The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The Case for Opening Our Doors to Russians Fleeing Putin - as Well as Ukrainians
Washington Post columnist Catherine Rampell explains how it can benefit the US economy while "draining Putin's brain."

Much attention has been paid to the massive Ukrainian refugee crisis caused by Vladimir Putin's attack on that country. Many commentators, myself included, have advocated that Western nations do more to take in Ukrainian refugees. In recent weeks, the US, Canada, and other countries have in fact opened their doors to Ukrainians more than before, though much more can and should be done.
But the US and its allies have done little to open the door to the growing number of Russians fleeing Vladimir Putin's increasingly repressive regime. In a recent column, Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post makes the case for doing so:
I don't mean attacking the Russian people. I mean welcoming them here, particularly if they have significant economic and national security value to Russia….
We should start by expediting the most compelling humanitarian cases in the region. In Russia, these include dissidents and journalists risking their necks to challenge Vladimir Putin's unprovoked war. But we should also actively court those who might be less political: the technical, creative, high-skilled workers upon whom Russia's economic (and military) fortunes depend…
Already, Russian talent is rushing for the exits, in what might represent the seventh great wave of Russian emigration over the past century.
An estimated 50,000 to 70,000 IT specialists alone have recently left, according to a Russian technology trade group, which predicts another 100,000 might leave by the end of April. Others in the outbound stampede include entrepreneurs, researchers and artists. The pace of this brain drain is especially impressive given how difficult sanctions have made it to buy plane tickets or otherwise conduct transactions across borders, as well as how expensive travel has become….
Russian self-exiles are mostly flooding into nearby countries such as Turkey, Armenia and Georgia, but we could smooth their pathway to the United States. Congress already has one blueprint: In early February, the House passed the America Competes Act, which would, among other things, increase immigration of entrepreneurs and PhD scientists from around the world (not just Russia). Alternatively, Congress could tailor a measure toward Russian STEM talent, or the Biden administration could make Russians more broadly eligible for refugee status….
Scaling up immigration and refugee admissions is both the right thing to do and in our own interests. Refugees and other emigres have a long history of supercharging U.S. innovation, winning Nobel Prizes and contributing to our national security. These include Soviet defectors during the Cold War and a larger-scale exodus of mathematicians and scientists after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We would benefit from a comparable influx of talent today.
But the prospect of doing this while imminently draining Russia's talent pool should make the policy even more attractive.
Rampell goes on to point out that we should also allow Russian students already in the United States to stay here. At the very least, we should reject cruel and counterproductive proposals to expel them, advanced by some Democratic politicians.
She is by no means the only advocate of this approach to combating Putin's regime. Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune, conservative science writer Robert Zubrin in the National Review, Cato Institute immigration policy expert David Bier, and Canadian political commentator Scott Gilmore have made similar arguments. I myself did so in a March 8 New York Times article, where I also argued for taking in more Ukrainians. Along related lines, I and others have advanced the idea of giving refuge to Russian soldiers who surrender in Ukraine (a proposal, to my knowledge, first developed by Duke University economist Timur Kuran).
I would add there is a strong moral case for giving refuge to Russians fleeing Putin, as well as a strategic one. Putin's government has become increasingly repressive - to the point of imposing a 15-year prison sentence for the crime of merely referring to the war in Ukraine as a "war" or an "invasion," rather than a "special military operation." Russians should not be forced to live under Putin's repression any more than Ukrainians, or anyone else. It is unjust to condemn people to life under tyranny, merely because of arbitrary circumstances of birth.
I hope Rampell's work and that of others will generate greater support for these ideas. Perhaps even enough that policymakers will begin to take serious notice.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In Moscow, you park to attend a dinner party. You have to take your windshield wipers with you, or they will be gone on your return. In Northeast Philly, a Russian immigrant neighborhood, many large stores have closed. They were robbed blind by the Russian shoppers.
Again, Ilya. The home address. All immigrants to your street. Then, a priority should be placed on the immigration of Russian law school professors. Their licenses and hiring by law schools should be fast tracked on arrival.
Ilya will never debate an immigration realist.
We should carefully vet immigrants from a culture that continues to practice slavery today.
https://www.the-sun.com/news/4989459/russians-slave-labour-ukrainains/
I'm going to call BS here. Because I've parked in Moscow and left with wipers intact. You have no idea what Russians in Russia are like, do you?
