14 June 2007

Inhumanity of humanitarian immigration

It's long been a source of amusement and frustration to me that those most concerned about the welfare of Earth's wretched demand, even implement, policies that ultimately harm the poor. Amongst those people, there is enormous amount of wishful thinking and warm feelings, but little analytical thinking on what would actually give best results. Obviously, outside their circles there's even more ignorance and uncaring about all that suffering and extreme poverty; there are even people who take active delight in the heart-breaking plight of many, for it fills them with pride in themselves and their prosperous, peaceful societies. All this I see as betrayal of our common humanity and the global responsibilities of rich, powerful First World nations. Noblesse does oblige. However, at least uncaring has the virtue of not pretending to be a virtue, and it tend to maintain the status quo. That, although unsatisfactory at the very least, is easily preferable over the wreckage that failed utopian projects always leave behind.

In this age, one common way of showing off your ethicalness and caring heart is to favor so-called humane immigration policy. This means essentially that everyone in need of aid shall receive it. Every refugee that comes knocking at our gates, requesting a sanctuary from war, oppression or torture, must be given one. To turn him away, send him back to certain death, would be inhuman. Obviously, once he's here, he must be reunited with his family, if that didn't originally come in with him. Even if it's not in any danger, it's cruel to keep people apart from their loved ones. No solid proof of danger to their lives can be demanded, not even identity papers showing they come from a war-torn or brutally autocratic nation. It's absurd to assume that victims of torture, desperately fleeing into the dark of night, are in position to gather any kind of documentary proof.

This is by no means despicable or stupid way of thinking. Try to put yourself in the skin of some anonymous African. Your government or a brutal, capricious warlord (assuming there's even a difference) got mad at you for some ridiculous reason and sent a bunch of brutal, sadistic goons to seize you. You were mercilessly beaten, tortured and thought you're surely going to die. Somehow, however, you managed to escape (maybe a relative spent all his money to bribe some official to look another way), but knew that if you stayed in country, you would soon die agonizingly. So you ran, having heard that West sometimes gives people like you a refuge and clinging desperately to that hope, for it's all you had left. After a long, dangerous journey you arrived in Europe and requested sanctuary. However, you ran into a bureaucratic nightmare you couldn't figure out and officials on your case regarded you with little but suspicion, for you had little but your story and few scars to show for your pains. After years of nagging uncertainty, after several denied requests that every time shattered your hopes, the deportment order comes. Your story wasn't believed, your homeland had been deemed safe and you were going to be returned there. Think about the sheer desperation of that moment. It's impossible not to sympathize, impossible not to feel angry at the fact that this is precisely what happens all the time. For many empathetic people, the emotions can be very strong, and consequently, any disagreements with their ideas on refugee policies cause just as inevitable emotional counterreaction. Christ, what kind of cold-blooded monster dooms people to death and torture when he could help them? Surely, anybody who understands the situation and has any capacity for empathy at all will favor helping those who need help, humanely letting refugees into Europe. There can be no legitimate reasons to disagree, only stupidity, racism and cruelty. Thought stops.

This is tragic, for once again, road to Hell is paved with good intentions. While helping refugees is a good thing, in practice this policy would mean that any Third Worlder could receive vastly improved standard of living (for which he need not even work), far better prospects for future and greater political freedoms simply by telling a heart-breaking story. Might it just be imaginable that some might consider inventing one to be a small price for escape from poverty? Every year up to half a million illegal immigrants enter Europe, often risking their lives in the hands of brutal human traffickers or dangerous boat journeys, all without any certainty of what happens when they arrive. If not expulsed, they usually end up working without rights in degrading, awful jobs, even as virtual slaves on Spanish plantations. Many of them were deluded by overt hopes when they decided to move, of course. Yet it still tells something of the pressures that overpopulation and poverty exert on many countries. How many times as much would come if we made it much easier and raised the payoff at the same time?

There is nothing inherently wrong in seeking to better one's lot, of course. I know I propably would try to immigrate to Europe had I born in Africa, and if exploiting refugee system would get me in, so be it. Many Westerners have also left their homelands during the centuries. Yet it is sadly true that which is admirable on individual level can be very harmful on the level of groups. It was not White Man's racism, greed or exceptional cruelty that fueled the vast, brutal ethnic cleansing of North America. It was European settler/immigrant, who had left his homelands seeking usually very modest goals, such as a small farm on which he could raise a family and live in peace without stupid warring kings, intolerant priests and nosy officials making his life a misery. There is nothing bad with that, obviously, but unfortunately all those small strips of land really built up when they started to come in their millions. After the fractious, a bit naive Indians had allowed Europeans to entrench on their coasts, their destruction was only a matter of time.

