mine once explained how lucky our department was in attracting foreign graduate students. (Indeed, the average quality of a PhD candidate is better if the person is the graduate of the Indian IT than of MIT.) As a plus, the children of educated newcomers, as a norm, did better in school than native children.
The latter bonus is, however, illusory, as the American school system assiduously discourages excellence and fosters anti-intellectual attitudes, whence the children of the next generation are not different from the rest. The country cannot continue with a thin layer of people at high intellectual level, freshly imported, and an ever growing mass of people mediocre or worse. Whereas importing the brightest may seem to save the day, the real solution is to reform radically the education (K to college) and change the general attitude toward intellectual merit and achievement. In every place I lived, I have seen signs on lawns when children excelled in some sport, but never about a child excelling in scholarship. The same skewed pattern of recognition is most often manifested by university administrators. Additionally, or even ahead of that, encouraging and supporting stable families that manifest an interest in their childrens’ intellectual development is most needed.
A special example of “brain drain” has been provided by the U.S. Catholic Church. Young men preparing for, or already ordained into priesthood, came from Africa for studies and stayed for years after that, serving in parishes. I met a few myself. The US bishops seem to compensate for their failure to nurture vocations, while Africa is in great need of evangelization. Counting on foreign born priests is not new, however. Before 1950 Ireland was the source.[11]
2. Any country is a sum total of economic, social, political, and, most important, spiritual factors, constituting its way of life. In accepting immigrants, any government must ensure the continuity of that way of life. Being a refugee myself and having known others like me, I know that it takes years of immersion into a new way of life for someone to understand and assimilate to it. In the 1880-s, it was rather hard to survive without assimilating, so the process was harsh, but effective. Current conditions produce a disincentive to assimilation of large groups.
Finally, the illegal entry of large numbers brings in people who have no consideration for or desire to assimilate into some American way of life, or others that intend to subvert it. Irrespective of other considerations, the unwanted and uninvited movement of large numbers of foreign people onto the territory of a country is an invasion, and should be stopped, if necessary by armed force.
If the underlying rationale for the current attitude toward this non-armed invasion has, indeed, merit, we must conclude that Hitler’s fault was the wrong strategy. Instead of sending his Panzers into France (via Belgium), he should have sent a few millions women, carrying babies in arms, and occupy France peacefully.
The above analysis is based on the premise that the American system and particular brand of civilization is good and worth preserving. Recently, this thesis has been rejected by some influential people among politicians and academics. They claim, first, that the free market system is unjust, and should be replaced by socialism. As history shows, socialism has been tried many times, from Mesopotamia at 2200 BC,[12] through the Incas, through the New England pilgrims,[13] to USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and of course, the primitive socialism of some US Indian reservations. All failed, miserably, not because of faulty application, but because socialism is an absurd theory. That it is seriously considered is another proof of the disastrous state of American education.
The second claim is that US is and always has been, racist, exploiting and oppressing its nonwhite population. Rather than embark upon a long rationale, we can consider a simple empirical observation to prove the stupidity of this thesis. There haven’t been examples of nonwhite Americans fleeing to Africa; the reports from some that went there to visit are illuminating.[14] At the same time, there have been many Africans trying to relocate to this country, presumably to be exploited, oppressed, and discriminated against. These days, some Africans fly into Mexico and pay coyotes to carry them with the flow of illegal migrants.
3. Stopping the illegal flow of people (like of any other illegal activity) has three facets: prevention, apprehension, and retribution/punishment. The first can be done directly, by physical barriers, like the southern wall, or indirectly, by arranging with the countries of origin or transit to stop the migrants there. (The latter approach has been tried with some success by Mr. Trump, despite being sabotaged by the entire political class, the federal bureaucracy, and members of his own administration.) Walls are not, however a complete solution. If the southern border became impenetrable, people would be dropped from boats (even submarines), or would come through Canada,
Any law breaking must be addressed along all three lines. Otherwise, a solution is practically impossible. For example, if there were no penalty for shoplifting and the thieves could keep the loot, a store would need individual guards for each shopper at all times (including in the fitting rooms and restrooms), which is prohibitively expensive. If the penalty were execution, nobody would dare steal anything, but everybody would be so scared of taking perhaps something by mistake, that no customer would enter the shop. For deterrent effectiveness, one must maximize the product of the two factors.
