The United States government should cripple Russia by inviting Russian graduates to take the jobs sought by U.S. graduates, say the pro-migration advocates at the libertarian website Reason.com.

Vladimir Putin’s Russian invasion of Ukraine “is a prime opportunity for the U.S. to open its doors [so] depriving Putin of the brainpower driving his economy and this conflict,” the article says. “The U.S. can bolster its economy as it deprives Putin of the minds that keep Russia’s industrial motors running.”

“This is another example of ‘Never Letting a Crisis Go to Waste,'” responded Mark Krikorian, the director of the Center for Immigration Studies. He continued:

The idea that increasing opportunities for Russian skilled workers to go to the West is going to have any effect whatsoever on the situation in Ukraine today is so ludicrous. No reasonable person can actually imagine that what they’re proposing would have any effect, which means they’re just using a war as a pretext for increasing immigration. This really is a pure example of Rahm Emanuel’s [2011 comment] ‘Never let a crisis go to waste.

Emanuel was chief of staff to President Barack Obama.

Krikorian continued:

Even if a huge percentage of their skilled workers left Russia … it would be years before that had an effect, and by the time that had an effect, we are likely not to be dealing with the same regime in Russia. This would be weakening Russia theoretically speaking, long after the initial conditions that caused us to want to do this had changed.

It’s basically the reason that central planning doesn’t work in economics, because by the time the government acts conditions have changed, and the action is no longer appropriate. You would think a [libertarian] place like Reason magazine would appreciate this idea. But their motto seems to be “More immigration by any means necessary,” with any tendentious rationale available, and that’s all this is.

Ironically. Reason.com also slammed other advocates for hooking their priorities to the Ukrainian war.

National Review also posted an article calling for the same extraction migration policy against Russia, also regardless of the damage to U.S. graduates. “The United States could, with a stroke of a pen, totally destroy the capacity of Russia to compete militarily or economically with us by offering a green card to any Russian with a technical degree who wishes to emigrate to the United States,”

Other pro-migration groups are calling for the delivery of Ukrainian refugees to employers and landlords around the United States, or the award of “Temporary Protected Status” to Ukrainians in the United States — even though such pro-refugee policies would weaken Ukraine’s defensive war against Putin’s armies.

“A welcoming, humane immigration policy is the right thing to do for those coming to America but it’s smart foreign (and economic and education)…policy too!,” said a tweet from Todd Schulte, the president of the pro-migration advocacy group, FWD.us. “I don’t want moms to have to flee Kviv or Khartoum, but if they do let’s compete to help them.”

FWD.us was funded in 2013 by wealthy West Coast investors — including Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates — to bring more consumers and workers to businesses in the United States.

Since at least 1990, the federal government has tried to extract people from poor countries so they can serve U.S. investors as cheap workers, government-aided consumers, and high-density renters in the U.S. economy.

The policy has pushed many Americans out of jobs, careers, and homes by importing tens of millions of immigrants, plus millions of non-immigrant visa workers who are given the jobs and careers needed by U.S. graduates.

That economic strategy has no stopping point, and it is harmful to ordinary Americans because it cuts their career opportunities and their wages while it also raises their housing costs.

Extraction migration also curbs Americans’ productivity, shrinks their political clout, and widens the regional wealth gaps between the Democrats’ coastal states and the Republicans’ Heartland states. The economic strategy also kills many migrants, separates families, and damages the economies of the home countries.

An economy built on extraction migration also radicalizes Americans’ democratic, compromise-promoting civic culture and allows wealthy elites to ignore despairing Americans at the bottom of society.

The wealth-shifting extraction migration policy is very unpopular, according to a wide variety of polls. The polls show deep and broad public opposition to labor migration and the inflow of temporary contract workers into jobs sought by young U.S. graduates. The opposition is growing, anti-establishment, multiracial, cross-sex, non-racist, class-based, bipartisan, rational, persistent, and recognizes the solidarity that Americans owe to one another: