The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Open the Door to Chinese Migrants Fleeing Brutal Covid Lockdowns
Taking this step is both a moral imperative, and the right way to advance US economic and strategic interests.

Over the last few months, residents of Shanghai and some other Chinese cities have endured brutal Covid lockdowns that include such cruelties as forcible separation of parents from children, starvation, and fatal denial of medical treatment to people needing it for non-covid emergencies. This, combined with other repressive government policies, has led increasing numbers of Chinese to consider emigration to the West:
Sick of their lives being dictated by pandemic measures — the frequent and sudden lockdowns, never-ending rounds of mass testing and constant uncertainty — Zhu hopes to move her family to Thailand as soon as possible and eventually immigrate to Europe or the United States.
"I feel like I'm having an emotional breakdown," she said. "I feel powerless. It's like an overbearing father telling you that this is all for your own sake. You just need to listen. Don't ask questions."
Zhu is one of a growing number of Chinese urban professionals subscribing to a new school of thought known as runxue, the study of how to "run" away from their home country. For many like Zhu, it is not just about China's severe "zero covid" policy, but what the future looks like in a society where politics — upholding the top leader's policies no matter the cost — trumps science and the well-being of residents whose day-to-day lives are subject to ever more state interference.
"It's migration driven by a sense of disillusion," said Xiang Biao, a director at the Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Germany focusing on migration. "People are not running away from the virus. People are running away from such top-down measures and disregard of individuals' feelings and dignity."
Inquiries into emigrating have surged since chaotic lockdown measures were imposed in April on China's most populous city, Shanghai, where residents struggled to feed themselves and watched family members die after being unable to get medical attention for non-covid emergencies. The term runxue, or "the science of running," soon gained momentum online among disaffected residents in Shanghai and dozens of other Chinese cities under some form of lockdown.
Cruel zero-Covid policies are just one of the more extreme manifestations of a broader increase in Chinese government repression over the last few years. Other examples include a crackdown on democracy advocates in Hong Kong, the detention of some 1 million members of the Uighur minority in concentration camps (combined with extreme oppression of those Uighurs who remain "free"), and expanding suppression of dissent even among the Han Chinese majority.
In fairness, when it comes to Covid lockdowns and other pandemic-era restrictions on liberty, the West's own record is far from spotless. Many Western nations, including the United States, perpetrated serious injustices of their own during the pandemic. But they did not go as far as China. And, as vaccination has spread, and evidence accumulates that lockdowns did little good and much harm, Western democracies have mostly ended Covid restrictions. China, by contrast, has doubled down.
The US and its allies would do well to open their doors to Chinese fleeing cruel "Zero Covid" policies and other repression. The most important reason to do so is moral: people have a right to be free of oppression, and it is unjust to bar those fleeing it merely because they happen to be born in the wrong place, or to the wrong parents.
But opening our doors to Chinese migrants also serves US economic and strategic interests. I summarized some of the reasons why in a 2020 post advocating openness to Chinese immigration, which is now even more relevant thanks to the escalation of Zero Covid cruelty:
Chinese immigrants… have been enormously productive in the US and other Western nations, thereby boosting the receiving nations' economies. It is also clear that the images of Chinese finding refuge from oppression by coming to the US would be a major boost to America's now-badly tarnished international reputation, and a blow to China's position in the international "war of ideas."
During the Cold War, American conservatives readily understood that welcoming refugees from Cuba, the Soviet Union, and other communist nations was a major boost to America's prestige and a blow to that of the communists. The better political system is the one people "vote with their feet" to live under, not the one many risked their lives to flee.
To the extent that China has emerged as our most important geopolitical competitor, the more of "their" talent comes here, the better for us, and the less extensive the human capital available to the Chinese government. The more talented Chinese are contributing to US economic and technological development rather than helping Xi Jinping's regime, the better.
What of the threat of espionage by Chinese immigrants? The rate of such spying is very low, indeed lower than among the US population as a whole. To the extent it is a problem, the way to deal with it is not by barring Chinese migrants generally, but by carefully screening anyone given access to classified national security information (which is an important safeguard regardless of whether the people in question are immigrants or not). When it comes to "open source" information, realistically China and other adversaries are likely to acquire what they want of it, regardless of how much immigration there is. That's one of the downsides of being a relatively open and free society. But the many upsides easily outweigh it.
