Pages

Tuesday, January 2, 2024

Some Immigration News For Your New Year

    The Romans ignored all their usual protocols for admitting new tribes into the empire.

    For some reason, the newly arrived Thervingi were not forced to hand over their weapons, nor was the tribe broken up into smaller units to be dispersed to different regions. This may have been because the Romans allowed too many Thervingi to cross, leaving Roman military forces vastly outnumbered.

    The other Gothic tribe massed at the Danube, the Greuthungi, were in a different position. Valens had rejected their envoys’ request for admission to the empire.

    They were as desperate to cross into Roman territory as the Thervingi. Seeing that the Romans were overwhelmed, the Greuthungi crossed the Danube on their own, further to the east.

    As conditions among the Thervingi continued to deteriorate, Lupicinus made a desperate play to keep them in line: He invited their leaders, Alavivus and Fritigern, to a dinner party and promptly took them hostage.

    When the Thervingi began to riot in response, Fritigern was able to convince Lupicinus to let him go to calm the situation down.

    But having gained his freedom, Fritigern reneged on his promise to Lupicinus and mobilized the Thervingi, who then allied themselves with the Greuthungi.

    The result was a unified and massive Gothic army that was now loose and armed in Roman territory.

* * *

    Thus began six years of war that would devastate the region and leave countless dead, including the Emperor Valens, who died fighting the Goths at the Battle of Adrianople in 378.

    The eventual peace brokered with the Goths in 382 by Theodosius I allowed them to settle in Roman territory as a self-governed federation between the Danube and Balkan mountains.

    But as an independent state within Roman territory, the Goths never integrated into Roman society and remained a source of political instability.

The thrust of the article is to "prove" that managing immigration is more practical than stopping it, such as with a border wall. But the article offers no evidence of it's thesis; certainly, the Romans hadn't used a border (or no-mans land) to try and stop the Goths. The real lesson is to not let in the barbarians in the first place. And the statement by the author that "[t]his flow didn’t lead to the collapse of the empire by marauding Germans. Rather, the flow of migration transformed the Roman Empire into what became medieval society," seems of cold comfort when one considers the conditions in the Dark Ages, or even the Medieval Period, versus those under the Empire. It's like pointing to the movie "Idiocracy" and concluding "but at least the U.S. didn't collapse". 

4 comments:

  1. So, Rome allowed the barbarians into their empire under terms set by the barbarians, setting the stage for the eventual collapse of the Roman empire. The Biden regime and past administrations have allowed modern barbarians to enter the US on their own terms since 1965, but somehow if we belatedly start "managing" this invasion, we can magically prevent the collapse of the US. Don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I saw another article comparing the influx of Latin Americans into the U.S. as being similar to the influx of Irish in the late 1800 and early 1900s and how they were able to integrate and assimilate. But we weren't trying to absorb as many immigrants as a percentage of the population at that time as now, and it ignores the economic impacts both in terms of driving down wages/driving up costs of living and in terms of greater expenditures for social services. And the influx of immigration did upset the social milieu. For instance, prior to the wave of immigration, there really was a common American culture in most of America--similar tastes, values, entertainment, etc. But the massive immigration of the late 1800s changed that forever.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. And based on the erroneous assumption that people are fully interchangeable economic units.

      Delete