Immigration, Sovereignty, & the EU | Philosophy Tube
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 окт 2024
- Britain has a referendum on whether to remain part of the European Union or to Brexit, and there’s some very important philosophy to be done about sovereignty, racism, nationhood, and immigration.
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr9...
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6...
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8b...
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgj...
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Achille Mbembe, Necropolitics
Falguni Sheth, Toward a Political Philosophy of Race
Sherene Razack, Casting Out
Giorgio Agamben, The State of Exception
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities
Glow shine animation by AAVFX: • 4K 60FPS 2160p Perfect...
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
Photo of Nigel Farage by Euro Realist Newsletter - flickr.com, CC BY 2.0, commons.wikime...
Photo of Michael Gove by Policy Exchange - Flickr: Michael Gove at Policy Exchange delivering his keynote speech 'The Importance of Teaching', CC BY 2.0, commons.wikime...
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it.
Necropolitics sounds like a good band name.
That's awesome, hah, it does!
Three years on, and as a nation we seem more out of control than we did before the referendum.
3 years from this, still pretty shit
@@Strettger Sad, but true.
What you describe as the "camp" mentality also describes the original legal definition of outlawry. In a number of cultures, such the ancient Norse, a citizen who had committed a particularly horrible crime could be declared outlaw, which meant that he was outside the rule of law and that nothing done to him was illegal. It was, in essence, a form of decentralised death sentence.
much like Roman proscription
This ancient Norse idea of "outlaw" seems similar to Giorgio agemben's idea of Homo sacer which is related to his idea of the state of exception which was mentioned in relation to the description of camps
this is the best explanation on the issues behind this referendum that I've seen on RUclips. keep up the good work
If I really had direct control over my body, I'd just spend all my time making endofrins in my brain
This guy makes my heart beat a little faster because I start thinking differently about myself and the views of the population
+Kollin Keller that's the amazing feeling of learning stuff! :) though in this context yeah it's a little scary because this is such a deadly serious issue
I'm watching this in 2020 after brexit has happened, as a young immigrant living in the uk (2.5 years now). It is scary and sad.
I love the formula of this video, with the introduction of Mbembe's philosophy and then slowly progressing the argument to show the parallels between this and anti-immigration
I used to live in the UK for over two years. Now I'm back in Czechia but I really, _really_ want to get back. In fact I have a plane ticket and now I can only hope that situation will settle. The last thing general public needs is anxiety towards people from other nations. England is a great country full of wonderful people. Now concider this. We as immigrants or refugees _want_ to do the job that citizens loathe with. Warehouse work, cleaning streets, selling news-papers or anything. Usually fairly basic things because we're not _worthy_ enough to get management place in most cases and we are fine with that. Sure, keep your fancy possitions and all we ask for is a chance to leave the old behind and make a new home.
Okay, I need to make a paypal-account now so that I can support this channel because your videos are just sooooo good! This was really well done and I hope that many people see it. I love how you don't attack people but rather try to make them question their own thoughts and ideas.
Hmm... I think that the only reason the Brexit campaign is about immigration is because it's an issue that the general public is concerned about. It's not necessarily the best argument, just one that resonates with people the most. Talk about sovereignty is generally not about immigration entirely. In fact, it revolves around two main points: 'losing control of our borders' and 'Brussels making our laws'. The second point was not addressed. In the second point, I think that sovereignty would be about having the right to elect the body that makes our laws. We do have that in the UK parliament, but the fact that the EU can override our laws is what worries people.
'Losing control of our borders' seems pretty tied to immigration and exclusion to me... And I didn't address Brussels making laws because they don't: Parliament legislates on all the areas I mentioned, and the EU doesn't in fact have the ability to override our laws, as our violations of the judgements of the EU courts without consequence have shown.
Huh, fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up :) I guess then the question would become what areas the exclusive competences affect and whether they're worth stressing over, and how often it is that the commission does introduce serious actions against member states.
Thanks, rekou1! :)
Olly, I would have to disagree with asking the question in the first place. Brexit campaigners argue that any laws forced by the EU are worth stressing over, as they are created by a far less democratic institution than the UK government and there should be no cases in which EU law overrides UK law. The contrary results in a loss of sovereignty.
I thought it was also about small businesses not being able to keep up the EU's ever changing requirements.
exactly what Jakub Waniek and rekou1 said. This video was very onesided and seemed quite uninformed while it tried to look neutral.
dehumanisation of your adversary is a necessary tactic to overcome peoples natural tendency to empathy for other humans. It seems to be a key mechanism in allowing individuals and groups to reconcile their inate pangs of conscience with their self serving and often indefensible actions. There are many less than admirable traits of humans which we can strive overcome but only if we understand ourselves and acknowedge those flaws.
Saw you met your Patreon milestone. I'm very happy that Philosophy Tube will continue. It's a valuable resource and exposes me to philosophical concepts and philosophers I might not come across in my studies.
I hope it does yeah, the only risk now is having the time to do it! But like I say I'm reasonably confident I will, and if not I'll obviously take the Patreon page down.
Bro you are fucking phenomenal. You combat right wing poison in the most calm, mature and respectful manner imaginable. Well done as always, comrade!
Some thoughts from a german point of view:
First of all to the topic of animal and insect based imagery (in 5:50). Under the Nazi regime it was a common thing to discriminate people by giving them attributes of insects. This led to the concentration camps and they led to the genocide of the jews and other minorities. So everyone should think twice what it means when someone starts giving human beings animal attributes. It's the first step of cutting their human rights, for example the right to live.
