Just days after The Economist primed the world with its narrative that sending 1.2 bilion unskilled Africans to Europe would increase global GDP, The EU’s executive has unveiled plans to resettle at least 50,000 refugees, focusing on people from northern Africa, to bypass smugglers.
As we noted previously, The Economist’s argument is plain idiotic.
The Economist confuses countries with companies that are profit-oriented, and where people are disposable resources. Yet, countries are communities, and citizens do not usually expect their governments to merely maximize GDP. History teaches us that migration causes social unrest, disrupts social cohesion and ultimately the stability of the recipient nation. And even if we set aside these social or national considerations, the Economist’s reasoning is still false.
The whole argument breaks down on social security and the massive world oversupply of unskilled labour.
Social security determines the minimum price of labour.
If there is abundance of unskilled workers, governments step in and buy or take out of the market the oversupply of labourers for a minimum price called social welfare.
And so, as DW.com reports, the EU central planners think more immigrants, more social welfare, more forced dependency on the uber-alles-arching Brussels corporotocracy…
The plan announced by the European Commission, the EU’s executive arm, on Wednesday involved setting aside 500 million euros ($587 million) for the resettlement effort.
It would involve bringing at least 50,000 people considered the most vulnerable and in need of protection directly to Europe over the next two years. The focus should be on people in North Africa and the Horn of Africa, the commission said, mentioning Libya, Egypt, Niger, Sudan, Chad and Ethiopia. Libya is the main departure point for people making dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean in smugglers’ boats to reach Europe.
“Europe has to show that it is ready to share responsibility with third countries, notably in Africa. People who are in genuine need of protection should not risk their lives or depend on smugglers,” EU Migration Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos told media in Brussels.
The EU has already resettled 23,000 people, mainly from refugee camps in Turkey and the Middle East, under previous resettlement schemes.
The move is part of the EU’s effort to cope with an ongoing migration crisis which has seen more than a million refugees and unauthorized migrants enter the bloc over the past two years and threatened European solidarity. The recommendations from Brussels are not legally binding on member states, which are individually responsible for deciding on resettlement numbers.
Of course, as is well known, European countries have struggled to agree on and implement migration policies as well as deals to distribute asylum seekers who arrive at EU border countries across the bloc. Separately, Brussels on Wednesday also released plans to allow countries in the Schengen free movement area to reintroduce border controls for security reasons for up to three years during a crisis.
Of course, it is not lost on us that Europe is already struggling to distribute thousands of migrants in the bloc, so how does this help? As we concluded previously,
Africa has 1.2 billion people that will double in the next 25 years, of which huge numbers are about to join European labour force in the coming decades. At the same time the highly educated and skilled western populations will decline, reducing the demand for unskilled labour even further. There is no chance that Europe can afford to keep its social welfare without enforcing a quota on migrants. And even if social security is dropped altogether, the European labour market will reach a situation where there are so many labourers that they become as worthless as they are in Nigeria. For the unskilled European working class it is tantamount to suicide to vote open borders advocates into office.
Interestingly enough, The Economist implicitly stated that Africans are not able to utilise their labour force themselves. Bringing the African population under European supervision failed during the very brief period of colonisation of Africa, and now the Economist wants to bring the Africans under European supervision by using open borders policy and moving the African population to Europe.
Does the Economist really suggest that white Europeans are the only ones who can solve Africa’s problems?