I am glad you were lucky parking in Russia.
To be fair, he has no idea what Americans are like in America, either.
Interesting proposal, but until they figure out how use this to get a vast majority of nonwhite refugees I don't think the Dems would be very interested in opening doors to a majority white nation.
The only reason you aren't ridiculing the idea outright is because Russia is a majority white nation.
Well, if diversity is so important shouldn't we have a diverse immigrant cohort? Why do Dems let hordes of extremely poor people over the southern border while moving heaven and earth to evict a few middle class German homeschooling families?
I don't think the Dems would be very interested in opening doors to a majority white nation.
And your proof of this is...some story about German homeschoolers you've made racial because you're brain poisoned by white resentment?
If they think that Russian emigres would vote democratic and offset their colossal screwup with Hispanics, they would be all in.
Have you considered that many Dems support immigration because it's the right thing to do?
There is no great replacement plan; there is no screw up with Hispanics. It's just demography not being destiny.
The race-baiters in this thread could learn something from that principle.
Well I'm glad you are onboard with Republican electoral strategy. It's always been an article of faith that there are plenty of conservatives of every race, and they are gettable votes.
It certainly isn't a 'If you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black" mindset.
There is simply no good case. Case closed.
Evil is only able to persist when good men do nothing.
Do nothing...like don't let in refugees?
Well I have to say this seems to be counter productive:
"We should start by expediting the most compelling humanitarian cases in the region. In Russia, these include dissidents and journalists risking their necks to challenge Vladimir Putin's unprovoked war."
Creating a relief valve for Putin by letting his most fervent opposition leave seems the best way to keep Putin in power, rather than hurt him.
Just as Castro used out-migration for pressure relief for decades, most spectacularly with the Mariel boatlift, that's likely to help Putin rather than hurt him.
Sure - I think the case is less about hurting Putin and more about benefits to the US and the moral case.
But I still don't get the 'good men do nothing' part of the comment.
Kazinski, I had the same thought.
More generally, I am not sure it is wise to get in a tizzy over every international aggression committed by some nation we don't like. Why not just sit back and let them gobble up the indigestible bits, like Russia (and previously, England; and later, us) did with Afghanistan?
Stephen, your reading comprehension skills need some work. My thought has nothing to do with international agression, it's solely about internal opposition for whatever reason.
And yeah, while we are on the subject we should make both international aggression, and internal human rights violations as expensive as possible for bad actors. Because both also cause large refuge flows that are disruptive to us and the world like Ukraine, Myanmar, Syria, Afghanistan, etc.
The Somon case for open borders summarized "it's a day ending in Y." Maybe work on the costs you so cavalierly toss on the shoulders of others first, but no, you only want the feel good side despite the damage it can cause.
I'm OK accepting some displaced refugees, but yep. Shocked, shocked, that Somin is arguing for letting in huge numbers of people because xyz.
Agreed. I'd be more impressed with his situational support of open borders if I'd ever, even once, seen a case where he DIDN'T think open borders was the answer.
Even when he's occasionally right, it's just him being a stopped clock.
This is not to say that there aren't plenty of people in Russia who'd like to leave, and we'd benefit from them coming here. But did he learn nothing at all from the Mariel boat lift? Putin, too, has prisons and insane asylums he wouldn't mind emptying.
Yep. The answer to every problem always seems to be open borders.
Ukraine's war with Russia would be over, if Ukraine just opened the borders to all the Russians that wanted to come in.
Or maybe he only brings it up in situations where he thinks it is a solution?
You know that's a myth, right?
Is it still possible to deport Somin back to Russia?
Invade the world, invite the world. No matter what the problem, his proposal is to meddle in some foreign country, and to import freeloaders to the USA.
When has he advocated invading anyone, much less "the world?"
I know that he supported an actual AUMF for dealing with ISIS and he has said recently that he wasn't as down on the war in either Iraq or Afghanistan (don't remember which and search sucks) as other libertarians.
Less opposed than other libertarians hardly makes someone the second coming of John McCain. But it's vague, so I'll reserve judgment.
As for supporting an AUMF against ISIS, I don't consider coming to the aid of people overrun by a pack of genocidal psychopaths an "invasion."
Don't be cruel.
Ilya is obviously right here. It is not even a close question.