Regular readers will notice that the case for openness to Chinese migrants made above is very similar to that which I made for opening doors to Russians fleeing Putin's regime, among others. There are indeed obvious parallels between the two cases. Both are situations where we can simultaneously do what is right, and advance US economic and strategic interests. In previous writings on both China and Russia, I have responded to the counterargument that letting in migrants from these countries would diminish pressure for liberalization there.
Ultimately, I believe we should open the door to all fleeing war and oppression, regardless of their nation of origin. But there is also good reason to support incremental progress, which in some cases is likely to be focused on those fleeing key US adversaries. At this point, China and Russia top the latter list.
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
How about you open your door?
Why is the lawyer always an idiot. Yes, move millions of people around the world. Flood our troubled economy with people willing to work for $1 an hour.
How about making it the policy of the USA to destroy the Commie filth gang now in control of the nuclear power China? Start with their oligarchs. They scored $2 trillion from COVID. Take their assets. Then work your way up that criminal gang hierarchy. It upsets Eugene when I mention the easiest way to solve our problems. Everyone knows what that is, and it does not need to be repeated.
Good idea. Start with Chinese law profs. We know they passed a bar exam written in the 20000 character Mandarin alphabet. What do you think they are, like 10 times smarter than Ilya, and willing to work for $50000, with the female ones getting $25000.
Hi, Ilya. Brilliant proposal. Let's admit 10 million of these people. They are so oppressed. They really need our help.
https://www.diggitmagazine.com/articles/chinese-tourists-stereotype
Always the lamest comment.
America is not full, dude.
Maybe we ought to encourage the Chinese to do something about their oppressive government using their inalienable right to self-determination instead of telling them to flee....
1.4 billion people cannot be accommodated to vote with their feet.
Ilya's answer for every societal ill seems to be that people would just leave any and every triffling thing. The grass is not always greener on the other side. Stay and change what is wrong with one's society should be the preferred goal.
Preferred by/for whom?
Perfect place, Taiwan!! (the Other China)
We do not have a moral duty to save everyone.
We especially do not have a moral duty to open our doors to sleeper agents. For some reason, Somin ignores that there are bad actors in the world who would take advantage of open-borders policies.
I was told those who opposed the COVID restrictions were sElFiSH gRaNdMa KiLlErS.
Gosh, there are only 1.45 billion of them. Lots of room at the Somin place.
Your link is broken. I think you intended this link instead?
https://www.cato.org/commentary/how-much-threat-espionage-chinese-immigrants
And it doesn't support your contention. All it says is that the espionage among ethnic Chinese who are native-born US citizens is very low. But that's not the group we are talking about here.
Anyway, don't Chinese already have a strong case for asylum here? And it would make much more sense for them to apply in closer countries, ie Taiwan, India, South Korea, Japan, etc, then flying halfway across the world to the US.
That article is even shoddier than I expected. Of course ethnic Chinese born here are less likely to be spies for China: many of them immigrated from China before the PRC, from either imperial China or the ROC. The PRC was angered by American Chinese funding the ROC and was happy to be rid of them.
Of the countries you listed, I think only India is even somewhat generous with refugee status and it's for religious/ethnic minorities (to get neighboring Hindus and Tibetans) but almost nothing for political refugees. Japan and SK reject almost all applications and it doesn't help that they do not like the Chinese as a race. Taiwan is understandably very cautious about granting refugee status and they actually refuse to do so now (Chinese kept jacking their planes). Not being recognized by the UN means they don't have to even pretend to abide by the treaties regarding refugees. Most nearby countries don't accept refugees much because they're xenophobic and already dealing with high illegal immigration and refugee crises.
They could go to Australia though. I think quite a few have.
Then international efforts should be geared toward pressuring those countries to take a share of refugees and asylum seekers, instead of pressuring the US, Europe, and Australia to take even more. All of them are overwhelmed as it is.
The USA separates kids from their parents more than China. The USA had draconian and useless covid policies, such as shutting down the schools. The USA is replacing its population to a much greater extent than China. The USA should ship its Chinese residents back to China.
See the Super Patriot.
Hear him preach how he loves his country.
Hear him preach how he hates "Liberals"...
And "Moderates" ... and "Intellectuals"...
And "Activists"... and "Pacifists"...
And "Minority Groups"... and "Aliens"...
And "Unions"... and "Teenagers"...
And the "Very Rich"... and the "Very Poor"...
And "People With Foreign-Sounding Names".
Now you know what a Super Patriot is.
He's someone who loves his country
While hating 93% of the people who live in it.