Another thing is the so called "refugee crisis". Every time I hear this term I'm asking myself why in the world this should be a crisis. The only reason it is one is the fact that we make it one. The war or the circumstances the people live in might be crises, but the fact that they are fleeing into "a world" where is enough money to give them a life worth living is "a problem" that could be eliminated just by giving them what they need to live. Even if this would mean, that everyone in the EU would have to pay a minimum percentage more of taxes, no one would actually feel less rich but the people fleeing would have a way better life.
Another thing is the term of a "refugee". I have a problem with labeling people in a way that makes them kind of a mass that seems to be one. As well as "white" people aren't just white, "black" people aren't just black or any other label you could give a mass of people. These are individuals with individual stories, individual ways to live their life and most of all they are individual beings as you and me. We have to start to see them as human beings and not just as "refugees" because giving them this label makes it way easier for people to say that "refugees" shouldn't be here, that they are "rapist" or whatever.
I got a bit off of the topic but just because the Brexit is not a real thing for the german population. For us it doesn't really matter cause we don't feel effected by it at all. The only thing I'm concerned about is the fear of having more trouble seeing my friends in the UK, but in the end there will still be ways to travel the UK, so even this is not a real issue at all.
So I hope this referendum wont completely split Great Britain and we can all get to the point we feel united not only in GB and Europe but as the human species in a united world, but that's just me dreaming! I hope everyone has a nice day!
Well said!
its called "othering"
first, get your socialist bullshit outta here. there is not enough to go around, because that's not the way the world works. you cant have all of the population living in one area, because there isnt enough space, distribution of goods, or even goods themselves concentrated in a country as small as the UK. i realize that some places are certainly nicer than others, but that doesnt mean that we as a human species have the means to give everyone on earth the same level of comfort, and we certainly dont have the means to do so in a small area. secondly, refugees are called refugees because they are seeking refuge. i realize that there the term has been politicized, but it's used for a reason. all refugees DO share a similar experience in their lives; they are all leaving point A and seeking refuge in point B. just because you might not like the way that people who disagree with you use a word, doesnt mean that the word shouldnt be used. finally, Germany does have an immigration problem, as does the whole world, because we dont have the means to deal with how mobile our technology has allowed us to become. Brexit will change the status quo in every country, yours included, because it is an idea, not an isolated event. it has already thrown the stock exchange into a frenzy, empowered some politicians, and even increased the backing of other ideas, because it is an idea that resonates within the experiences of many others around the globe. saying that Brexit wont change Germany is insane, especially since Germany is such a huge player in the EU, which has just lost another key player due to the brexit
Hey there, first of all thanks for your thoughts on this topic! Calling my point of view "socialist bullshit" wont make anything better at all, but it's okay if it makes you feel better or something idk.
I haven't especially talked about the UK but the EU. Germany as an example has something about 80 million people living here. Last year there came about 1 million refuges in this country and begged for help. This is 1/80 and everyone started saying that "the german culture" will be destroyed and that "we should start shooting the refuges at our borders". This is just insane and I hope we can both agree on it! So with this background I do really have a problem with the case that some people make this solvable situation to a problem that could only be ended by using violence.
By the way, we already passively kill those people by sending them back into their home countries, what forces them to go on the journey to a better place again. And this actually repeats until they die.
About the term refuge. I agree with you, the term is politicized and yes, I do have a problem with it. And if i don't like it, of course I wish that others would think the same and won't be using it anymore. As well as I don't like violence and I would wish that no one would be violent.
And last but not least the impact on Germany. Of course it has an impact on Germany. As you mentioned, the Brexit has an impact on the whole world and I'm completely with you! But what I wanted to say is, that all those ordinary people from Germany like me, aren't interested in it at all. Also the influence the Brexit has on us isn't really big until now. Yes, the DAX fell a bit and yes, the Euro has fallen as well but not in a way someone like me would see a change in my daily life at all.
So I hope you have a nice day! I just wish the best for all the citizens in the UK and all around the world! :-)
miroleon call it what you will, but what you propose is socialism at its core. obviously im not advocating for mass genocide, but it's not possible to accept every single person who knocks on your door, so if people who were going to die anyways come into your country and die of poverty, where is the nobility in having accepted them? instead of focusing on forcing these refugees onto whichever country they go to, why dont we put more effort into stopping the push factors that are causing them to leave? it would cost a lot, but in the long run, it would be much better for the global economy. you may not see a change in your day-to-day life right now, but these little changes turn into big changes down the road. it might happen in 5 months, maybe in 5 years, but it's naive to think that the Brexit wont change the world.
Sovereignty: They're Other! Get them!
Citizens: They're Other? Oh okay, that's fine then. /pitchfork
Ollie, watching this video made me think - have you ever done a video on causes of crime, social or otherwise? You mentioned it here and I think it could be nice as a full video. Keep up the good work!
Oh look, there's the future prime minister at 3:54. Also the following one.
My question to you is where do you find all these articles that you so often refer to? :D Is there some philosophy subscription page that I don't know of? :D
Great video btw :)
Been watching this channel for a while now and it's noticeable that you're getting better at this ^_^ it's wonderful to see happen
This political issue was explained so well by Olly that I actually got a grasp on the idea of the EU. Smashing job!
The EU is a hyper complicated union of nations. This is in specific about the UK's role there. If your looking for an overview of it, look for CGPGrey's video on the subject. The EU has deep seated complicated origins and many benefits and downsides. He barely scrapes the surface.
