Last year I added a glossary entry “coercive engineered migration” about a phenomenon described in Kelly Greenhill’s book, Weapons of Mass Migration, in which she uses as her best example Qaddafi threatening Europe with uncontrolled migration from Africa if they didn’t comply with his demands.

The theory behind coercive engineered migration is that relatively weak foreign rulers can effect policy change in democratic Western countries by forcing politicians to make a choice: either capitulate to their demands or be faced with a choice to either accept a flood of migrants or to refuse migrants and expose your country and its citizens as hypocrites. It was a very effective tactic and now, having bombed Libya into the stone age and set up Qaddafi to be killed, the West is using his tactic against its own people.

From charging European countries exorbitant fines upward of $300,000 per migrant refused, to threatening uncontrolled African migration if Libya is not taken in hand, the ruling elite of the EU and the US are, by hook or by crook, getting Europe to consent to participating in the military conquest of the Middle East.

Here is today’s propaganda from The Wall Street Journal: Arm our version of a government in Libya or be overrun…

U.S. and Others Open to Arming Libyan Government
Secretary of State John Kerry and top diplomats meet in Vienna to discuss anti-Islamic State measures

The Vienna meeting was co-chaired by Italy, Libya’s former colonial ruler, which is concerned about the country’s stability because of the threat of uncontrolled migration. Libya’s Mediterranean coast is a main departure point for migrants to southern Europe.

My distinction between recognizing the free exercise of the rights to work and travel and calling out coercive engineered migration has drawn some fire from libertarians, and I understand why, but one of my arguments for resisting this tactic is that the more effective it is the more it gives the powers that be–and even the powers that wanna-be–an incentive to continue to use it by destabilizing regimes from within through radical Islamic fifth columns and economic destabilization and without through mercenaries and military action.

To me, it is an inescapable conclusion that radical Islam and the migrant crisis are tools being used by the global military industrial complex for the subjugation of the Middle East. What else would explain the West’s policy of toppling secular Arab strongmen who kept radical Islam in check? The pattern is undeniable, from Qaddafi to Hussein to Assad in recent memory, to the mid-Twentieth century regime changes of the secular governments of Iran and Afghanistan. (Am I missing any? Oh yeah–using the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser in Egypt and against Assad père in Homs, though those attempts at regime change were unsuccessful.)



Comments (20)

I saw this on another site, but it’s a pretty long lists of ones you missed.

Instances of the United States overthrowing, or attempting to overthrow, a foreign government since the Second World War. (* indicates successful ouster of a government)

China 1949 to early 1960s
Albania 1949-53
East Germany 1950s
Iran 1953 *
Guatemala 1954 *
Costa Rica mid-1950s
Syria 1956-7
Egypt 1957
Indonesia 1957-8
British Guiana 1953-64 *
Iraq 1963 *
North Vietnam 1945-73
Cambodia 1955-70 *
Laos 1958 *, 1959 *, 1960 *
Ecuador 1960-63 *
Congo 1960 *
France 1965
Brazil 1962-64 *
Dominican Republic 1963 *
Cuba 1959 to present
Bolivia 1964 *
Indonesia 1965 *
Ghana 1966 *
Chile 1964-73 *
Greece 1967 *
Costa Rica 1970-71
Bolivia 1971 *
Australia 1973-75 *
Angola 1975, 1980s
Zaire 1975
Portugal 1974-76 *
Jamaica 1976-80 *
Seychelles 1979-81
Chad 1981-82 *
Grenada 1983 *
South Yemen 1982-84
Suriname 1982-84
Fiji 1987 *
Libya 1980s
Nicaragua 1981-90 *
Panama 1989 *
Bulgaria 1990 *
Albania 1991 *
Iraq 1991
Afghanistan 1980s *
Somalia 1993
Yugoslavia 1999-2000 *
Ecuador 2000 *
Afghanistan 2001 *
Venezuela 2002 *
Iraq 2003 *
Haiti 2004 *
Somalia 2007 to present
Honduras 2009
Libya 2011 *
Syria 2012
Ukraine 2014 *

I was just talking about secular Arab governments and it looks like I missed a few, but your list still shocks me – I really only knew about a handful of these.

Coercive engineered migration seems unlikely to me. Attempts to control market forces may delay migration, but supply and demand are the forces here, not some sinister cabal. This whole idea is just an excuse for racism and xenophobic hysteria. What you’re seeing in the world now is a market correction in labor. It’s a result of immigration restrictions, not a lack of them. Honestly, how often is government able to do anything without it being a big cluster-!@#$? Time will show that this immigration market correction will be net positive for the countries involved, and unlike your theory, which cannot be tested, mine can. What annoys me is that some people aren’t mindful of the people that agree with them. Any time white nationalists and the Klan agree with you on something, it’s time to recheck your philosophy.

I don’t think it’s market forces. Everything from indiscriminate college subsidies to the de facto wage floor welfare enforces creates an artificial demand for outside labor both at the top and the bottom of the skill spectrum.

What makes a demand artificial? Is a demand “artificial” because we don’t like how it’s generated? Truth is, people move where they think they can get a better life. It’s real to them. So there’s a demand for better living conditions in addition to the demand for labor. Some of us believe that we are more than we really are, and have appointed ourselves as gatekeepers for humanity against some predicted catastrophe. To those people, I say no thanks, I don’t need you to decide for everyone else where they can go, no matter what your imaginary disaster is. I object to your unasked for protection. May I opt out of your protection of everybody? May I be excused, and bring friends across the property you claim to own from here to mexico? You do own that land, and are justified in granting permission, aren’t you? Or is that the closet statist doing what’s best for everyone?