China will change their Covid measures after a few more extremely expensive lockdowns. It will become clear that the lockdowns work, but that Covid will come back over and over and over until it spreads to the entire population anyway. So enduring the expense of the lockdowns accomplishes nothing in the long term.
Every other country in the world has a new "flu" to worry about. But it’ll be as disruptive as the old flu and things will return to normal worldwide. Except China. China will still have an extremely expensive lockdown policy. When they realize the disadvantage, the cost, and the ultimate futility of lockdowns, that should lead to a new policy.
"When they realize the disadvantage, the cost, and the ultimate futility of lockdowns, that should lead to a new policy."
Optimistic. All signs point to it being a political endeavor and not based on costs/benefits. Xi needs to circle the wagons this year to secure his position and he needed to make a show of force to demonstrate that he could not be opposed before anybody in the moderate wing got any ideas. The fact that he can keep the whole country under heel well after everyone knows it's not smart policy suggests he'll be successful.
Even when I probably agree with him, as here, these "the sky is blue and therefore we should admit lots of people" takes seem a bit repetitive.
indeed....
Send them to Cali where they can enjoy brutal Covidotry and lockdowns with a progressive smiley face!
Ilya Somin: you are one stupid little man.
California's policies have a few differences from China, especially in the way they're enforced.
When the response to every perceived injustice is the same, with no differentiation, it all blends together. When everyone is special, no one is special.
Well, this is cold.
If there is anything the average Volokh Conspiracy fan can not stand it is some genuine libertarian content.
Professor Somin is entitled to argue for his political values. My principal objections to him are when he attempts to constitionalize them in an “it’s so because it must be so” sort of fashion, in the face of a long constutional history that basically goes the other way.
Why should the US be the world's (indefinite) refugee camp? What about the other 200+ countries? Maybe the whole world should just relocate to the US. That'll fix things.
There is nobody that Ilya does not wish to "open the door" to. Nobody.
Obsolete, disaffected white nationalists are among my favorite culture war casualties.
The bitter clingers can't be replaced -- by younger, better, less conservative Americans -- fast enough in modern America.
And here is Rev (not obsolete, disaffected, or bitter at all), propagating what I was assured by the domestic American news media to be a far-right, racist conspiracy theory. Signs and wonders.
You could've stopped the headline at the first three words. We get it, you think there should be universal open immigration to the US. Stop trying to pretend that you have some particular justification in only certain cases and just make the honest argument that everyone should come in, period.
Yeah, just accuse the person you disagree with of bad faith without engaging with the post!
The hate Prof Somin gets in these comments is almost equaled by the laziness.
We've been reading Ilya's tripe for years. No accusation of bad faith is necessary, he wears it on his sleeve.
The author says that we "did not go as far as China." He thus admits that we are guilty in principle of the same abominable conduct as China, the only difference being one of degree. How is that something to brag about?
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of something being fine until you take it too far?
". . . a moral imperative." Thank you for the laugh of the day.
COVID 19 always moving around the corner. Important is to learn how to live with this COVID19 era. https://www.easkme.com/2020/04/things-must-do-during-lockdown.html
Not hated, he is reviled for his one trick pony stance.
Hi, Queenie. Great comment, Hon. You are so well spoken. You overcame so much, and should be commended.
Ilya is a Democrat attack dog, and all Beltway Swamp.
The clock on my fireplace mantle is the most consistent clock in the house; I should probably get around to replacing that battery.
That said, it IS accurate twice a day, if no more often. I've no doubt there are people fleeing China whose presence in the US would be very valuable. We should admit them.
Hi, Queenie. Brilliant comment from someone so well spoken, so clean. It would be more persuasive if you offered to import millions of Chinese doing your specific job. That way, they could replace you.
Yes, that's absolutely true: The last people existing citizens who find their real wages dropping due to inflation is more people competing with them for low paying jobs, bidding the wages down still further.
What is difference between hating someone and reviling them, to your way of thinking?
To be fair, he does find a way to work his thoughts on open borders into almost everything, regardless of apparent relevance (or lack thereof).
Hi, Queenie. Where did you get so smart, Snookums? Somin is a lying skank, Ivy indoctrinated hooer. He represents the interests of the tech billionaires. He thinks we, the regular people, are stupid. Reason is, of course, the Koch Bros. Queenie, you so cute in your simp naivete.
Hi, Queenie. You are such a caring person. Everyone is a good person to you. The world needs a lot more people like you, Honey.
