Thank you for your thoughts. I hope the two links below are helpful in explaining the points I wish to stress.

http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2015/09/a-common-errors-in-political-thought-the-fact-that-one-does-not-like-politics-the-fact-that-one-is-dismayed-by-this-or-tha.html

and

http://redstateeclectic.typepad.com/redstate_commentary/2015/09/immigration-and-freedom-510-caplans-libertarian-case-for-open-borders.html

Not counting anything they might have done to destabilize regimes, of course.

Given all that, how is it so very unreasonable for people who think that government is going too far to speak their mind about particular cases?

Takes the politics out of it.
Makes the “solution” more obvious.

In the larger scheme and somewhat oddly, it seems a considerable part of the flow is just transiting Stockholm and heading for Finland. Not sure what’s going on there, but I guess it’s Finland’s turn to be broken. No hard numbers on this, just some repeated TV color.

The big push began roughly with that evil picture of the dead kid in Turkey. After that, it’s been a comfortable hysteria of holiness.

“Caplan who favours open borders prima facie, eventually goes on to qualify his initial demand for open borders with any number of ad hoc provisos which create a multi-class society that can only be enforced by the state.”

And:

“Says Caplan, for those of you who do not believe me or in case problems do occur, there are tons of ways to come up with special laws and provisions for ad hoc tweaking here and there by the government.”

Form your own opinion about it:

Caplan writes in his conclusion of a paper on immigration (see link below):

“Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American workers. Most Americans benefit from immigration, and the losers don’t lose much. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American taxpayers. Researchers disagree about whether the fiscal effects of immigration are positive or negative, but they agree that the fiscal effects are small. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American culture. Immigrants make our culture better—and their children learn fluent English. Immigration restrictions are not necessary to protect American liberty.

Immigrants have low voter turnout and accept our political status quo by default. By increasing diversity, they undermine native support for the welfare state. And on one important issue—immigration itself—immigrants are much more pro-liberty than natives.

Even if all these empirical claims are wrong, though, immigration restrictions would remain morally impermissible. Why? Because there are cheaper and more humane solutions for each and every complaint.

If immigrants hurt American workers, we can charge immigrants higher taxes or admission fees, and use the revenue to compensate the losers. If immigrants burden American taxpayers, we can make immigrants ineligible for benefits. If immigrants hurt American culture, we can impose tests of English fluency and cultural literacy. If immigrants hurt American liberty, we can refuse to give them the right to vote. Whatever your complaint happens to be, immigration restrictions are a needlessly draconian remedy.”

The source: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/pdfs/whyimmigration.pdf