I recently ranted on Facebook about the Swedish Parliament having voted in favor of sending its eighteenth and to date largest military support package to Ukraine. “Between this and mass immigration Sweden is drowning in the deep waters of misplaced humanitarianism,” I said. “I always held Sweden in very high regard,” I continued. “When I was a young man it was for me (and many others) a model society, enlightened and democratic. My heart aches over the developments there over the last several years. Indeed, most of Europe has been captured and corrupted by transnational corporate power. My country helped liberate Europe from war and authoritarianism. More than a hundred thousand Americans died in action in the European theater during WWII. I truly hate to see this.”
In this essay, I want to expand on what I mean by “misplaced humanitarianism.” Some of those who claim to embody humanitarianism are driven by the egotistical need to signal virtue. Virtue signaling leads to many harmful things, as we saw during the pandemic with parents subjecting their children to mRNA gene therapy. We see this also with parents captured by gender ideology who misgender their children. Virtue signaling is mostly a problem on the woke progressive left. However, there are thoughtful people who pursue humanitarianism for its own sake but have nonetheless come to fetishize immigrants to the detriment of their fellow countrymen.
In the latter case, one find well-meaning people who don’t take into account the impact mass immigration has on the citizens of their own country. Their fellow countrymen also have aspirations and needs, and true humanitarianism would extend to them, as well. Indeed, it would prioritize them for reasons I will come to. Humanitarianism is the ethical commitment to promoting human welfare and reducing the suffering of people. But it must also respect national sovereignty, territorial borders, and cultural integrity. Advocates for open borders do so in the name of compassion, but open borders harm the people its advocates claim to help and harms their fellow citizens, particularly the most vulnerable members of society. One’s fellow citizens also deserve compassion and consideration.
One of the things missing from their argument is why a nation opens its borders or fails to deport those who are in the country illegally. They assign to all immigrants the status of refugee, when in fact the vast majority of illegal and legal immigrants are not fleeing oppression but seeking opportunity and relief from the conditions of their home country. Most immigrants come to the US primarily to improve their life chances rather than fleeing persecution. Refugees and asylum seekers constitute a small percentage of immigrants compared to those migrating for education, family reunification, or work.
Economic migration is the largest category, with many immigrants, particularly from Asia and Latin America, seeking better living standards, expansive social welfare systems, higher wages, and jobs. This includes both legal immigrants on employment-based visas and illegal aliens crossing the border. Family reunification is another driver of immigration, as a significant portion of legal immigrants receive green cards through family sponsorship by US citizens or permanent residents (a practice that needs to be significantly curtailed). Additionally, some immigrants arrive for educational reasons, coming on student visas to study at US universities, while others enter through investor visas or other special programs.
As for refugees and asylum seekers, the US government admits a limited number of such persons each year. Many asylum seekers face lengthy legal processes, as they should; coached on how to present their cases as if they were authentic asylees, many are in fact undeserving of that status. The point is that, while humanitarian migration is real and important, the majority of immigrants come for reasons other than escaping persecution, including those who seek asylum. In the cases of economic migrants, those overstaying their visas, or those seeking the superior social welfare systems the US has developed over many decades, humanitarianism doesn’t apply. It is therefore misplaced. It is also misplaced when applied to those who falsely claim refugee status.
What many people either don’t know or resist recognizing are the pull factors that incentivize migration. I am not blaming people for wanting to come to the United States. We’re a great nation (one does not often see even the poorest people in the US trying to escape to other countries). It’s understandable that those living in poor countries would seek to enter the United States given its standard of living. But what those who defend open borders need to know is that corporations promote weak immigration laws and seek lax enforcement of those laws do so for the sake of profit. Capitalism is a system of labor exploitation, in which the value produced by labor is appropriated by the capitalist and then realized in various markets as profit. This is the dynamic of capitalist accumulation, and it motivates corporations to push for open border policies.