Different times, very different situations, of course. Yet even if we're not about to be herded into reservations, allowing the masses of Third World to migrate in freely would still be a very bad idea. Bringing them in as refugees only makes it worse. Many of them lack capacity to contribute meaningfully to a modern economy, nor do most show much inclination to either work or seek training. Finland has a labour deficit in construction, docks and cleaning services, all areas dominated by unskilled and vocational school educated workers. Despite this, unemployment rate of many 3rd World nation citizens residing here is around 50-65%. Likewise, they are significantly more likely to commit crimes, especially robbery and rape. Other European countries have their own problem minorities, some of them much worse than ours. The explanations for all this are too complex to go in here, and always debatable, just like what conclusions can be ultimately be drawn. Right now I will simply state that reasons are one thing, and the fact that many immigrant groups are prone to deep, hostile alienation is another. This fact alone, no matter what exactly causes it and who's to blame, is enough to burden social security and increase crime. To some extent this is already a reality in Europe of 2007, and there's absolutely no logical reason to assume that massive expansion of these minorities would somehow make it all better.

Most people do not much like or respect freeloaders, criminals, or for that matter fake refugees. Allowing massive abuses of sanctuary system would only spread cynicism about all refugees. Contempt would then begin turning into hostility when people connected the dots between newcomers and increasing taxes, constant cuts in public services and the fear they feel when walking alone in the night. As always, there would be several reasons for that, but when much of the blame can justly be placed on outsiders, many are all too happy to pin it all on them. There would be lurid tales of shocking individual crimes, and dramatic, exaggerated accounts of immigrant contribution to pressing social problems. Some of them would be spread by people desperate to turn around the policy they see as disastrous, others maybe by those driven by more personal hatreds and prejudices. All would harden the public attitudes equally much. Far right ultra-nationalists would gain lots of essentially factual arguments and the kind of legitimacy they haven't enjoyed since World War 2. Eventually, what remained of modern Left would come to fondly remember the days when racism meant coarse jokes and fascism restricting further immigration.

There's no way out of this dilemma. Either the country allows vast abuses of refugee system, or upholds a inhuman policy which operates on cynicism, sends people back to their deaths and provides a perfect environment for spiteful little bureaucrats who get a kick of humiliating desperate people. The system can easily be a mix of both (it is, actually), but it cannot be neither. This is a result of situation where many have very strong motivations to lie about their situation as convincingly as possible, while our methods of checking out their stories are very weak. The element of uncertainty is rarely absent from the case of any refugee; often it is simply impossible to decide. All that remains is to decide is the default answer, whether you dislike false acceptances or false denials less. It's not some flaw fixable by some refinement of interrogation methods or smart policies, but a fundamental aspect of humanitarian immigration's character.

It's possible that one day neuroscientists develop a reliable lie detector, which would make current system plausible, but no timetable can be given for that apart from "not in near future". Apart from such technological solution, there's little left but go beyond tweaks and rewrite the rules of game entirely. As it stands, there's even more problems with humanitarian immigration, and they give us a hint about one possible answer. First, most refugees never end up requesting sanctuary from modern world, but for the sake of dependants or lack of resources, go no further than refugee camps at nearby countries. Second, living expenses in modern world are considerably greater than in developing countries. Therefore, our current system is an inefficient way of helping a fairly small fraction of refugees.

On the contrary, help directed at people in Third World refugee camps reaches a greater portion of people in need, is much more cost-effective and avoids the complicated dilemmas of humanitarian immigration. Certainly the conditions in many of them are rather terrible and some, such as Darfurian refugees' camps in Chad, have even been plagued by the same enemies from whom refugees originally fled. What would help them most? Taking a tiny part of them into Europe, or building schools, hospitals and dormitories on those camps, while sending some Rapid Reaction Forces to grind janjaweeds trespassing on Chad's territory into mincemeat? There is a problem of cheaters here too, though, for Chad's citizens are dirt poor, and might pose as Darfurian refugees to gain the same benefits. This could be countered by organizing refugees on tribal and family lines, while holding the whole group responsible for any miscreants in their ranks. Then again, I think it would be even better to simply open those schools and hospitals to all people in the region. Education and healthcare are important aspects of development aid in any case.

