As a consumer, I'm never scared to shop in legal but unregulated markets. Never mind the right to sue; reputation and guarantees provide all the peace of mind I need. Illegal, unregulated markets, however, are a different story. Sure, they still have an incentive to protect their reputation. But if an illegal firm's reputation gets too big, it draws unwanted attention from law enforcement. Legal enforcement is grossly overrated, but legality is still vital.
The upshot: While I'm personally strongly in favor of human smuggling to evadeunjust immigration laws, I'm ambivalent about human smugglers themselves. What's the ratio of honest outlaws to ruthless predators? This article gives lots of suggestive details, but few usable numbers:
People smugglers who offer to
illegally transport people into Europe are advertising their services
openly on Facebook, researchers have found.
Picture and video testimonials from successful
migrants are posted on social media as smuggling operations compete to
be seen as the safest way to enter Europe.
Researchers are using this information to analyse the networks behind people smuggling operations in the Mediterranean.
communities displaced by the civil war are especially close users of
Facebook. The country had a functional education system before the war
and Syrian migrants have on average a higher level of education and
The importance of networks and reputations in the free market of
smugglers can been seen in the evidence that Dr Campana had collected.
recording of a wiretapped telephone call revealed how one people
smuggler asked another how many of the 366 asylum seekers who had died... were his.
The wiretap records one of the smugglers berating the other for his lapse safety.
other smuggler later began to personally notify the families of the
dead and pay out $5,000 (£3,778) in compensation to salvage his
But what's really going on? Well, the UN estimates a bit over a million crossers in 2015, with 3,771 recorded deaths. Even if you think actual deaths are triple the recorded rate, that's roughly a 1% fatality rate. Tragic, but given the level of smuggling and the risks required to avoid detection, it's surprisingly low. I'd definitely take a 1% chance of death to escape Syria, and probably make the same deal to escape 90% of the countries in Africa.
In fact, suppose smugglers were pure philanthropists who only wanted to help people reach Europe alive. There's a clear trade-off between the two goals - the safest routes will also be the most patrolled. So you have to wonder: If philanthropists ran the human smuggling industry, how much lower could fatality rates even fall?