Capitalists seek higher rates of surplus value, that is value relative to variable capital, i.e., wages, competition, and benefits, to increase the potential for profit generation. Maximizing surplus value production is pursued in two basic ways: absolute surplus value and relative surplus value. Absolute surplus value is generated by extending the working day beyond the necessary labor time required to reproduce workers’ wages, often accompanied by efforts to reduce wages. This strategy is pursued in labor-intensive sectors. Offshoring production to regions with lower labor costs serves as another strategy to maximize surplus value by reducing wage expenditures. Relative surplus value, on the other hand, is created by increasing productivity through technological advancements or efficiency improvements, such as automation and mechanization, reducing the necessary labor time while keeping wages constant, thereby expanding surplus labor within the same working hours.
Immigration functions as a mechanism to lower variable capital costs, aligning with the same globalization strategy that underpins offshoring. By allowing capitalists access to pools of migrant labor willing to work for lower wages, employers can suppress overall labor costs and increase surplus value without relocating production. This is particularly evident in labor-intensive industries such as agriculture, construction, and low-wage service sectors, where an influx of immigrant workers creates downward pressure on wages and weakens labor bargaining power. Just as offshoring enables firms to exploit lower labor costs abroad, domestic labor markets are similarly restructured through immigration policies that supply a steady flow of cheap labor. In both cases, capital seeks to minimize labor expenses while maximizing profitability, demonstrating the flexibility of capital accumulation strategies in response to shifting economic and political conditions. Another way of putting this is that globalization is a strategy for the super-exploitation of labor that is external and internal neocolonialism.
Immigration pursued for such purposes is not humanitarianism; indeed, calling this humanitarianism is propaganda organized to conceal the exploitative means of globalization, i.e., serving the interests of corporations that exploit cheap labor. The propaganda causes many good people to fail to recognize the suffering of those populations for which they otherwise express sympathy. For example, the practice of driving down wages for working-class Americans disproportionately harm black and brown communities. It increases economic insecurity, strains public services, and undermines job opportunities for those already struggling. A policy that benefits corporate elites while impoverishing American workers cannot be called humanitarian. One can easily show that, while corporations may be legal persons, they are a person with the personality profile of a psychopath (using diagnostic criteria from various manuals organized by the psychiatric industry—motivated purely by self-interest, with no regard for the social consequences of their actions. A truly humanitarian approach rejects economic models that treat human beings as expendable labor, especially when it prioritizes non-citizens over the struggling citizens of a country.
The consequences of globalization are uncontroversial. To be sure, over the last fifty years, poverty and inequality in the US have evolved in complex ways. However, while absolute poverty has declined due to economic growth (albeit slowing), social programs (vastly expanded), and technological advancements, inequality has worsened significantly. Income distribution has become increasingly skewed, with the wealthiest Americans capturing a growing share of economic gains while wages for much of the working have stagnated (adjusted for inflation). Despite rising productivity, real wages have not kept pace, meaning that most workers have seen little benefit from overall economic expansion. This expansion is the result of globalization, which is pursued in an attempt to reverse the falling rate of profit. In fact, globalization is a major reason why the profit rate is falling.
Wealth inequality has followed a similar trajectory, as asset accumulation—especially through stocks and real estate—has overwhelmingly benefited the capitalist and the upper-echelon of the professional managerial classes, widening the gap between the rich and the rest of society. At the same time, the erosion of unions and policies favoring capital over labor have further exacerbated disparities. The erosion of unions is a result of globalization (union density in the private sector is now under six percent). So, while material conditions for many have improved in terms of technology and access to goods, the relative divide between economic classes has become more pronounced, making upward mobility increasingly difficult for those at the bottom. And when we turn to the dependent populations of the ghettos maintained by progressive politicians and policymakers we see extreme poverty and neighborhood disorganization. As a result, crime and violence are overwhelming a problem of black- and brown-majority communities.
Growing inequality weakens a democratic republic, and a strong nation-state based on this principle is necessary for true humanitarian efforts. Wealth concentration is associated with the concentration of power and influence. Without popular power, law and policy increasingly favors the rich and power. The rule of law, national security, and cultural integrity, when these represent the popular will, ensure that humanitarian policies do not lead to exploitation or social disorganization. Mass immigration is rooted in exploitation and associated with social disorganization.