I'm not advocating a complete end to sanctuary system. I recall it was originally developed for dissidents from Eastern Bloc, and there are still people in corresponding situations. To make refugee camps a viable option, there must be mass movement of people. For a handful of political refugees they make little sense. They may not be safe in neighbouring countries, either. Of course the secret polices of some vindictive totalitarian regimes have assassinated refugees living in West as well, but at least it's a much bigger bother that way. Also, such refugees usually have more solid proof of their plight, and since they don't come in vast masses, any problems they might cause are very limited in scale (with the exception of Islamist agitators, who should be shipped back in pretty gift wrapping). Another exception could be made in the case of useful people. If some person works hard, follows the laws and respects the customs of host country, what does it matter on what grounds he originally came in? There have been propositions to found centers in Africa to hire labour for European job market; in my opinion these upgraded refugee camps could be good places for them. If organized properly, people can be tested there for suitability, they have plenty of time to study European languages and everything else they'll need here, and gratitude for aid they and their families have received could further their will to do their best once in Europe. Also, children who do well in school should be offered the option to continue their studies in Europe. All this would be a lasting boon for refugees once they return to their homes.

Humanitarian immigration may be an inferior alternative, but only from the viewpoint of refugees. They do not benefit, but there are other people who do:

1) European left-wing parties and more specifically their xenomanic members. Refugees who gain citizenship tend to vote for them, since they are so heavily in favor of generous social security, job quotas for certain minorities, hate speech legislation and "tolerance". In some European countries this is becoming an important factor in elections. In Belgium, immigration and ease of gaining citizenship is even an important part of government's battle against anti-immigration, separationist Vlaams Belang.
2) All kinds of minority affairs bureaucrats, multiculture coordinators, diversity drama therapists and anti-racism educators funded out of public purse. These people need minorities and ethnic tensions, for they have built their entire careers around them. The minorities must never be well integrated and content. A Turk or Chinaman running a restaurant is useful to economy, but utterly useless to careerists.
3) Intellectuals and activist youth with burning need to feel more ethical and intelligent than the stupid masses. Problematic minorities irritate most people and create racism, with quotation marks and without, which can then be venomously condemned. This proves their moral superiority and intellectual as well, since as we all know, racists are stupid and ignorant. Also it is great fun to shrug off the chains of proper respectful manners, which the racist subhumans are not worthy of.
4) Rich capitalists salivating at the thought of vast reserve of cheap labour, ignorant of its rights and more focused on ethnic than class conflicts. With the current welfare, most neither need nor wish to work, but once the system becomes overburdened, it obviously has to be drastically cut. This should make those uppity native European workers pretty pliable as well. Best of all, leftists do all your work for you.

It's perhaps not surprising that the advocates of humane refugee policy and open borders in general tend to come from these groups. In the course of my more cynical hours, I've felt that it's all nothing but a sham, disgusting exploitation of desperate people for some unbelievably petty, selfish goals. I don't know, though. The understanding of what's good for them may of course subconsciously direct their actions, but even if your own interest is what it's all fundamentally about, why not tell yourself you do it because you're so ethical and enlightened? You can both eat your cake and have it. Besides, many people with such opinions really seem to wish to do the right thing, more so than most. Problem is that their notions of right and wrong are determined mainly by emotions and peer pressure; that is, they are very much like everyone else, even if they like to think they are better (in this they are also so very mundane). Yet does it matter why people do what they do, if the results are so poor?

Some would say it does. European Union has been developing so-called regional protection programmes, which are supposed to enable the neighbouring countries of crisis zone, or the transition countries, to help refugees. This is a step in right direction, and I certainly do welcome it. Amnesty International, all in favor of "humane" policy, doesn't. In 3/2007 issue of Finnish department's newspaper, the programmes are criticized amongst other reasons for: "The motives of programmes have been questioned. Generous donations to build up border security have been interpreted as EU's wish to stop disliked population groups from entering its territory." Now, this is undoubtedly somewhat correct. I certainly prefer to keep out such groups that strain economy, add to insecurity and are a boon to racist far right. But let's assume that the motives aren't practical, but racist. I'll bet my neck that there are plenty of people who have latched into ideas like these described in this essay as a politically correct way of saying "no niggers wanted!". What of it? If racism can be channeled into supporting Third World refugees in a less problematic, more cost-effective way than what we have today, isn't it only a good thing? Better than to have it directed into hating the unwashed masses here, right?