+Nate Ellis now looking at my comment I think what I meant to say was this political issue involving the EU was explained well by Olly. I understand the EU but not this issue, thanks for the help though!
International Relations student here.
State sovereignty is classically defined by “not recognising any power greater in the external context or any power greater or equal in the internal”. Internal sovereignty is defined by Max Weber by having the “monopoly of the legitimate use of force”.
Post-positivists, however, define sovereignty has the relative autonomy to construct one’s identity. According to Alexander Wendt, identity and interest are symbiotic of one another. One needs to know who one is in order to know what one wants. Thus, there are 2 kinds of interests: objective and subjective. Objective Interests are those on whom the identity is absolutely dependent - for example, the USA ought to act as the great power it is if it wants to continue being the USA. Subjective Interest is the assessment made by the entities of the state of the policies they believe to be in the best interest of the State.
If the Subjective interest drifts way too much from the Objective, the State identity is at risk, i.e. “New Thinking” in the former Soviet Union.
The distribution of knowledge (ideas) and the place which a State occupies in the hierarchy of the distribution of capabilities determine how far the Subjective Interest can go as well as how autonomous the national interest can be.
UK’s sovereignty ought to be measured according to its freedom to act upon its identity (great power, capitalist, democratic, etc) - to maintain it as well as constructing it. In other words: the autonomy of its national interest.
Excuse my lazy English. I hope I was clear enough. :)
Just an addition: Even commonwealth citizens living in tbe UK are allowed to vote in the referendum.
You can make anything sound fearful and loathsome if you define it in a certain way. Sovereignty as defined by the philosopher, Mbrmbe, is an extremely personal and jaundiced interpretation of the word and differs vastly from its standard understanding as governance free of external control. There is no need to take him seriously on this just as there is no need to introduce sovereignty in the first place in a debate on immigration
"Sovereignty" has been the watchword of the whole Brexit campaign, so it kinda was relevant to bring in some of the most famous and influential explorations of the concept. And whilst it may be true that anything can be fearful and loathsome when defined correctly, that doesn't mean some things aren't genuinely fearful and loathsome.
Fantastic breakdown. Please don't ever stop these videos!
Do you sometimes go back on to your old videos and think how accurate your explanations/ideas are?
I love this. it's a side of the coin I hadn't considered. love your work
three years later the UK has, crashing and burning, left the EU. RIP Ireland, Northern Ireland and Scotland who never got a choice in the matter.
Love the timing with crash course philosophy :D
Same.
What school of thought do you abide by? I am a Existentialist.
Same. Makes sense, it seems like the /thread of most philosophy.
Given plenty of philosophical schools aren't exactly exclusive and are about different things, i'm not sure sure this question makes any sense...
I mean unless you you are just asking someone's favorite school in which case that question is much harder to answer.
I personally would just say reality is the interactions of deterministic fundamental forces, but many materialistic philosophies then go on to start making subjective statements so I haven't found one I would like to stand behind as of yet.
do the Philosophy of Albert Camus
I've done it 2 or 3 times haha
You can't do too much Camus.
Philosophy Tube ok let me find it.
Albert Camus was a great man.
Sebastien Oaks me too. great show btw.
I've been watching lots of Brexit content this week and I really appreciate the more neutral tone you took with this while still making your position obvious in the subtext. And especially the music track - the latter made me feel really, really uncomfortable for reasons I can't quite explain..
What I'm wondering, though - as a public figure, do you have a "moral duty" to speak out more clearly? John Oliver did so on Last Week Tonight, a news channel, and the Guardian has come forward in opposition as well.
That's something I do wonder about. I do get a lot of people demanding I make content of one stripe or another, and the way I see it there's no relationship of entitlement between my audience and me: I'm not entitled to anyone watching or supporting the show, and conversely I can make the content that I like. I do think it comes with responsibilities though, like if I was to knowingly just straight up lie about stuff that'd obviously be a shitty thing to do. So it's a line to walk I reckon.
So the only obligation is to one's self, meaning to act in accordance with one's own philosophy/principles?
The realist in me likes this very much =) The idealist in me gazes longingly at their image of a utopian future where speaking out against injustice, etc is no longer necessary...
What do you think about the EU's forceful imposition of austerity and neoliberalism on its member states?
I have to admit, that I'm less fond of :( Had this been a video about 'How should we vote' (which it wasn't, because it was a video about the intellectual and moral pitfalls surrounding immigration and sovereignty discourse) I would have touched on that.
A U.S. citizen here looking for more answers: What else does the Brexit campaign claim to be the benefits of a more sovereign UK?
there is great value to the point you are making and the discussion you have brought to light. this script was extremely well written. after the mouthful of contextual data and a fair viewpoint of opposing opinions you question the potentialities and offer an honest proposal of the supposititious subreption.
i'm so happy i found this channel!! i am thinking about studying philosophy and its people like you i'm hopeing to meet :) did you learn everything you are talking about from your studies?
No, some of it I went on to read after I finished my formal philosophy studies
This video raises some interesting points, and helos put certain things into perspective, especially for me- someone from the U.S. with little knowledge of European political struggles.
Though I would prefer to examine the other side of argumentation a bit more closesly and examine the known facts seperately before coming to any sort of opinion on the matter, I think this helped me gain some idea of what all the debate is about.
It does make me wonder though, why people are not naturally compelled to take in refugees, and offer them aid.... that their fear and paranoia of percieved dangers that they have little to no impact upon by opposing can ovveride their empathy and sense of ethics. The prevalence of the idea that we are not in fact one race, one people had always been a puzzling one to me. But then again I come from a country that tries to downplay cultural differences and promotes a sense of universal unity.
