I can only hope that somewhere or sometime we upright apes will realise that we are all one species, one that can think it's way out of problems and not resort to primate dominance tactics (selfishness in our case), scaremongering (manipulation of opinion by vested interests), and territorial disputes (small minded bigotry). Yes, we have to be realistic about policy but the blanket presumption that refugees are a danger to an extant population reflects unthinking stupidity: is our culture so weak that it can't survive some newcomer's and, if it is, how useful a culture is it. A humane and deeply considered lecture. Thank you.
Also, virtually all animal populations kill newcomers. Thankfully we are largely not like that, but the last fifty years are somewhat unique in evolutionary terms - albeit host populations had a fair amount of force from government to accept incoming populations.
I feel like he leaves out one big issue with unfettered immigration: what happens when we take in large numbers of people who don't share our democratic values? People that would rather enforce religious law with an authoritarian government than the liberal democracy we expect in Europe. There's also the issue of space, we simply can't have unrestricted immigration because the number of people that would like to come to Europe far exceeds the number of people we can house and feed.
Nowhere does it say that the right to vote has to be given to all the people that legaly resides in a country. It was not that long ago that the right to vote was reserved for male landowners. Would it be that bad if voting was restricted to people who paid over X amount in taxes? Or make the number of votes each person can cast proportional to the amount paid in taxes?
@@JanBruunAndersen yes, it would be very bad, because it would lead to a monopoly of democracy by the wealthy, who would then make laws to keep the wealth in their hands at the expense of the poorer classes. Feudalism.
Strange argument on that in the past there was no immigration control. Then people had also almost no rights and support of the government. That meant that if you wanted to come you had to have money to house yourself and live. Now people come in and directly put demands on the state. Additionally, the density of people was much lower in the 1800’s and 1900,s then now I keep comparing the country to a household. There is a huge amount of luck involved in which house you are born. But that does not mean I leave the front door open en anybody can move in. And yes, if there is a neighbor whose house burns down, I will shelter for a period of time. But not for ever and not the whole world
A state has no obligation to refugees. Let alone ones who are not actually fleeing persecutuon, but seeling economic prosperity. Let alone ones who've traveled throufh 20 safe countries. As for the legal obligations, aside from them not meeting this due to my points above, it alao states in the articles that a country has the right to refuse asylum on grounds of national interest and security.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn 1-That's not what it says. 2-They're not showing they're being persecuted. 3-They are economic migrants. 4-Outdated laws and regulations can be revoked. 5-UK laws supercede international laws. 6-The parts about asylum not only specify the migrants need to meet certain conditions (which these people don't) it also states that the UK has an obligation to its own citizens first and to prevent any form of damage to the UK and as such can refuse any supposed asylum seekers.
Do you mind if I ask you, how many refugees would you willingly welcome into your home? 1? 2? how about 50? is there a limit to your support of such unbounded generosity?
And THIS is the reason we can't have nice things! I wonder how many refugees the speaker might consider 'too many' in his own home? 1, 2, 50? Incredibly low resolution thinking from such a person in position of power within our Justice system.
Same question to you; Do you mind if I ask you, how many refugees would you willingly welcome into your home? 1? 2? how about 50? is there a limit to your support of such unbounded generosity?
It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that you’re either pro-open borders or suffering from some sort of “parochial hate”. Can’t we just accept that it’s a complicated issue, rather than labelling people hateful for having legitimate concerns. If you want to change someone’s mind, calling them hateful isn’t going to do it.
@@cardinalscience2600 Dude, if you hear parochial hate and think it means you, take a moment and examine your beliefs. Jumping to the conclusion that I'm talking about everyone who disagrees, not parochial hate is a leap, I didn't suggest the dichotomy or any binary, you did. You felt defensive over this, what part of you identified with the words parochial hate and assumed it meant you?
The lesson of the 20th century was that once you peel away monarchism there is nothing keeping multicultural societies together. The conclusion was that European peoples established their own nation states, ran their own affairs, the jingoism and imperialism of the past diminished and people were able to prosper in peace. But working on their own communities wasn't acceptable to some, they envied the success of other cultures, they wanted a piece of their pie. So they moved to other nations, made their riches by any despicable means necessary, they terrorised, rioted, looted the locals into submission, and then propagated their narrative, their propaganda onto the native Europeans. They demanded and coerced for more of their brethren to colonize Europe. They care nothing of their own evils and fabricate lies on the past, they intensify their jingoism as they become stronger and reintroduce all the pains Europeans suffered in the past. You don't diminish nationalism and jingoism by ignoring the legitimate issues of mass migration by British people, you intensify them and you create the hatred between communities.
Since man stood upright till very recent (100 year ago?) most nations have no guarded border; they have guarded frontiers. We need to go back to the time tested way.
I can only hope that somewhere or sometime we upright apes will realise that we are all one species, one that can think it's way out of problems and not resort to primate dominance tactics (selfishness in our case), scaremongering (manipulation of opinion by vested interests), and territorial disputes (small minded bigotry).
