Тег: Immigration

How the state filtered migrants so that only psychopaths were left on the streets

Ceuta is a tiny Spanish enclave on the Moroccan coast. And recently, a real drama has unfolded there. An interview with a local resident, who went out to protest against the dominance of illegals, went viral online. She described an interesting dynamic: once the guys who sailed in from Morocco realized that the Spanish state had no intention of handing out legalization and documents on a silver platter, the vast majority left the city. It would seem that bureaucracy won? Far from it.

The most sane people left. Those who wanted to work honestly, did not want problems with the law, and were looking for a normal life. But who stayed? Aggressive psychopaths, thugs, and degenerates, of course. They don’t care about legal status, the police, or the laws. In the end, normal people left, and concentrated crime settled on the streets. Now, Spanish women are simply afraid to leave their homes after sunset.

It turned out to be a classic, crystal-clear example of the law of negative selection. But let’s step back a little to understand how Spain even reached this state of affairs.

The Spanish authorities have been complaining for years about the demographic pit, about the fact that there is no one to earn pensions. And that means mass legalization of hundreds of thousands of migrants is urgently needed! But why did this hole form in a warm, fertile country? Because the state has suffocated its own population with care and regulation. Incredible tax pressure, a bloated state apparatus, draconian labor laws (where hiring a young man is a lifelong risk, because firing him later will cost you more), insane housing prices due to urban planning restrictions. And on top of that—thousands of absurd laws about victimless “crimes,” turning the average citizen into a perpetual neurotic and potential lawbreaker. A person lives in permanent stress under the microscope of a bureaucrat. And as any biologist knows, animals in captivity simply do not reproduce.

And now let’s see what happens when the state begins to clumsily “fight” immigration using its usual prohibitive methods.

If a person is a normal, sane hard worker, then he respects private property and personal boundaries. Yes, he might have crossed the strait illegally in search of a better life. But if he is told that he won’t be allowed to work legally here, that he will have no rights, and that deportation awaits him at the slightest stir, what will he do? He will go somewhere where there are chances, or return home. He has something to lose: his own safety, his reputation, the prospect of a stable income.

And who has nothing to lose? A completely broken sociopath. He deeply doesn’t care about residence permits, employment contracts, or the police. The police didn’t scare him in his homeland, and they won’t scare him here (especially knowing the toothlessness of European justice). He had no intention of integrating into the economy. His craft is robbery and violence.

By banning or making legal stay as difficult as possible, the state builds a barrier that filters out the cautious, the moderate, and the constructive. But only predators step over it. This works exactly the same as with gun bans: when authorities ban pistols, they disappear from law-abiding citizens but do not go anywhere for bandits. When the state bans drugs, it does not destroy demand – it simply hands the market over to bloody cartels instead of civilized pharmacies. And when the state bluntly “bans migration” instead of making way for free trade, private hiring, and strict protection of private property from encroachments – it is guaranteed to result in streets overwhelmed by a wave of violence.

In the end, we get a weeping simple woman from Ceuta, who cannot walk to the store in the evening. First, the stationary bandit stripped her of taxes and deprived her fellow citizens of a future, and then created a perfect sanctuary for those who recognize no rules at all. However, there is nothing new: any state intervention always only makes things worse. Even where it hypocritically promises to “restore order”!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

“Don’t like it—get out!”, “Say thank you that they let you in at all!”, “Be more modest as a guest, otherwise it’s suitcase, station, [country of origin]!”

Have you heard this before? If you have ever moved to another country and had the misfortune of criticizing the local taxes, bureaucracy, or healthcare out loud, you have likely faced a similar storm of indignation in response. Moreover, this is said by local “patriots” and even other immigrants, who apparently suffer from a severe form of Stockholm syndrome.
 
For some reason, in the minds of authoritarian etatists, the state is a kind of sacred deity. A strict but fair father who, out of great mercy, “took in” the poor orphan immigrant. Consequently, the orphan must fall prostrate, kiss the ground, and keep quiet. Only we understand that this is all nonsense that does not fit into common sense.
 
Imagine that you checked into an expensive hotel. You paid for the room a month in advance and left a deposit. You enter, and the faucet is leaking, the Wi-Fi only works on the balcony, and cockroaches are running down the hallway. You go down to the reception to express your dissatisfaction. And suddenly some guy in the lobby screams at you: “How dare you complain?! If you don’t like the hotel, go sleep on a heating pipe! Be grateful that you were even given keys!” Sounds like the rambling of a madman? But it is exactly the same as the phrase “if you don’t like it, leave.”
 
It is also necessary to understand that immigration is by no means “charity.” Modern legal immigration is a harsh, pragmatic, and very expensive procedure. The state is effectively selling you access to “its” infrastructure. And it certainly does not lose a single cent in the process.
 
You pay for this access long before your foot touches the new land. You pay visa fees, document translations, agent services, language tests, and medical examinations. You go through a rigorous administrative filter that checks your health, education, lack of criminal records, and ability to bring in money. The state power of the country lets you in not because it is kind. It is simply because you are a ready-made, trained taxpayer at someone else’s expense with minimal risks for the system.
 
Does this end upon arrival? Not at all. At that moment, an invisible counter starts. Your life in the new country has a specific price—the cost of one hour of life. Calculate your rent, utilities, insurance, groceries, gasoline, taxes, and divide by 30 days, then by 24 hours. You will get the amount you owe this system simply for the right to breathe its air. Even when you sleep or are sick, your counter ticks. You continuously pour money into the local economy as a customer of banks, supermarkets, insurance companies, and landlords, who, by the way, pay exorbitant taxes. Even if you personally do not work “on the books,” these taxes are already included in the price of goods and services.
 