Yes, our national tradition is one of fleeing from oppression, like we did back in the late 1700's?! Obviously, assisting the opposition to flee from a position allowing them to, well, oppose -- perhaps at the cost of lives -- is not the brightest scheme.
Hubris does not conquer tyrants. How would the American government respond if Canada openly encouraged "good" Americans to immigrate thereto? Taking that one step further, how would the American government respond if both Canada and Mexico positioned Russian-made weapons on their US-facing borders?
Perhaps Zelensky is correct in that words without action are useless and that needlessly provocative words are ultimately counterproductive. https://twitter.com/RNCResearch/status/1508079499216396288
The American gov't would be fine if Canada, or anybody, encouraged US citizens to go elsewhere. US citizens are free to emigrate if they so choose, though there may be tax consequences. Why would you think differently?
As to national traditions, allowing noncombatants to flee a combat zone or untenable home situation does seem compassionate to me. Lots of my ancestors came through Ellis Island under such conditions. I do think the fact that Somin feels this is a special case worth noting, when his position is apparently basically open borders now and forever, is a bit funny though.
Well I do support asylum for Canadian Truckers.
I'm sure Ilya would agree too.
Pretty sure (Dr.) Bill Cosby objects, his family hasn't had good experiences with Ukrainian Immigrants.
It's amazing to me that we continue to see such opposition to taking in a boatload of refugees. I understand saying that we can't have open borders, and I understand opposition to taking in people without means of self-sufficiency. After all, we don't have unlimited resources for entitlement programs.
But here we are talking about skilled workers from a country with at least a somewhat comparable culture/society. Honestly, I welcome every foreign worker, and particularly skilled worker, that wants to come to the United States. And I get them on the path to citizenship as fast as possible.
I also think that the people we bring in will be some of the most appreciative citizens we could have. A lot of Americans take America for granted. But, you know what, if my city were being bombed, and another country not only welcomed me, but then encouraged me to become integrated in their society, I'd be forever grateful and my kids would grow up fully immersed in that society.
How much opposition is there?!?
"But here we are talking about skilled workers from a country with at least a somewhat comparable culture/society."
Theoretically, yes, that's what we're talking about. Again, remember what happened during the Mariel boat lift: Castro emptied out his prisons on us.
It's hard enough to vet immigrants from a friendly country. Vetting them from a country we're just short of at war with? Not happening.
"Russian self-exiles are mostly flooding into nearby countries such as Turkey, Armenia and Georgia"
what's the problem then?
The problem is 'native' independence movements cropping up there and demanding union with Russia, as happened in Ukraine repeatedly. That's Putin's technique here: He infiltrates the area he intends to invade with agents who dig in, organize 'independence' movements, and the petition Russia for help.
If it was Ben Affleck slapping Chris Rock at the Oscars, LA would be burning now. Maybe next year the theme can be "Black on Black Violence"....Still think it was staged, pretty sure that was Michael Buffer in the audience... "Lets get ready to Slap Chris Rockkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk!"
Claiming or implying an equivalence between dissident or high skilled Russians and Ukrainians makes the argument distasteful, to say the least. Ukrainians are currently being shelled throughout much of the country, have been forced to leave, and are dealing with an invasion led by a man who refuses to rule out theater nukes if Russia is confronted with an existential threat while claiming since the beginning that Russia is facing an existential threat. Dissident Russians aren't in a similar position right now. Beatings and fear suck but it's certainly not comparable to the reality in Ukraine right now. Russians can apply for refugee status and asylum as anybody else can; they don't need immediate relief. I can think of more people that do need immediate relief than Russians, besides the Ukrainians, and of many more that could do with refugee status.
In any case I'm not sure if it's a practical idea. Many dissatisfied Russians have already left since 2014. Most high-profile dissidents (perhaps all) are already dead or imprisoned so the regime isn't as trigger happy towards them anymore. Most of the Russian public supports the "special operation" and of those that don't they are mostly angry about the way it's being carried out, often for selfish reasons ("I didn't expect my kid to enlist"). Why give Putin another thing to spin as an existential threat while loudly attempting to take away what little remains of his critics?
"... man who refuses to rule out theater nukes if Russia is confronted with an existential threat ..."
I think that should read "...if Putin is confronted with an existential threat ...". Ukraine, or NATO, have never been a threat, much less an existential threat, to Russia.