Meanwhile even my own people like to contradict themselves with fear mongering about terrorists being synonymous with middle- eastern, ignoring the fact that terrorism is an act of a person, not a cultural trait of any people in particular.
Humans are quite odd.
"National sovereignty is the right to decide who lives and who dies" Isn't this just a different wording of Hobbes? Doesn't it rely on the same assumption of a violent and zero sum state of nature?
(and/or Weber's "monopoly on legitimate violence")
Perhaps on Weber, no on Hobbes. The state of nature is what you have BEFORE sovereignty in the sense that it's being used here. And the ability to take life is a (possible?) incident of sovereignty, it doesn't explain what it is. Autonomy and self-determination have much more explicatory power when describing what sovereignty means and why so many people are unhappy with institutions like the EU
Hej, thanks for the good work you do on philosophy tube. When it comes to brexit I was surprised that the discussion is so much about immigration, since there are so many other things that are problematic in Europe. More direct democracy would be a good topic, the European parliament has little to decide and an European health and unemployment insurance would be nice to reduce the idea of immigration into the social net of the host country. I always hoped for a nation free state of Europe with many cultures, since different perceptions help reflecting about reality. However, If Britten ops out of the union, it might rock the boat in a way that it gets back into deeper water and changes may become more likely. It would not be impossible to join into a renewed union after trying on your own.
Good luck anyway.
I'm late to this one, but political and economic sovereignty were absolutely important issues in the referendum (and in euroscepticism in general over the last few decades, since long before Maastricht enshrined the right to free movement) and should not be dismissed so lightly as irrelevant concerns.
Very good video. I am not from U.K. but I do agree with your point. I have seen the video in 2017 so... yeah.
a vote leave/Brexit advert appeared on your video.
OT: DUDE! During your acting hiatus you could bring guest philosophers onto your channel to help keep your upload schedule. I know the Unnatural Vegan was a philosophy major and uses her expertise in her videos. If you can't find the peace and quiet for regular uploads in your new living space you could reach out to other YTers or philosophy bloggers to help you with creating regular content. Just a thought, I hope you find a way to keeping making vids! BTW, as much as I adore your channel I hope you put your studies and being social first!
His new living arrangement is fully funded on Patreon.
Yeah, if the money comes through, which hopefully it will. The main obstacles now are actually finding a flat, and actually making the time to make the videos while I'm at drama school, but those I can worry about.
Sovereignty is being used as an excuse here in Australia to treat people like cattle in actual camps.
lucky u.
"The power of the legislative, being derived from the people by a positive voluntary grant and institution, can be no other than what that positive grant conveyed, which being only to make laws, and not to make legislators, the legislative can have no power to transfer their authority of making laws, and place it in other hands."
Any discussion or notion of sovereignty that deviates from this general sentiment is utterly specious.
There are certain methods we maybe could use to help integrate immigrants to our societies So what you guys think of these?: 1) Spread immigrants by low density on wide area. 2) Most of immigrants near contacts should be native people. 3) Focus on families with children and children in general. 4) Everyone must get free high quality basic secular education and beyond that free voluntary education of topic of their choosing. Also when moving to the country immigrants should immediately be informed of the possible cultural differences. 5) To motivate immigrants go along offer them things like cheap housing from good areas and government jobs. 6) It would be nice if the basic education would include also general outlook of worlds religions and cultures, ethics and maybe some epistemology. 7) Make sure that there is no negative discrimination against immigrants specially on the jobs. (note that does not mean two legal systems) 8) If migrants gravitate to certain specific area focus to it make trans cultural and trans religious communication and pro education communication priority on these areas. Maybe some events with famous public speakers etc. 9) Try motivate natives to move areas where immigrants are majority try volunteers and economic benefits. Give this fancy name like "exchange neighbour program". 10) Good economy and abundant good entertainment helps.
here after “Stop The Boats”
How is sovereignty acquired or transferred?
Thank you for this episode, interesting insights!
Immigration reform isn't about shutting out immigrants completely, it's about regulation the flow. The UK should be able to control the flow of it's immigrants.
And what will be the changes that this referendum could have to the UK being in control of the flow of immigrants?
Orm S Citations needed
I think there are 2 things worth mentioning here:
The first is like I said we can already refuse entry to EU citizens on the grounds of public health and security.
The second is that if we remained part of the European trade zone, which nobody has suggested we pull out of, we would have to accept the free movement of labour anyway, so the border situation likely wouldn't change.
Not quite correct that the government has total control over all areas of domestic policy; to take two, capital requirements (both the minimum and maximum) for banks is set by the EU, and in healthcare the Working Time Directive has not been good for the NHS.
Thank you for a very unbiased video in a debate the full of unchecked bias.
If you truly believe, like you say in another comment, that philosophytube is a channel that aims at challenging established/prevalent viewpoints, maybe you should consider challenging your own tendency to adopt a politically liberal stance. That stance, by the way, is also very prevalent in most developed countries. I think that would be a useful exercise for you and a good example to set (and I don't mean that condescendingly). However, besides that, some arguments are very well developed, like that idea that sovereignty involves exclusion (that's only one factor however). I like to see people think deeply and I must say you have a knack for choosing thought-provoking topics. Cheers!
