Talking refugee “quotas”

I think western countries … will make a big mistake in not accepting large numbers of these people.
They have proven their mettle by what they have gone through to get out of (e.g.) Syria. And they will
be among the most loyal advocates of “western civilisation” and toleration.
- Mario Rizzo, spotted by Cafe Hayek

Helen Clark says New Zealand can accept more refugees, and the NZ government should therefore raise NZ's refugee quota.

Former Prime Minister Helen Clark last night drew parallels between New Zealander settlers from humble beginnings in Britain and the thousands of boat people from Africa landing in Europe." …
    Where migration is properly organised and legal that will be of benefit to the country receiving people and of benefit to the country which is sending them. But we see so much pressure now for migration which is propelled by war and conflict and just by plain poverty.
    "And let's face it, a lot of our forebears left the United Kingdom because it was very difficult to get ahead so they saw an opportunity to go and start afresh somewhere else. That's pretty much the motivation that propels people ... to try the desperate journey across the Mediterranean."
    One of the ways the situation could be ameliorated was with more legal migration, she said…
    Lifting the refugee quota beyond 750 in New Zealand would help the extra 250 or so people who would come, she said.

I have to say, agree with her.

I agree at least with her main argument, if not her actual numerical conclusion.

There are 60 million refugees in the world today, many of them emanating from conflicts in which the NZ military played at least a small part. UN planners setting “quotas” for how many of these human beings will be carted around the planet (and to which parts) just further dehumanises people already brutalised by years of conflict.

My basic position is not that we should necessarily be encouraging these refugees to come here, or writing “quotas” for refugees that need to be either filled or closed off, but we should at least recognise that we have no moral reason to exclude these people should they elect to make their way here peacefully.

The basic fact is that many of the world’s new refugees come from war zones in which we bear some responsibility. We should then, along with others, take some responsibility for the people displaced.

A further basic fact is that, since you and I and every other New Zealander don’t own all of New Zealand—we, each of us, only own what we own—peaceful  people have every right to enter these islands freely, the only justifiable controls at the island’s boundaries being to exclude those who are provably not peaceful.

Those are the basic moral facts: that peaceful people should be able to bass borders freely, especially those in whom we have played some part in forcing that move.

The basic economic fact, on which so many get mired, is that migrants—refugees and otherwise—are far and away not a burden to their new country but a boon. Immigrants do not threaten our jobs — on the contrary, they create new possibilities and demand in our economy. Refugees and other migrants are not primarily consumers, but producers. They are not just mouths to feed, but human beings with brains, brawn and ability. Most refugees start with fewer skills on paper and lower incomes than so-called economic migrants, yet as US figures show within a short time “those refugees were making 20 percent more income and improved their language skills more than economic migrants.” After all, they have a far  greater dedication to their new home: unlike economic migrants, then can very rarely ever go back home.

Many recent refugees too come from the Syrian civil war. You may be interested to know that one measure of the integration of Syrians in the US economy is that “there are over 150,000 Americans of Syrian descent, with a median household income of over $65,000, compared to about $53,000 for native-born Americans.” That fact is near-universal. People with the get-up-and-go to get the hell out of a war zone will generally have more gumption and more producing power both than the native-born.

But, I hear you say, they’ll all come here to claim our welfare. True, many do. But even the way our settlement system thrusts welfare upon them, very quickly most suck off the bonds of state and trike out on their own. Reduce the state welfare at their arrival and encourage more private sponsorship instead ---and with greater average incomes their own compatriots here would be in a great position to act as sponsor—and you not only reduce the time these new NZers spend on the welfare teat, but encourage their more rapid assimilation into their new country. Because…

The humanitarian relief that refugees need isn’t food stamps once they arrive [here] – it’s an escape from violence and oppression.  Refugees aren’t fleeing Syria because their Syrian equivalent of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits expired; they are fleeing because they are being murdered.  

Remember that too when you’re talking about refugee quotas.

RELATED POSTS:

• Do Refugees Need Food Stamps or Freedom? – Alex Nowsarath, NOT PC
• The great immigration menace - another ‘lump of labour’ fallacy tale – Patrick Carvalho, SBS
• As tragedies shock Europe, a bigger refugee crisis looms in the Middle East – Liz Sly, WASHINGTON POST
• Welfare State Leaves Boat-People to Die  - Peter Cressswell, SCOOP, 2001
• Bloodstains on the Refugee Red Carpet – Peter Cresswell, SOLO HQ, 2001
• Never Mind How Much Worse Things Could Get – Tibor Machan, REBIRTH OF REASON
• The US should be a home for refugees – Alex Nowsarath, THE HILL
• Immigration Plus Welfare State Equal Police State – GEORGE REISMAN’S BLOG
• Fighting Terrorism Requires Legalizing Immigration – James Valliant, SOLO