So why on earth should a client, who regularly pays the “subscription fee” (in the form of huge taxes and the cost of living), not have the right to say that the service is, to put it mildly, mediocre? State lovers adore the proverb “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth.” Only the horse was never a gift; it was bought at a double rate. And we have every right to be outraged if the horse is defective.
 
Citizenship, by the way, also changes nothing fundamentally. A passport is not the end of the game or an indulgence from levies, but simply “premium access” within the framework of the same contract. Once the counter is started, no one will ever turn it off.
 
Therefore, to the words of a defender of the stationary bandit saying “pack your bags,” you can boldly ask—are you saying this to the investors who invested their capital, their brains, and their time in this country? People have every right to demand quality service, be outraged by high taxes, and criticize unfair laws. In any language and in any part of the globe, regardless of their origin and the color of their passport!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Do you want to close borders? Start with your yard!

We frequently observe an epic battle between frogs and snakes. On one side – conservatives who are horrified that their comfortable neighborhood is transforming into a small ghetto with foreign culture, loud music, and unfamiliar customs. They turn to a local criminal for bans, deportations, and a border wall. On the other side – liberals who welcome everyone in, completely ignoring the dissatisfaction of taxpayers funding lavish social events. And we, libertarians, stand in the middle, picking up rotten tomatoes from both sides. Because we advocate for freedom of movement (borders are evil), but oppose the state forcing its neighbors upon us.

Why do we all argue over migration? The “newcomer” problem only exists where there’s “public space”—that is, no man’s land. Streets, parks, and squares in ordinary cities belong to the government. Consequently, officials decide who can use them, disregarding public comfort unless it threatens their position. Ordinary people become frustrated because they cannot simply refuse entry to someone into their yard. Their only recourse is to beg Leviathan to institute visas and close the country’s borders. This is like amputating a limb to cure a blister—foolish, cruel, and ineffectual.

How do we address this issue? The answer, as always, lies in private property – specifically, gated communities (“gated communities”). Imagine: you don’t live in “City N,” but within a closed village. You have a contract. The contract outlines the rules. You and your neighbors are shareholders of the district. You hire security guards. And miraculously, you control who enters your territory yourselves! You don’t need the state to deploy machine gunners at national borders. A polite gatekeeper at your village entrance is sufficient.

This is termed discrimination—a profoundly disturbing word. However, within libertarianism, private discrimination (choosing whom to associate with and not) is a fundamental right of ownership. Let’s examine some global practices similar to this.

In the United States, it’s a classic example. Consider Florida or California. Vast territories governed by HOAs (homeowners associations). These are essentially miniature states based on contracts. In locales like The Villages (Florida), crime rates approach zero. There are no “random” individuals. Simultaneously, nobody prohibits hiring immigrant gardeners. They simply come to work; they do not impose their orders onto the playground. It’s a symbiosis: the labor market functions, and the cultural code of residents is protected by a fence rather than federal law.

Alternatively, consider Brazil. In São Paulo, there’s the Alphaville district. It’s literally a city within a city. It boasts its own schools, offices, and roads. Enveloping it are high levels of street crime, whereas inside, everything is calm and quiet. Residents of this area do not demand to close Brazilian borders; instead, they restrict access to their neighborhood. This proves remarkably effective!

And what about in Russia? Even here, a kind of impromptu Ancapistan for the rich already exists. Look at the Moscow suburbs – cottage developments like “Millennium Park,” “Agalarov Estate,” or simpler options. This is the realization of a libertarian dream in miniature (with the caveat of Russian realities, of course).

How is the “migration issue” resolved in such places? Entry is only by passes, so no “undesirable element” can just come and sit on a bench. At the same time, labor migration is welcomed. Residents happily hire migrants for construction, cleaning, and lawn care. But they are not free from responsibility. If the neighbor’s worker starts to get rowdy, the administration of the settlement fines him, and the worker is expelled by a security firm (ЧОП). Fast, without courts or investigations, purely according to the terms of the residence agreement.

And notice: residents of these settlements are completely indifferent to things like the introduction of new migration policy for 2026-2030 with biometrics and other means of tracking migrants. They have their own rules that work better. They’ve created a safe environment without the need to jail someone for not having a passport!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Prospera

I read a teaser on RLN.Today about the charter city of Prospera on the Honduran island of Roatán. Naturally, all panarchists are following this case with great interest, but for now, excessive enthusiasm seems premature. There was already an attempt to build a charter city in Honduras, but it fizzled out because they failed to agree with the central government on a number of important details. Now they have decided to try again, and they seem to have progressed further than the first time. However, if you look at the immigration guide booklet, it is clear that, in essence, you are not being invited to a special political zone with its own complete charter, but simply to Honduras, according to Honduran immigration rules. It’s not the worst country, more free than Russia—but for now, inside the wrapper of a free city, there is no free city to be seen.

So I would not recommend rushing off to settle on this wonderful island right now—without first getting acquainted with the project initiators to assess how far the negotiations on the political and economic autonomy of the future city have actually progressed, and what the guarantees for its future preservation will be.

However, Prospera has a chance today to truly become a free city very quickly—it just needs to open free immigration for the residents of Hong Kong and give new citizens the opportunity to establish their Hong Kong-style systems in the new location.