Yeah, maybe, I mean I do think a lot of the really interesting philosophy that touches on politics is philosophy that challenges power and dominant stories, but then I'm pretty lefty so I guess I would say that
+Philosophy Tube Yes, quite right. That is something a "lefty" would say. It's also something a "righty" would say, or "a centrist" would say. On the spectrum of political stances, everyone believes they are opposing dominant views. Some may indeed be more dominant, but all people think this. The truth is that you may learn quit a bit from the "righty" position if you took a serious look at what values it seeks to promote and in what contexts they may be appropriate. Food for thought. You are probably familiar with the following quote from Aristotle: "it is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it". You can be a lefty and see truth in some ideas from "righties".
China used to be heavily revered, but then they opened their borders, allowing their population to fall subject to opium and later wage slavery and overpopulation.
The United States used to be highly revered, but then dropped a lot of restrictions on immigration. Since then, quality of life has dropped dramatically in comparison to the rest of the world.
Australia used to have a proud ecosystem. Now it houses one of the most serious invasive species issues on our planet.
Europe has now brought a lot of immigrants into its borders. The smaller countries are upset, Britain is failing, and Germany is scarily close to entering another war.
Throughout history, uncontrolled immigration has ruined countries in their own ways. Nobody says that immigration in itself is bad, what many people argue is that we cannot allow massive influxes of foreign cultures to join our own. Culture wars are real, and culture wars are scary. The United States is one of the few large examples to show what can happen when two polar cultures exist under one ruling. It's a bloody, horrible fate that can leave a country vulnerable and torn. We in the US were lucky that it didn't end much worse than it did.
(This comment isn't reeaally in regards to your video, more just me ranting about the topic. As always, I'm still curious of a response if you are willing)
What a load of garbage
You're conflating immigration with colonisation, which is basically throwing all nuance and context out of the window.
Also the idea that Europe was somehow isolated from foreign cultures for centuries, and is only now 'declining' because of immigration is just plain wrong
Celestina I might have committed a minor conflation on my Australian point, but all other points are completely independent of colonization. If you could explain what you mean, I might be able to make a better counterpoint?
Yes, Europe has always had immigration and never was isolated. But Europe also never has such a large influx of immigrants. You can look at statistics that I'd be happy to link you to if you ask, that show that Europe is experiencing one of the highest rates of immigration it's ever seen peacefully.
Your China example does not demonstrate the problems of immigration but the influence of the European Powers - which is again a problem of colonisation.
Your USA example is extreme revisionism - America was built by immigrants - it owes it's current global-power status to immigration.
Your attempt to ascribe national 'decline' to immigration isn't backed up by evidence. Britain isn't 'failing', Germany isn't close to war. The pressures of the refugee crisis is a real crisis - but doesn't provide evidence for your claim that mass immigration leads to societal collapse
"used to be heavily revered" Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?
"Throughout history, uncontrolled immigration has ruined countries in their own ways."
Red herring.
"The United States is one of the few large examples to show what can happen when two polar cultures exist under one ruling"
I am not sure if you mean conservative and liberal or union and confederacy, either way it's false. Maybe you mean something other than that?
"China's issues weren't immigration, but they WERE still caused entirely by foreign culture"
No, China's success were all caused by foreign culture. China never lived in a bubble. China has always dealt with foreign cultures, traded with foreign cultures, changed ideas with foreign cultures.
China could have been a place with an average life expectancy of 30 and 95% of the population being small farmers, but it's better than that.
Please don't glorify misery
One argument I often get against immigration, is the "we cant help everybody/save the world". The reason is that if we do not curb immigration, our societies will become increasingly unstable, and social unrest will lead us towards a society that can not help anyone.
There's a hidden premise there that immigration leads to social instability and unrest, which could be argued against.
Congratulations Brittan! You are the first country in the history of the World to voluntarily and willfully cause a global market crash. Good job!
Missed that one by a mile.
After a big five-year government founded study in Norway, the researchers found that democracy had been weakened, and that the growing influence of international institutions was part of the reason why. Other parts of the reason was centralization of power - away from municipalities towards the national government - a greater segregation of the elite from the rest of the population, and that more decisions are being made in courtrooms rather than by elected officials. It looks to me like these are problems in the rest of the west as well. There were other issues too*, but these in particular seem to get dismissed by a lot of leftists as ignorant/sexist/racist claptrap. I think they deserve a closer look.
* The other issues include things like a market-oriented ideology of governance, the media focusing more on people than on policy, growing oligopolies, lack of political participation by immigrants, lack of women in some important positions, and other issues that I think the educated left is quite aware of.
The comments are disheartening.
But people care less about people they know dying than people the've never met. You are assuming people's objective moral judgement should be based on number of lives lost, instead of number of lives lost that I feel connected to. Those make for very different metrics.
Export your sensibilities onto everyone else and the result is 7 billion individuals who myopically believe their respective lives & feels are the center of the universe. It's 'Randian Objectivism' repackaged. A sophisticated way of saying FYIGM or NIMBY.
When it comes to non-ideological attributes of all persons, we should strive for impartiality or something close to it. At the same time, ideological factors can be a difference maker and should be discriminated against.
In any case, feels-over-reals is the antithesis of philosophy.
AntiBullshitMan Meh
How would you even begin to justify the metric of caring only for lives that you feel connected to? That strikes me as akin to dehumanizing tribalism.
Seems logical to me. How do you justify caring for a total stranger over those close to you? Why should you, even?
Sean Martyr Well, any arbitrary two people should have the same moral value. It seems odd to imagine that people get more valuable for my having met them.
If I could thumbs up more than once I most definitely would
What are your thoughts on a possible independence of Scotland?
