The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Does the Risk of Terrorism Justify Migration Restrictions?
My essay for the German Verfassungsblog site, explains why the answer to that question is generally "no."
Verfassungsblog, a German website focused on issues in constitutional law and legal theory, has published my article, "Does the Threat of Terrorism Justify Migration Restrictions?" Here is an excerpt:
Since the beginning of the War on Terror in 2001, and especially since the rise of ISIS and the Syrian Civil War, beginning in 2011, Western nations have adopted various policies barring migrants and refugees based on fear of terrorism and other security threats. These range from US President Donald Trump's anti-Muslim travel bans to restrictions adopted by various European countries in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis of 2015.
As I write these words in March 2022, European nations have adopted a much more open attitude towards refugees fleeing Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. But a similar anti-migrant backlash could potentially occur in this case, as well, especially if the crisis goes on for a long time.
In both Europe and the United States, fears of terrorism and violence have been exploited by anti-immigrant nationalist political movements….
Concerns about terrorism are, to some extent, understandable. But the actual risk of terrorism caused by migrants is extremely low. And that risk can be mitigated by methods other than barring large numbers of refugees fleeing horrific violence and oppression. Indeed, accepting such refugees can actually help combat terrorism more than further it…. Barring migrants for the sake of achieving marginal reductions of already very low risks might be justified if restrictions imposed few or no morally significant costs. But, in fact, barring migrants fleeing oppression and war is a grave wrong. It inflicts enormous harm, violates human rights against unjust discrimination, and is also inimical to concepts of dignity prominent in modern European and international law jurisprudence….
The rest of the article defends the above points in detail, based on both moral considerations empirical evidence from Europe and the United States. While we cannot conclude that terrorism risks could never justify migration restrictions, there should be a strong presumption against such measures.
Parts of the article are adapted from my book Free to Move: Foot Voting, Migration and Political Freedom, which is now out in a revised paperback edition.
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
At this point we can predict that "no" from just seeing your name on post. Tell us something we don't know: What you think DOES justify migration restrictions!
THAT might be interesting to read.
This has zero to do with the validity of his arguments.
You're better than this bare ad hominem.
My point is that "his arguments" are indistinguishable from "No to all migration restrictions", until he identifies some set of circumstances where his answer isn't "no".
Until we learn where his answer is "yes", we can't tell whether his reasoning is just rationalization for a support of open borders under all circumstances whatsoever.
This is not "ad hominem", it is a fair criticism of any argument Ilya makes on immigration at this point. The answer to "Does foo justify immigration restrictions" seems to always be no, for any value of foo. That rather does encourage the question "what, if anything, does justify such restrictions". And if Ilya's answer is "nothing", one wonders why he has to make some many different arguments for that idea.
That's a big "if." That Ilya is generally very pro-immigration is undeniable. But unless he's said there are no immigration restrictions he supports, I don't assume there are no immigration restrictions he supports.
I don't recall, but let's say, arguendo, he's never blogged an anti-immigration position. That doesn't mean he holds none. Maybe he considers himself a pro-immigration advocate. Selection bias is fundamental to effective advocacy. Arguing for particulars he finds consistent with the general advocacy diminishes neither. Nor does it tell us his views on particulars he hasn't chosen to address.
No, he hasn't logically foreclosed the possibility that there's SOME immigration restriction he'd approve of. He just hasn't given us any reason to think there is one.
That's why I'm saying, if he wants to write something informative, he should identify the exception to open borders. It would be more informative than the umpteenth example of him disapproving of anything else.
You're wrong on a fundamental, logical level.
He makes a specific argument in each post. If you think he's wrong, you should be able to address that argument.
Instead, you don't touch the argument, just talk about his general posting habits. Which is absolutely ad hominem - your argument boils down to this post is wrong because Prof. Somin is making it.
With a bit of implied bad faith because that's how Brett rolls.
Yes, he makes a specific argument in each post.
Until he identifies a case where the answer is "yes", we have no way of knowing that those specific arguments aren't just rationalizations, and he really does favor open borders under all circumstances whatsoever.
Look, if a free speech advocate says utterance A is protected, and utterance B, and utterance C, it starts to get boring. At some point you want to hear what utterance they WOULDN'T protect, or that there isn't such a thing.
"Until he identifies a case where the answer is "yes", we have no way of knowing that those specific arguments aren't just rationalizations, and he really does favor open borders under all circumstances whatsoever."
Nonsense. The analysis he undertakes about the risk of a hidden terrorist slipping through in a large group of innocents implies he'd oppose entry for a known terrorist. I'd bet the same goes for violent criminals, among other various miscreants.
That's not "open borders under all circumstances whatsoever." It's a line drawing exercise. I don't know where he draws his line, but I'm willing to bet he has one. You just don't like that he devotes his time and energy to making the case only for examples on the "let them in" side of the line. That's no reason to implausibly suggest his line doesn't exist.
"I don't know where he draws his line, but I'm willing to bet he has one. "
And I've suggested that he take a break from telling us where it isn't, and devote a post to telling us where it IS.