Likewise, full prevention of illegal entries can be achieved only at infinite cost. The apprehension of those who sneak through must be successful. The convoluted legal system and procedures these days ensure that the constitutional requirement of a speedy trial is an illusion. Moreover, various groups, churches, and communities, or states, protect illegal entrants from apprehension, calling it asylum granting. It is, of course, a much easier way to feel good about oneself, than building businesses, schools, hospitals, etc., in the countries where those people come from. Anyway, there should be no exception in the punishment of those who aid fugitives from justice.
Finally, there should be a quick and effective manner of punishment for illegal entry. In the current practice and legislative framework, however, the punishment factor in the U.S. is essentially nonexistent. If a border crasher manages to stay long enough, it is widely (and wrongly) considered that expulsion is too harsh a penalty. For someone who arrived very young, it is argued that US is the only country he has known and he should not be deported to a foreign country. This pseudo argument negates immigration per se, because all immigrants come to a country they never knew and leave the only country they have known.
If illegal entry does not entail strict expulsion, no affordable amount of prevention or effectiveness of apprehension can be effective. The captured illegal entrants should not be sent just across the border, in Mexico, but put in boats and disembarked in Guatemala at the northernmost. For unaccompanied children, churches and philanthropic organizations could set up centers in that place, where the children would stay until claimed by their families.
All entries should be applied for at the U.S. embassy in the applicant’s country. Illegal entry should automatically disqualify someone from ever applying. For asylum seekers, the approach used successfully for those fleeing the communist regimes in Europe should be used: apply for asylum after crossing the first border from the country of origin and wait for the answer there.[15]
The penalties for employing illegal entrants should be harsh, but at the same time prospective employers should be allowed to hire (and advertise for hiring) in foreign countries, through the American consulates, which should also receive applications to work here. Proof that candidates for the job cannot be found in this country should be required. Temporary work permits should not be a pathway to immigration, but people who have worked here for an established length of time should have priority in applying for immigration after return to their countries. Furthermore, to send money from the U.S. to another country, proof of legal residence should be required.
4. Some logical consequences of the current policy of allowing anyone to enter without forms or requirements must be considered.
First, the system of passports should be abandoned. If people can come on land, they should also be allowed to come by plane and by ship. That will even the chances for folks from farther places. There are, for instance, enough people lacking liberty in Belarus to justify their entry ahead that of Hondurans. Such a measure will save the government money. Furthermore, the requirement that American citizens carry passports for traveling abroad should be abolished. Why should citizens be asked to pay up and waste time for a document that is not required of others? Of course, agreements with other countries to accept entrants from U.S. with no passports (illegal entrants) should be reached. If the principle is valid, as we are told, they will accept it.
5. By the same principle of reciprocity, U.S. citizens should be allowed to settle in other countries, no questions asked. We could gather enough millions of law-abiding Americans to move to Honduras or El Salvador, establish a democratic system based on the framework of laws existing here (or which used to exist here), and live happily ever after.

[1] J. F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants, Harper Collins, 2008,
[2] Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, (Richmond: J. W. Randolph, 1853),
[3] Emma Lazarus (1883), cited on the Statue of Liberty,
[4] (a) ; (b) Isaac Don Levine, Eyewitness to History, Hawthorn Books, NY, 1973.
[5] Roy Beck,
[6] (a) W. E. Williams: Life without discrimination would be impossible, Deseret News, Sep 6, 2006,;
(b) D. Fărcaşiu, From Protecting Children’s Biological Integrity To Anti-discrimination Laws, www., 05/20/2021
[7] H.V. Morton, In the Steps of St. Paul, Da Capo Press, 2002.
[8] Jerry Kammer, The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965, Sept. 30,2015,
[10] Hernando De Soto, (a) The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else, Basic Books, 2000; (b) The Other Way, Harper Collins, 1989.
[11] Kevin Dowd, Where have all the Irish priests in America gone? @IrishCentral, Jan 03, 2017
[12] Igor Shafarevich, Socialism in Our Past and Future, in From Under the Rubble, A. Solzhenitsyn, Editor, Little Brown & Co., Boston, 1975, p. 26
[13] Carole Hornsby Haynes, The American Pilgrims’ Disastrous Experiment in Socialism, Education News, Nov 25, 2020;
[14] K. B. Richburg, Out of America, Basic Books, New York, 1997
[15] D. Fărcaşiu, An Answer to The Syrian Refugee Crisis, www., 09/19/2015