Yeah we still don't know either if the UK is going to leave the EU ....
In practice sovereignty mean that you boss at home and equel abroad. But sovereingty should.nt be a goal into itself otherwie you juist get extreme forms of nationalism. An d even if you stay in the EU we still have sovereignty but juist a as the EU together. And becouse the EU is democraticly led and has been becoming more democraticly every year I don't see the problem.
I'm interested if you have any thoughts on the #Lexit ("Left-Exit") stance, supported by socialist groups like the CPGB-ML:
“Temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states ... a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists ... but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe ... under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction.” (Our emphasis)
Although there have been many changes in the century since Lenin wrote these words, the essence remains the same: a union of imperialist states can only be a reactionary entity - and it can’t last.
For those of us who enjoy interacting with other peoples and cultures, and who identify with workers of all countries, it feels counterintuitive to stand against the European Union, which seems to be a vehicle for enhancing communication and bringing workers together.
But the EU is in essence an imperialist club, not a workers’ one. It is designed to give Europe’s capitalist rulers the economic and militarily strength to safeguard their imperialist status against (a) their imperialist rivals (the USA, Japan), (b) the oppressed peoples they exploit abroad, and (c) the working classes at home.
Enemies on both sides
In opposing the EU, socialists often find themselves in nauseating company - from anti-immigrant, xenophobic and islamophobic hatemongers to little Englanders pining for a return to the imperial ‘glory’ days when Britannia ‘ruled the waves’ alone.
There are also miserly types who don’t want to pay the price of EU membership, believing that the cost outweighs the significant advantages to British imperialism: all they can see is the price of maintaining a common agricultural policy, of keeping afloat countries bankrupted by capitalist crisis; or of providing certain minimal conditions to workers.
One such miser is the Sunday Times’s Luke Johnson: “Europe has 7 percent of the world’s population and 25 percent of its GDP, but 50 percent of its welfare spending. In a competitive world, this is unsustainable.”
It seems to have escaped Mr Johnson’s attention that most of those who benefit from welfare spending are not exactly living in luxury; to remove any part of their benefits is quite ‘unsustainable’ from their point of view.
The fact that capitalists regularly need to reduce workers’ living standards below what is ‘sustainable’ in order to stay in business only proves that capitalism is dysfunctional and needs to be got rid of; it is not an argument for heaping more misery onto the working class.
Moreover, although it may suit politicians to blame ‘Brussels bureaucrats’ for unpopular decisions, the fact is that Britain’s rulers have made a point of exempting themselves from aspects of EU law that they don’t like. Britain opted out of the European working time directive, refuses benefits to unemployed Europeans and is presently removing human rights safeguards, for example.
Meanwhile, TUC chief Frances O’Grady and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn have both joined the social-democratic chorus exhorting workers to remain in the EU, saying that a British exit would lead to a “bonfire of rights” and assuring us that a benign EU is our best protection from ‘nasty Tories’.
Ms O’Grady asks: “If we left the EU would you trust the current Conservative government to keep [workers’ rights]? If the Brexit camp gets its way, the British government would get to pick and choose which rights to water down or scrap altogether.
"Without an EU legal safety net it wouldn’t be long before bad employers started cutting back on paid holidays, pushing workers to work longer hours with fewer breaks, and stopping pregnant workers getting time off ...”
The workers of Greece, whose pensions and welfare benefits have been decimated, and whose hospitals now lack basic medicines, might have something to say about how the kindly EU ‘safeguards’ workers’ rights!
Securing our rights
In fact, the high watermark of rights for British workers came after WW2 (well before Britain joined the EU), as a result of militant struggle by workers here backed up by the brilliant successes of Soviet socialism - first in building a strong and prosperous society and then in defeating German fascism.
With socialist revolution spreading across Europe, Britain’s rulers had no choice but to concede certain social provisions in order to shore up their failing system. This was also the situation that gave rise to the EU, set up to be a bulwark against the spread of socialism and as a union to defend the declining power of Europe’s imperialists.
The truth is that we cannot pin our hopes on the kindness of this or that group of capitalists, but must prepare ourselves to defend the interests of our class by any means necessary - and fight to win.
Too many of those who ought to be in the front line of organising this struggle (eg, Ms O’Grady) are instead working overtime to reconcile us to imperialism. They spend their days begging employers to please be just a little kinder to the workers (to no avail) and doing everything in their power to preserve social peace: we will certainly have jam tomorrow, they tell us, if only we will patiently wait.
Weakening our rulers
Despite the best efforts of these misleaders, the British bourgeoisie is in real danger of being hoist with its own petard. It has encouraged xenophobia as a way of rallying mass support for its wars and brigandage abroad, and as a means of dividing the working class at home. But now this carefully inculcated racism is impeding our rulers’ ability to secure cooperation with other imperialist powers.
It is possible that the votes of the xenophobes will be what is needed to pull Britain out of the EU on 23 June - and this could prove disastrous for our rulers.
According to The Economist: “Europe’s links to America would become more tenuous ... the loss of its biggest military power and most significant foreign-policy actor would seriously weaken the EU in the world ...
"Without Britain, it would be harder for the EU to pull its global weight - a big loss to the west in a troubled neighbourhood, from Russia through Syria to north Africa. It is little wonder that Russia’s Vladimir Putin is keen on Brexit - and that America’s Barack Obama is not.”