I'd like EV to devote a post to telling us how he could possibly support Ted Cruz. But like all such "you should post about what I want you to" fantasies, it's worth the cyber-paper it's printed on. More to the point, his failure to do that post isn't a reveal of his true motive behind the things he does choose to blog about.
I think Prof. Somin has repeatedly made clear that, in his opinion, absolutely nothing justifies even modest immigration restrictions.
Curiously, yesterday I heard reports that Polish officials were concerned that the mass influx of refugees was "destabilizing" the country and called on other countries to alleviate them of some of the burden. But how could this be? Isn't the unchecked flow of millions of people into your country an unqualified positive development? Or does that rule just apply to the United States?
If we were contemplating allowing a group of 1000 immigrants into America, knowing that one of them is a qualified, motivated terrorist, but not knowing which one, should we allow or bar the entire group?
Somin says "let them in".
I say "hell no".
Should, say, Ilinois say "hell no" to a group of 1,000 people moving there from Indiana on the grounds that at least one of them is likely to be a criminal?
They're already in.
Of course, Illinois can't do that even if it wanted to given the Constitutional right to interstate travel, while the federal government absolutely can protect its borders and control immigration from outside the country.
Other than that, killer analogy.
Ad hominem
Irrelevant anecdote
Appeal to incredulity
The lack of engagement here is telling.
And that's just Sarcastr0's posts!
Does obeying laws count as "restrictions"?
Restricting immigration to fight terrorism seems a bit futile when the majority of likely terrorists in the USA are domestic?
Even if that were true, it doesn't follow that we should put out the welcome mat to additional terrorists.
Breaking News: Ilya finds another justification for any form of migration control extremely objectionable. So dull and predictable.
If you take Moslem immigrants, then you will get some Moslem terrorists. If you don't want any Moslem terrorists, then keep out the Moslems.
If Virginia takes Maryland immigrants, then you will get some Maryland terrorists. If you don't want any Maryland terrorists, then keep out the Marylanders.
As a Virginia resident that has to deal with Maryland drivers, I am all in favor of this.
Immigration should be easier.
But the government should be able to identify and vet would be immigrants. If the origin country can't meet reasonable standards the would be immgrants should be subjected to serious scrutiny.
Undocumented immigrants should also be scrutinized.
Well, but how many people show up at our border without ID, without it having been deliberate? I suppose it does happen on occasion, but the "undocumented" are, statistically, not a big deal.
The real problem are the illegal immigrants. For whom "undocumented" is just a silly euphemism.
The bottom line is that the US should decide for ourselves which immigrants we will let in, and which we will keep out.
Somin can take his argument to the citizenry. If he can convince them, so be it.
A bucket of 100,000 skittles. One of them contains deadly ricin. Do you eat a skittle? Well yes of course, they're delicious (I guess?) and the risk is very low. But how many do you eat. Somin guzzles the whole bucket.
At least by guzzling the whole bucket he lowers his risk by repeatedly inducing vomiting from the sugar overdose so that makes it an unqualified good.
Mike Huckabee now? Jesus, you're lame.
1. People aren't skittles. Reality is that immigration is not eating candy.
By removing the reality from the equation you get to run wild with prophylaxis without any nuances or opportunity costs. That same pinched logic can argue against ever eating or going outside.
2. The risk of home-grown terrorism swamps that from immigrants.
It was good to see you on the Verfassungsblog! It's an excellent blog even for people who don't care about specifically German issues.
Here is the fundamental problem I see with Ilya's brand of unilateral open-borders libertarianism: Access to the United States is a valuable commodity. Why should we give it away for free?
A libertarian plan would be to charge a market price. Maybe allow 100,000 immigrants a year, and auction the visas to the highest bidders.
From the University of Chicago Press, "Does Immigration Induce Terrorism?"
"The results suggest that migrants stemming from terrorist-prone states moving to another country are indeed an important vehicle through which terrorism does diffuse."
Not sure why anyone would find this in the least controversial. If you let in a bunch of random Afghanis, Taliban jihadists will assuredly be among them, and terrorist incidents will increase, duh.
w.
The issue is actually less the immigrants themselves, than their children. THAT is where the higher incidence of terrorism shows up, strangely enough.
What to do about second-generation terrorists?
Perhaps it's just that you can have high levels of immigration only if you have a determined policy of actively culturally assimilating the immigrants, rather than assuming that it will happen on its own?
Thanks, Brett, most interesting. Used to be that immigrants WANTED to assimilate, but those days are mostly gone.
w.
The immigrants' children aren't "the immigrants".
The dynamic I've heard suggested is this: The immigrants in this case are virtually always Muslims. The parents immigrate to the US because they're sick of Islamic society, but not enough to take the final step of exiting a religion that calls for the death penalty for apostates. You might say they're cultural Muslims.
The children experience a certain degree of inauthenticity or disconnection from their cultural heritage. (Aggravated by America suggesting that they SHOULD maintain said heritage, rather than assimilate.) So, they get serious about studying Islam and trying to follow its precepts.
Some percentage of them fall under the influence of radical madaris, and end up being recruited to be terrorists. Where the parents are already resistant to that.
So, not the first generation, but the second, are where you find the terrorists.