It comes down to one of these age-old philosophical dilemmas: Is an act good or bad depending on what it caused, or why it was done? It's a multi-faceted, complex question, but in this context it ultimately comes down to a very much simpler one. How many people are helped? We are talking about real human beings, with all the fears, dreams and that vast capacity for suffering. As such, it is irresponsible and rather repulsive to focus like a laser beam on whether someone wants to help them in their plight because he irrationally detests them, let alone oppose it because of such motivation. The refugee himself certainly doesn't care if he receives medicine and dry bed because of racism, or never gets them because of someone's warmth and empathy. Even if we still wish to reserve the right to detest racists, we shouldn't either.

03 June 2007

Some philosophical quagmires

I have noticed that many philosophical problems and odd conclusions of some theories hold a common basis. They are actually illusions, born of not taking the principles in question far enough, but rather using other, more familiar principles together with them. I'll draw my examples from utilitarianism and nihilism, two schools of thought that please my mental aesthetics.

Nobody can avoid hearing or thinking sometimes that "nothing really matters". If all values are inside our heads, mere subjective preferences, doesn't it indeed logically follow that there are no objective values and therefore everything is ultimately pointless? Well, if nothing matters, then the fact that nothing matters doesn't matter either... But there's a logical error in play as well, which can be revealed through simple rephrasing: If there are no objective values, then objective value of everything = 0. In fact, the lack of anything valuable outside human heads means that there is no point in speaking of "ultimately" anythings. Only subjective preferences exist, and those can vary wildly. If something matters to you, then it matters to you. That's all there is to it.

Rather similar mistake is made by cultural relativists who claim that all cultures are equally good and worthy, because there is no objective method for arranging them into any hierarchy. All well and good, but without such method it is just as impossible to state they all are as good as each other. For any subjective observer cultures are self-evidently unequal, since they express different facets of humanity in very variable ways. This holds true for the cultural relativists just as much for others -- just witness how a typical specimen reacts to homophobic or misogynist attitudes barely a fraction of those held by many Middle Easterners, for example. Honest cultural relativist might think that his values are not universal, and others may have perfectly legitimate reasons for preferring something he detests, but it doesn't follow that he has to like or even tolerate such things.

In both cases, thinking is being built around the subjectivity of values, but the ghost of objective values is still flitting around. Instead of being banished, as it logically should be, every subjective set of preferences is simply given the same objective value. It is a easy mistake to make. When young, we intuitively conflate together both value types, and understanding of subjectivity develops step by step, not all at once. It is easy to forget the last one.

Utilitarianism encounters similar problems, most clearly expressed in some popular criticisms against it. One is the scenario where a person causes something good by doing something very nasty, for example a drunk driver speeding into some pedestrians and ending up killing an uncaught serial killer. Was this act good or evil? Utilitarianism would say it was good, since the consequences were good, yet drawing this conclusion feels uncomfortable. This, I think, is due to the intuition that good acts ought to be rewarded, and only bad to be punished. Yet this is deontological approach. Utilitarianism, if taken to its logical conclusion and not switched to another view in the middle of example, requires acts to be met with that which gives greatest benefit. So it was great that the killer died and cannot murder any more. Nonetheless it is seen as beneficial to society to punish people severely for drunk driving and manslaughter. Therefore, that's what should be done.

Another critique of utilitarianism states that it is often impossible to precisely calculate the consequences of actions. Even when possible, it might be long, hard work, pointlessly so in most cases. These are valid criticisms, but they aren't arguments against the principle of consequentalism itself, merely the idea that our deeds should be chosen by applying some form of ethical calculus. In fact utilitarianism applies to the ways of determining the preferred actions just as much as everything else. Since determining their consequences exactly is so hard, and time used to determining proper actions is a resource as well, utilitarianism actually invalidates itself in its naive form. More useful is to apply heuristics, or rules of thumb associated with preferred outcomes. In practice this is very close to old-fashioned ethical systems with their do's and don't's, which is hardly a coincidence. We have had such systems because they are fairly simple, fast and work adequately. The difference is not seeing those as inflexible mandates, and recognizing that while they do usually work, they are by no means perfect means of attaining the best consequences. If the case is important enough that one can spend quite a while thinking about it, and following ethical rules would seem to lead to some rather unpreferable outcome, then careful weighing of pros and cons has its place.

Just like nihilism, utilitarianism is an unintuitive way of thinking that develops gradually. It is easy for residues of rule-based morality to stay in the brain. Another problem is seeing these two approaches as somehow mutually exclusive, when in fact rules are so fundamentally important part of any realistically applicable utilitarianism. When consequential thinking is taken to its logical conclusion, this does indeed become apparent, but once again, such is usually easier said than done.