In other words, not only would Britain outside the EU be less able to bully other countries, but the EU’s power would also diminish, and US imperialism would be weakened by the weakening of its ally. Without the presence of Britain in the EU, the US-EU imperialist alliance would probably become much more fragile - which would only be a good thing for workers and oppressed people everywhere.
Naturally, if the British ruling class becomes more fragile; if its ability to superexploit abroad is diminished, it will try to make good its losses at the expense of the working class at home. Life may become more difficult for the British proletariat for a time.
But since we will be left facing a weakened enemy class, we will also have moved one step closer to the goal of ridding ourselves of these leeches altogether.
American here, without an opinion on brexit, but are you not also "simplifying to an easier question" when you say the decision is a matter of "who we kill and who we let die"?
+sqlblindman I'm saying the decision includes that, but you're right isn't entirely reducible to it
I can imagine it is an emotionally-charged issue over there.
Interesting that removing Britain from the EU should automatically be a position of closing borders. You can have a "sovereign nation" with open borders and free trade. It was quite common pre World Wars.
I still don't like the EU but if it can be of use I will use it.
God this whole Brexit story has turned into a nightmare. Not envying you.
sovereignty? What sovereignty might that be? The Anglo Saxons were Germans, the Normans were French, the Tudors Were Welsh the Stuarts were Scots and George the 1st was a German that couldn't speak a word of English. haven't had sovereignty since 500ad and then it was for only 200yrs pre Roman Empire
The Digital Nation of Philosophy Tube ©
Don't forget that the quality of life for your children and grand children is effected by the amount of immigration. It is already hard enough for say a mentally handicapped brit to find a wage that
provides a good quality of life.
and isn't quality of life (and sometimes life itself) what we are saying in this video that we are taking away from immigrant hopefuls
The sad thing is those who vote on immigration policy rarely feel the effects as much as later generations do.
Indeed it is. But I wouldn't necessarily assume that effect would be bad.
A lot of very defensive and reactionary comments here. Sorta proving the points, non?
As opposed to offensive and pro-actionary? I'm not sure what your point is?
"Letting die == killing" is the most outrageous ship-of-Theseus reasoning ever. I grow weary of having to share a world with the consequentialist insects who let this shit fly cognitively.
I find your video genuine and enlightening! Thanks
Impressive.
Will this affect us here in 'Murica?
If they cant swim the mediterranean i doubt the pacific will be much easier.
*Atlantic
The Earth is round though.
Yes, since it hurts worldwide economy.
So i was wondering how do the students fit in the equation? Those who are coming from the upper mid-class societies to study in UK.
why is 'philosophy tube' actually 'leftist philosphy tube'?
Philosophy, like all areas of study I guess, gets political sometimes, and some of the really interesting work is done when power and dominant ways of looking at things are challenged? That's what I think anyway. To be fair I'm pretty lefty, so I would say that though.
+blababubles The real question is why in the world is a loaded question shoved into a philosophy channel in the first place?
The left exists to challenge accepted wisdom
I really like Philosophy Tube's answer here. Olly's a Lefty, but there's plenty of room down here in the comments to discuss why he's wrong if he's wrong.
+Elliott Collins
And I don't think he shoved his opinion into anyone's face. He just said to reflect on your real reasons and to be clear about this being a live-and-death decision. Everybody's still free to decide against charity and altruism and let people die but they shouldn't do so because they didn't realize that this is what they were going to do. Is that a left position? The only thing Olly really said definitively is that racism is bad. If someone finds that "leftist", I don't think they're to the right of the political spectrum, they've fallen off it altogether.
I think you might want to point to TL;DR's latest videos who put factual numbers on this issue.
i watched this late. brexit passed, UK is leaving the EU. don't forget economics. if there are X jobs and there are Y employees who can do those jobs, than the pay for each employee is higher when the number Y is lower. bringing in tons of immigrants lowers the wage value of poor people. it increases the life style of the more poor immigrants at the expense of the already poor people living there.
But here's an interesting question, why are there only X jobs? Why is the country not set up so that everyone can get by?
Also it's a minor quibble but although Brexit has passed, nobody has pressed the red button on leaving the EU yet or even offered a plan...
I would've liked to see some discussion on the political state of the EU. To my understanding it was started as an economic union between European countries in order to simplify and boost trade however, it now has a National Anthem, two Presidents (unelected), a commissioned government which has merged its legislative and executive branches of government. What's more, EU law itself is described as supranational and so takes precedence over national law. The most concerning thing I have read (likely to be false) is the EU is working on a military force. Couple this with a government that is, as far as I know, entirely unelected by the people they govern and you have the ingredients for a Tyranny.
One thing on immigration, since this referendum was made in the context of the refugee crisis: statistics show (muslimstatistics.com and pew polls) that a majority of refugees are male; 1 in 5 are not from Syria and they, contrary to EU law, they bypass EU states that have no welfare state. Again, Turkey, from what I have read, is almost threatening to release the 2M or so migrants they have if the EU doesn't make them a member by 2020. I'd be interested in your thoughts, Olly, particularly with regards to the Government of the EU.
I'm not Ollie but hopefully my thoughts will do for now as I seem to be the person correcting everyone's understanding of EU governance in this comment section. You can see my more thorough commet on the EU's legislative and executive structure above in a couple of places if you are interested.