The US Constitution establishes the people as sovereign and guarantees fundamental rights such as freedom of conscience, speech, association, privacy, and self-defense—all without regard to race, I hasten to add. But these rights are only preserved and realized within a stable, functioning nation that defends the cultural integrity necessary to equip the working class to marshal the power they have to resist the concentrated power associated with capitalist accumulation. That popular power is found in solidarity. Without cultural integrity, the shared values and principles that sustain our secular system of democratic-republicanism are undermined. A nation that abandons its cultural foundations in the name of unrestricted immigration risks losing the very framework that protects liberty and promotes justice for its citizens and those legally residing in the country. We see the consequences of social disorganization not just in the United States, but across Europe.
A truly compassionate and responsible approach to humanitarianism must do the following: It must respect borders and national laws. Aid and relief should be delivered in a way that complements, rather than disrupts, a country’s cultural fabric and the social structures that promote opportunity. It must preserve national sovereignty and cultural integrity. A true humanitarianism strengthens nations rather than erases national distinctions. A strong, sovereign state is far better equipped to help both its own people and others in crisis. Multiculturalism is a tactic to undermine cultural integrity and disorganize the nation for the sake of globalization. A true humanitarianism must therefore prioritize orderly and legal immigration. Refugee and immigration policies should be lawful, structured, and sustainable, ensuring that host nations can integrate newcomers without harming their own citizens. That means manageable numbers at a gradual pace. Immigration policy must take particular care not to harm the vulnerable within the nation.
Humanitarianism is an ethical and moral practice. Because the people are sovereign, a nation’s first moral duty is to its people, particularly the poor and working class, who are most impacted by globalization. A nationalism adequate to human thriving must promote self-sufficiency and social stability. Instead of fostering dependency, humanitarian efforts should empower struggling communities—both domestically and abroad—to build stable, self-sustaining societies. The emphasis must be on the citizen since this is the raison d’être of the modern nation-state. The nation-state is one of great advancements of humanity. National borders are the sine qua non for a safe, stable, and sovereign nation-state.
It follows from this that humanitarianism should never be used as a pretext to weaken the nation-state or exploit vulnerable people for economic gain, since this negates the ethnical and moral core of the practice. True humanitarian policies must balance compassion with responsibility, ensuring that helping others does not come at the cost of a nation’s own citizens, stability, or cultural identity. A strong, secure, and self-sufficient nation is not only better for its own people but also more capable of providing meaningful aid to others—on its own terms, without being coerced into crises that threaten its survival.
Humanitarianism and national sovereignty are therefore not opposing forces; they are complementary. A nation that preserves its strength, security, and cultural integrity is one that can best extend real, sustainable aid to those in need—both at home and abroad. Nationalism is not a bad thing. It has been portrayed as bad because nationalism is a problem for globalists who seek a borderless world, the governance of which will be delegated to the transnational corporations and world banks. Will this world protect Americans’ rights to free conscience, free speech, free press, freedom of association, freedom to assemble, the right to privacy, the right to keep and bear arms, and all the other rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? Not if there are no longer any nations, formally or effectively.
This is what I mean by misplaced humanitarianism. Those who defend open borders and oppose immigration restrictions and mass deportations, for whatever reason, mis-specify humanitarianism in the context of the modern nation-state. They fail to recognize that it has only been with the rise of the modern nation-state that organized humanitarianism on a grand scale has become possible. If we allow globalists to co-opt the rhetoric of humanitarianism to pursue corporate ends, then we will undermine our capacity to be effective humanitarians. We will be left only with its rhetoric. This is why I tell people that, without a valid theory of how the world works under global capitalism, one may find themselves advocating for law and policy that in reality works at cross-purposes with the ends they actually seek.
It can help readers to understand all this by considering that the United States is our home. When we scale the importance of home down to the household it is obvious that, while one may wish to help out others, the household can only help so many. It is destructive to a household to stretch its finances thin. Moreover, it is destructive to allow people into one’s home who disrupt the life of his family or make members of the household unsafe. This is why protection of home from intruders is an inherent right. It is why there are walls and doors and windows that lock. It is why we have right to keep and bear arms. At a certain point, if charity is pursued at the expense of thriving and security, it becomes a pathological thing. In the same way, misplaced humanitarianism endangers our national home.
