Тег: Migrants

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

The state broke the demographics, and now even migrants will not save it

Every modern statist has a rather interesting “cheat code” at their disposal. States around the world, through their suffocating regulation, insane taxes, and inflation, have driven their native populations into such a demographic pit that there is no easy way out. Having children when half of your income is taken away by the tax office with an invisible (and very visible) hand, and a mortgage feels like lifelong slavery due to central bank games, is an unaffordable luxury for many young families.

And so, the average authoritarian bureaucrat scratches his head. He essentially has two paths:

The first path is total deregulation. Radically lowering taxes, easing regulations, removing bureaucratic barriers, letting people breathe, build homes, start businesses, grow wealthy, and look confidently into tomorrow. Making it so that people actually want to have children because they are confident in their future.

The second path is, with a heavy heart, to let millions of migrants into the country to somehow plug the gaping holes in the budget and the labor market, while not loosening the noose around the necks of their own citizens by a single millimeter.

Which do you think the official chooses? The second option, of course! Authoritarian statists usually don’t like migrants, but they are terrified to the point of shaking in their boots of losing power over the economy and society. It is better to import new blood than to give freedom to their own.

But then a system failure occurred; the “cheat code” stopped working. Let’s look at Spain (this was recently written about excellently here in El Confidencial). Local socialists have for years prayed to immigrants as the saviors of the solidarity pension system (i.e., a legalized financial pyramid). But suddenly, an inconvenient truth emerged—migrants age! A mass flow of people over 45 began entering Spain.

And here, the mathematics hits the official right in the face. Even if the statist gentlemen dream of importing ideal “passive hamsters” aged 55+, who will quietly sweep the streets, drive a steering wheel, and not say a crooked word against the government—it no longer works economically. Such a “hamster” will sluggishly work for 5–10 years, pay their few pennies in taxes (if they even leave the gray economy), and then retirement age arrives. And what next? Next, this person will spend 20+ years draining money from a budget bursting at the seams for a minimum social pension and free healthcare, which becomes insanely expensive in old age. Instead of solving the demographic problem, the state gets a giant financial black hole. The presence of such migrants creates a colossal burden on the budget, effectively bringing no net plus to the economy.

And you know what the most ironic part is? Statism is contagious; it has spread across the entire planet. The bureaucratic noose is not exclusive to developed countries. After all, the governments of the countries from which migrants traditionally come play the same games with no less enthusiasm: introducing new bans, multiplying bureaucrats, and terrorizing businesses. The result is predictable: birth rates there are also plummeting into the abyss! The myth that there is an “infinite reservoir of young labor” somewhere in the Global South has shattered against reality. In the countries of Latin America, North Africa, or Central Asia, there are fewer and fewer young people because having children under the conditions of their own native, local government regulation is just as much of a financial suicide. That is why it is no longer healthy twenty-year-old guys moving to rich countries, but those same exhausted people in their fifties. States around the world, with their insane rules, have created a global demographic winter.

An alternative to the “do not interfere in people’s lives” option simply does not exist. Do you want the nation to grow and the demographic crisis to be a thing of the past? Abolish taxes and the total regulation of life! When a person has freedom, property, and the confidence that the state will not come to take it away tomorrow—they will build a large family themselves. But as long as statists continue to tighten the noose, no amount of importing obedient “hamsters” will save their budgets from inevitable bankruptcy.

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