Georgians fear influx of migrants from Russia after Ukraine Invasion

Remember when the media and politicians claimed calling the mass migration at the border an invasion was racist? Or remember all the times American politicians and economists have haughtily dismissed the idea that rising immigration puts pressures on housing prices, inflation, and wages? Well, I stumbled upon a 60 Minutes piece detailing (at about the 7 minute mark they really break down the costs of mass migration on natives) how a mass influx of Russian immigrants to the country of Georgia is, wait for it, increasing the cost of living, radically changing the politics of Georgia, and pushing native Georgians out of the economy. 

The cognitive dissonance is astounding to behold. If Americans point out the myriad of burdens they bear so politicians can seem heroic and corporations can line their pockets, that is called racist and dangerous. It is also called economically illiterate and dismissed as conspiracies. However, in Georgia, with Russian immigrants, suddenly all the costs of immigration are salient and the migration is an “invasion.”

The President of Georgia said this about Russian migrants:

“They’re behaving and believing that they are very much at home. So there is a fine line. And that line has to be kept so that we do not have incidents in the future that would allow Russia to use their favorite doctrine of protecting Russian-speaking citizens,” Zourabichvili said. “And everybody has to know: where is the line between being a foreigner that is accepted in a country and being an invader that is not accepted, even if it’s a soft invader.”

If President Trump said this, it would spawn a spate of pearl clutching about replacement theory. When elected leaders of Georgia call Russian immigrants invaders, well it is different because of Putin. Even if the people fleeing Russia are opposed to Putin, it is perfectly acceptable for the media to credulously cover the costs of immigration on the native populace. 

More on the scourge of mass migration in Georgia:

“Some say the presence of so many Russians has already changed Georgia. Russians have registered 21,000 businesses in Georgia over the last 18 months, according to public records.  They’ve launched five new Russian-only schools, none of which are licensed by Georgia’s Department of Education.

Russians have driven rents up nearly 130%, according to TBC Capital, a financial management firm. Prices for everything from food to cars have also gone up, according to the National Statistics Office of Georgia. More than 100,000 Georgians have left the country, according to the Georgian Ministry of Internal Affairs. Many of them left Georgia because they can’t afford to live there anymore.”

How about that? The media has found a group of immigrants that actually cause harm. Apparently Russians are the only group of immigrants that can overwhelm a country’s resources and cause political and societal tension. Everywhere and anyone else, and immigration is a great bounty of gifts for the nation. But if it is Russian immigrants in Georgia, it causes calamity. 

The transparency of the politics behind the different treatment of the migration crisis at home as opposed to the one in Georgia is palpable. For a foreign country fighting our enemy Putin, the media can be sympathetic to the plight of those harmed by mass migration. The media simply cannot drum up similar sympathy for millions of Americans facing a similar fate. 

The question is why the media can champion the costs of mass migration a world away, but not right in their backyard. One may say that the relative difference in size and population of Georgia compared to the United States is the reason for the disparate coverage of the crises. However, even if you accept that, it does not explain why the media attacks American critics of mass migration as racists and conspiracy theorists.

Clearly, the costs of mass migration are obvious to the media. They cover those costs in Georgia uncritically. So even if they genuinely believe the circumstances are different in America, the arguments against mass migration are legitimate. In other words, whether or not the crisis at the border constitutes an invasion is a fact-dependent inquiry. If the media treated the debate on immigration in the United States the same way they cover it in Georgia, the country would be far better off.