There is another matter those who defend open borders should consider. The reader might ask himself whether those who seek to flee their countries due to difficult conditions should instead stay and work toward making their homeland more adequate to safety and human thriving. A good citizen is a patriot; he cares about his country and his fellow countrymen and wants to see his country thrive. Doesn’t the patriot have a responsibility to his family, his community, and future generations? When individuals abandon their country, particularly those with ambition, education, and skills, they take with them the resources that could drive change and improve their country. The departure of the good among the population weakens their national home, betrays their countrymen, depriving it of the energy, innovation, and leadership necessary for progress. If those who desire a better life channel their efforts into reform rather than escape, they can transform the conditions that once seemed insurmountable.
Leaving one’s country risks perpetuating a cycle in which problems remain unsolved because those who could fight for solutions choose to start over elsewhere. While fleeing may offer personal relief, it does not address the structural issues that compel people to leave in the first place. These we call the “push factors.” Change does not come easily, but history has shown that movements for economic reform, justice, and political freedom are led by the good among a population who refuse to abandon their homeland to tyrants. The fight to improve one’s own country may be difficult and slow, but it is the only way to build a lasting foundation for future prosperity, rather than merely seeking refuge elsewhere. As for the bad among them, we don’t want them here.
Finally, to bring the essay back to the brief rant shared at the start, Sweden has experienced a significant rise in gang-related crime and violence in recent years, particularly in the form of shootings and bombings. Rape has also become a very serious problem in Sweden. The surge in crime and violence has been driven by conflicts between rival gangs involved in drug trafficking and other illicit activities, and these are associated with immigrant-dominated suburbs in major cities such as Göteborg, Malmö, and Stockholm. This situation developed from Sweden’s misplaced humanitarianism, ramped up during the migrant crisis of 2014. While Sweden was once considered one of Europe’s safest countries, it has become on the worst-affected nations in the region in terms of serious crime and violence.
The Swedish government has acknowledged the severity of the crisis. Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson (of the Moderate Party) has called the crime and violence there a “systemic threat” to the country. Efforts to combat the problem have included stricter penalties for gang-related offenses, more aggressive policing, and discussions about implementing surveillance and intelligence-gathering measures. Swedish academics, policymakers, and politicians advocate long-term solutions, such as broader social reforms, including better integration policies, education initiatives, and economic opportunities for marginalized communities. However, this neglects the reality that people are culture-bearers, which means they bring with them their culture, and some cultures are resistant to integrating with the host culture. This problem is compounded by multiculturalists who rationalize their resistance. Indeed, pseudo-humanitarians in Sweden defend the presence of incompatible cultures by making nationalists in Sweden out of be a greater systemic threat than those from such foreign cultures. On the contrary, the nationalists are Sweden’s saviors.
One of the objections I frequently encounter is that immigrants commit fewer crimes than citizens. But this claim ignores two key facts. First, immigrants who are in the United States illegally are criminals. You may hear the objection that illegally crossing the border is only a civil violation. This is a falsehood. If a person overstays his visas, then it’s a civil penalty. But if persons cross the border without authorization violate 8 U.S.C. § 1325 or § 1326, thus committing a criminal offense. Second, if one takes any time to examine crime statistics, they will soon learn that the identity of many of those who perpetrate the most serious crimes—aggravated assault, burglary, murder, rape, and robbery—is unknown or not specified. And while defenders of open borders in the United States may be able to obscure the identity of perpetrators because of the nation’s diversity, the experience of Sweden and other ethnically homogenous European countries definitively demonstrates that crime is mostly, or at least disproportionately, perpetrated by those who have migrated to those countries from African, Arabic, and Eastern European countries.
Misplaced humanitarianism, whether driven by the desire to virtue signal or by rigid ideological commitments, ultimately places the well-being of their fellow citizens at risk in the pursuit of open-border policies. While compassion and aid for those in need are noble aspirations, policies that prioritize non-citizens without regard for economic stability, national security, and social cohesion undermine the very foundations of a functioning and just society. A government’s foremost duty is to its own people, ensuring their safety, prosperity, and cultural integrity. When this duty is cast aside in favor of unchecked immigration, it is the average citizen who bears the consequences—economic and social strain, rising crime and disorder, and cultural disintegration. A valid humanitarianism strikes a balance between empathy and pragmatism, recognizing that sustainable and morally-appropriate generosity is only possible when a nation safeguards its own stability and puts its own people first.
freedom and reason 