Here's the thing: We need to carefully screen them, not just for potential spies, but to separate those whose addition to our population will be mutually beneficial, from those who will benefit from coming here, but to our detriment.
One of the most puzzling things about the anti-Ilya sentiment among the conservatives (why even dignify their pretense that they're libertarian?) here at Reason is that they constantly accuse Ilya of ignoring the costs of immigration even when he specifically mentions those costs in the very posts to which they're ostensibly responding.
I'm glad we have Professor Pangloss to explain our society and how it should address threats, and to neatly classify all information into "classified national security information" versus "open sources" information. There are no such things as PHI, no sensitive economic records, no trade secrets!
You are in no position to judge Behar's bowel movements.
Hey, don't judge. They're adventurous like that.
Queenie loves those Chinese tourists. They poop in public, right there when they feel the feeling. I hope they do not knock him over if he standing between them and a picture.
You doubt that somebody is actually taking costs into account when they conclude the benefits exceed the costs 100.00 % of the time.
"Ultimately, I believe we should open the door to all fleeing war and oppression, regardless of their nation of origin."
Note that "all".
No one engages with what he writes about the costs though, they just bring them up like it's not in the post at all.
"Ultimately, I believe we should open the door to all fleeing war and oppression, regardless of their nation of origin."
Truly, worthy of the vitriol. Like, I don't agree either, but somehow I manage not to rage and ask for an American Citizen to be deported.
Or maybe the benefits exceed the costs 100% of the time. You sort of forgot to consider that possibility.
Well, he casually acknowledges the theoretical existence of costs, sure. But notice above, the only costs he will acknowledge are,
1. The risk of espionage, which he dismisses by reference, not to the record of immigrants, but rather, of immigrants' children. So he's not actually addressing it.
2. The risk of diminishing pressure for reform in the countries the refugees are leaving. That's not a cost to US, it's somebody else's cost!
The prospect of dumping more people used to extremely low wages into a labor market with declining real wages economically harming people who are already here? Completely ignored, though that's a major argument against his open borders arguments!
And then he closes by reiterating that he wants us to open the door to ALL refugees, and views letting in selected ones as just an incremental step towards that.
To be clear, I think we SHOULD let in a fair number of Chinese refugees. Selectively! Some immigrants would be net beneficial, some would not. But Ilya rejects selective immigration, he treats immigrating here as a human right we have an obligation to permit, not as a choice we might voluntarily make on account of mutual benefit.
This is in general a better way to respond to these posts than just yelling how Somin is the worst American ever.
I don't think the issue of refugee-based spying is a very large one given the sorts of jobs they'll get. We already have plenty of measures in place for Chinese immigrants.
And my hope for reform in China is pretty remote. The idea that the additional pressure released by taking in refugees is more than marginal is not one I can credit much.
And, finally, the immigrants are bad for the labor market argument has been debunked many times.
I'm not an open border person like Prof. Somin because of 1) transition costs, and 2) concerns about floodgates he thinks will be more mild.
But the arguments people bring up are often more gestures at fear/contempt for outsiders than any actual functional concern.
"And, finally, the immigrants are bad for the labor market argument has been debunked many times."
Debunked is NOT a synonym for "disagreed with". You have to actually prove something wrong to "debunk" it, not just dispute it and assume you've made your case.
Most of the supposed debunking rests on claims that the economy expands, (Which, sure, can happen even as the average wealth of Americans declines.) or that *somebody* will end up better off, just not the people who end up unemployed.
Open boarders not so good for Ukraine just now
Words mean things, and immigration is not invasion.
It's the lump of labor fallacy. As you've been walked through many times.
There's like one remaining economists who thinks this is true. Phenominologically it has come out largely the other way. Which may explain why basically all the other labor economists don't buy immigration as a detriment, except for in very localized cases or in very specific economic circumstances (which we are very much not in).
Sarcastr0, think about what I've said about immigration and wages. I've said that I want a "cream skimming" immigration policy, with unskilled laborers excluded.
The reason I want this is because it will result in reduced income inequality, especially at the bottom end, alleviating poverty; More skilled labor will lower prices, and less unskilled labor will raise pay levels for the poorest people.
That doesn't depend on thinking that there's a fixed amount of work. It just depends on believing that supply and demand applies to labor. I'm suspecting you'll find more than one economist who'd agree that it does.
Immigration the people don't want is invasion.
Check out "lump of labor."
No it's not.
And don't presume to speak for "the people."