My only problem is that government policy at home and in foreign countries is designed to generate this conflict. I am not advocating any immigration policy whatsoever. All I’m suggesting is that government action that purposely destabilizes economies and societies and deliberately distorts free markets, including labor markets, both in this country and in foreign countries, with the intention of manipulating peoples and policies, be discontinued. That’s it.

I disagree with you sir. It’s not racism since Islam is not a race, it’s a religion. It’s not xenophobic as there is no fear of strangers per se. It’s the fact that this is a planned reorganization of Europe. To change the culture. They are not going there for a better life. They are not going there to assimilate. They are they to create a new environment and to demand that current laws, ways of living and the culture changes to fit their needs and wants. There is a reason that the US has been called a melting pot for years. People used to come here to Be Americans. Not to live here and suck our juices dry. Same thing with Europe. They are bankrupting countries such as Germany, Sweden and Norway.

I think that it’s too soon to see the positives of current examples. Your reaction is on par with history though. Short-sighted bigots always claim that the immigrants won’t assimilate , but they eventually do. The Chinese, the irish, the jews, and others faced resistance, and arguments exactly like yours when they immigrated. But they proved that the bigoted xenophobes were wrong in their chicken little hysteria. Pick up a history book. It’s true what I’m saying, and the economic effect is historically true also. tyrants will always try to subvert the natural market forces, but all they can ever do is delay them. The kind of power that some people claim they have over nature is exaggerated. No matter what the intent of tyrants is, it is no excuse to be on the same side as the white nationalists and the klan. Saying that kings and presidents are wielding immigration as a super weapon is about as ridiculous as saying that they control the hurricanes and withhold rain from the farms of their enemies. You can say it’s happening, but it isn’t.

It’s one thing to say they would do it or claim credit for it, but believing they have the power to harness supply and demand for evil is just silly. It’s a natural force, and it can’t be bridled. nature is more powerful than any man or group of men. If we’re wise, we will take comfort in this, that men cannot overcome the limits that God has set. as bastiat concluded his essay, “And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.”

ps. it’s the government s that do the bankrupting in Germany Sweden, Norway and anywhere else. Not the people. Do you see how they’ve tricked you into believing they aren’t the cause?

Great suggestion on your part, but there are some lost causes, Brad being one of them. I have tried numerous times to impart some obvious common sense to him, but to no avail. Another reader, Fred, made a similar observation in this thread. Some folks have locked down their minds to receiving logical input.

I’m not going to close my ears to any reasoned argument, I just pointed out that your “economist” was with a white nationalist, and was having a really hard time swimming against the rational arguments of real economists like this one:

Several times I post things that folks refuse to look at, but isn’t that a lot like locking down YOUR mind? I just think that if the facts about immigration don’t change your mind, then something else is there stopping them. There are a couple of reasons left other than the facts that I have debunked to be against immigration. Irrational fear, loyalty to political heroes, racism, and white nationalism. It’s crazy to fear people you don’t understand when most people would gladly help you to understand them. Start a conversation with a Mexican or a Somalian or whatever. You will likely find that they are human people with the same loves and fears and goals as you do. Nobody ever died from having too many friends.

Say Brad,
What’s the weather like on your planet today? Appears to be continuously extremely cloudy, as gauged by your comments!

That really would be a waste of my time framing any kind of a meaningful argument. You would just end up calling me a bigot or xenophobe or similar. Hence I just dropped off my quick slam.

Yes, when Brad is unable to refute a comment with fact, logic or just plain old common sense, he immediately resorts to calling the other party a bigot or xenophobic. It’s page 1 in his playbook and as predictable as the sun rising in the east. My only hope is that when our next gifts arrive from Somalia they are resettled in Brad’s neighborhood. Having seen firsthand the effects these people have on communities, I strongly suspect Brad would quickly realize this is not an issue that can be modeled on a supply/demand curve. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking on my part…

I see people as fellow human beings. If anyone really examines your language here, they will see that you chose Somalians as the worst thing that could happen to my neighborhood. Why Somalians, Fred? Why would I mind if a Somalian person shared my street? You speak of facts, but your examples of unsavory immigrants moving in next to me lack details. Tell me why it would be bad,, Fred. Oh, and “these people?” How are “these people” different than you and I, Fred?

I grew up around Klansmen and the like, and I know how they talk. There’s a reason they talk in such a roundabout way. They know that normal people find it unacceptable when they are honest and plain about what they believe. The Liberty movement isn’t normally a place that attracts nationalists and supremicists, but ever since this immigration exception to liberty came out and was supported by one prominent libertarian that some people worship, we’ve been infested with them. I hope and pray that some people will see the light, and see people as human beings instead of some cursed burden. If the USA government became so oppressive that you wanted to leave, how would you like to be treated?

It seems an interesting twist on Gaddafi’s suggestion that Europe pay Libya to hold back immigration referring to it as a threat. It’s not like Gaddafi was creating the immigrant migration. Libya was not obliged to to protect Europe so at worst, they would be not acting.

I know that it was taken that way at the time but that’s no reason for us to dignify it by accepting it without qualification.

I don’t doubt that migration due to natural causes existed but we cannot overlook the impact of IMF/World Bank/CIA, et al interference in African and Middle East countries.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.