Yes, we have to be realistic about policy but the blanket presumption that refugees are a danger to an extant population reflects unthinking stupidity: is our culture so weak that it can't survive some newcomer's and, if it is, how useful a culture is it.
A humane and deeply considered lecture. Thank you.
It’s debatable that modern humans are all one species if we insist that Homo Neanderthalis was a different species of hominid.
Also, virtually all animal populations kill newcomers. Thankfully we are largely not like that, but the last fifty years are somewhat unique in evolutionary terms - albeit host populations had a fair amount of force from government to accept incoming populations.
I feel like he leaves out one big issue with unfettered immigration: what happens when we take in large numbers of people who don't share our democratic values? People that would rather enforce religious law with an authoritarian government than the liberal democracy we expect in Europe.
There's also the issue of space, we simply can't have unrestricted immigration because the number of people that would like to come to Europe far exceeds the number of people we can house and feed.
Nowhere does it say that the right to vote has to be given to all the people that legaly resides in a country. It was not that long ago that the right to vote was reserved for male landowners.
Would it be that bad if voting was restricted to people who paid over X amount in taxes? Or make the number of votes each person can cast proportional to the amount paid in taxes?
@@JanBruunAndersen yes, it would be very bad, because it would lead to a monopoly of democracy by the wealthy, who would then make laws to keep the wealth in their hands at the expense of the poorer classes. Feudalism.
Strange argument on that in the past there was no immigration control. Then people had also almost no rights and support of the government. That meant that if you wanted to come you had to have money to house yourself and live. Now people come in and directly put demands on the state. Additionally, the density of people was much lower in the 1800’s and 1900,s then now
I keep comparing the country to a household. There is a huge amount of luck involved in which house you are born. But that does not mean I leave the front door open en anybody can move in.
And yes, if there is a neighbor whose house burns down, I will shelter for a period of time. But not for ever and not the whole world
A state has no obligation to refugees.
Let alone ones who are not actually fleeing persecutuon, but seeling economic prosperity.
Let alone ones who've traveled throufh 20 safe countries.
As for the legal obligations, aside from them not meeting this due to my points above, it alao states in the articles that a country has the right to refuse asylum on grounds of national interest and security.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn
1-That's not what it says.
2-They're not showing they're being persecuted.
3-They are economic migrants.
4-Outdated laws and regulations can be revoked.
5-UK laws supercede international laws.
6-The parts about asylum not only specify the migrants need to meet certain conditions (which these people don't) it also states that the UK has an obligation to its own citizens first and to prevent any form of damage to the UK and as such can refuse any supposed asylum seekers.
@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn
1-Not wrong.
2-You're wrong. Acceptance doesn't mean that they're not economic migrants.
Another brilliant and humane lecture.
Do you mind if I ask you, how many refugees would you willingly welcome into your home? 1? 2? how about 50? is there a limit to your support of such unbounded generosity?
And THIS is the reason we can't have nice things! I wonder how many refugees the speaker might consider 'too many' in his own home? 1, 2, 50? Incredibly low resolution thinking from such a person in position of power within our Justice system.
Great lecture and argument for fairness and justice over parochial hate
Same question to you; Do you mind if I ask you, how many refugees would you willingly welcome into your home? 1? 2? how about 50? is there a limit to your support of such unbounded generosity?
It’s a false dichotomy to suggest that you’re either pro-open borders or suffering from some sort of “parochial hate”. Can’t we just accept that it’s a complicated issue, rather than labelling people hateful for having legitimate concerns. If you want to change someone’s mind, calling them hateful isn’t going to do it.
@@cardinalscience2600 Dude, if you hear parochial hate and think it means you, take a moment and examine your beliefs. Jumping to the conclusion that I'm talking about everyone who disagrees, not parochial hate is a leap, I didn't suggest the dichotomy or any binary, you did. You felt defensive over this, what part of you identified with the words parochial hate and assumed it meant you?
The lesson of the 20th century was that once you peel away monarchism there is nothing keeping multicultural societies together. The conclusion was that European peoples established their own nation states, ran their own affairs, the jingoism and imperialism of the past diminished and people were able to prosper in peace.
But working on their own communities wasn't acceptable to some, they envied the success of other cultures, they wanted a piece of their pie. So they moved to other nations, made their riches by any despicable means necessary, they terrorised, rioted, looted the locals into submission, and then propagated their narrative, their propaganda onto the native Europeans. They demanded and coerced for more of their brethren to colonize Europe. They care nothing of their own evils and fabricate lies on the past, they intensify their jingoism as they become stronger and reintroduce all the pains Europeans suffered in the past.
You don't diminish nationalism and jingoism by ignoring the legitimate issues of mass migration by British people, you intensify them and you create the hatred between communities.
We "MAY" have different religions and languages?
Since man stood upright till very recent (100 year ago?) most nations have no guarded border; they have guarded frontiers. We need to go back to the time tested way.
Never going to happen...
What does the UK export!