The EU has two Presidents both of them elected (albeit indirectly but it worth noting that the term 'President' is used for a lot of the heads of various EU organs that aren't part of the executive or legislative branch and are beholden to both). The first is the President of the European Parliament, who basically occupies the same role as the Speaker of the House of Commons and is chosen by the other 750 MEPs (whom we directly elect in proportionally representative national ballots across Europe). The second is the President of the European Commission who occupies a role somewhere between that of President of the United States and the Cabinet Secretary of our Civil Service. He and his Commission are beholden to both the legislative chambers of the EU and he is chosen by a vote of the European Parliament. Candidates for President are suggested to the Parliament by the Council of Ministers and the Parliament has no right to choose its own candidates. This ensures a balance of power between the two legislative branches and that they have an equal say in the constitution of their executive branch. The executive and legislative branches of the EU are not merged at all and are held, by treaty, to be very seperate in a manner reminiscent of the executive-legislative divide in the States. The directly elected European Parliament ultimately has the power of veto over the Council of Ministers so they have legislative primacy and they are increasingly taking legislative initiative (who proposes laws to pass a power that currently technically sits with the Commission) from the Commission using their right to demand the Commission draft legislation to put before them more and more. EU treaty law takes precedent (excepting all the exceptions we've negoiated in) but not all EU law takes precedent. For example, our Supreme Court has judicial primacy over the ECHR and it has exercised this right (for example telling the ECHR to f*ck off when it ruled prisoners have the right to vote and should be provided with polling stations within prison). The EU is not working on a European armed forces but rather working on creating a better integrated NATO/EU command structure across Europe to ensure NATO/EU forces are more responsive. They are also considering whether to allow the Council of Ministers (who determine foreign policy) more freedom to act, especially to act offensively, with regard military force given the real threats to the EU such as ISIS. Look up NATO and the EU and you will see how closely the two are intertwined (which makes sense as NATO is primarily made up of EU member states) and see, for example, that many NATO units are already pledged to European defence and thus sort of but not officially under the control of the EU anyway.
The EU is not a tyranny but it is big, complex and slow. The UK has always spat in the EU's eye and elected our equivalent of Sinn Fein to represent us as the European Parliament (UKIP rarely bothers to even take their seats in the chamber and when they do it is mostly to disrupt proceedings and insult everyone present). Is it any wonder then that the EU may not always reflect our interests when we refuse to engage with it on anything and constantly insult it while electing MEPs who have no interest in actually representing the UK at the European Parliament?
Thank you for the response, I appreciate the depth of analysis you gave. I wil have to do some more reading before the vote on Thursday.
This is fully excellent.
Great video as always! :)
I thought putting yourself in other people's shoes was an easy and simple thought process, butt I guess most people are not capable of doing so.
Where's today's video? Did you already start at the other school and move into the flat with a gazillion roommates? When you said the channel was in trouble, I didn't realize we only had ONE week to donate...
+Jamie Dallas this was today's video, if you see what I mean
I see. Okay, thank you. Sorry! I panicked. I love your channel and would hate to see it end.
@jonathandnicholson Please take note.
I do not think your definition of sovereignty is complete. I define "the sovereign" as: the one who makes the exception.
+Seth Woodard Someone's been reading Schmitt!
I feel like you're saying some super interesting things about "camps" but something kind of bothers me about that term. Maybe it's just because various summer camps were a big part of my childhood.
A word that might be better is caste?
Talking about the caste system in western societies seems like a very fruitful way to examine current issues, with physical camps (e.g. slave camps, labor camps, internment camps) as an acute way *caste* differences and conflicts manifest physically.
Otherwise I've definitely been challenged by things you cover and I hope to see more!
I'm unsure what arabic refugees have to do with the EU vote? They're not European citizens so we can decide what to do with them ourselves while still in the EU. seems like this was just an excuse to call brexiteers racists, which is pretty low brow
I don't recall mentioning them?
Can you do a video on natural rights? And provide arguments for and against them?
While I loved everything you said in this episode and agree wholeheartedly, I felt it was very unfair to define sovereignty as just the right to exclude or include it at all, because for a lot of us sovereignty is close to democracy and right to self determination, something a lot of countries under colonialism didn't have until recently and some still don't for different reasons. :)
+Sina Shahbazi I didn't; I very deliberately said it *includes* the right to exclude. And I guess that sovereignty for former colonies could be the right to exclude the coloniser, and democracy the means to determine the form of that
Philosophy Tube fair enough. I might have missed that; not having eaten properly for 3 days kinda messed with my head.
Ah such sweet naïve times...
Can you in one of your videos analyse Juche ideology?
Above all, talking about immigration and poverty and society at large is about how we feel people should live their lives, within which conditions lives are going to happen and I think it's very telling in the way we speak about each other how we feel about people that aren't us. I've accepted racism and fascism as a fact of life because it's become evident to me that a lot of white people don't care about people that aren't white or profitable, so long as we're upfront about being absolute asshats and don't expect anybody to respect or admire us for that.
You got through that without mentioning Children of Men?
idk if you've ever brought it up, Olly, and I apologize if you have, but have you considered the mathematical impact of an individual vote? By the numbers, if you personally don't vote, the political landscape remains exactly the same because it didn't come down to a single vote and so more than your own contributed to what determined the majority weighing. sure, if we all thought that way, etc., blah blah blah, pathos patriotism and so forth, but the fact is that no individual controls whether any other individual votes so even if most people DID think that way, you wouldn't have made that impact. you may say no voting means no right to complain but why is that true if you have yet to logically show me how I contribute? it is a case where the collective matters but you're only a grain of sand in what would otherwise still be a philosophical pile without you if you catch my drift...
It's easy to say one vote doesn't matter, but it a vote passes or fails by a margin of 100,000, then that vote's outcome depended on those 100,000 "one votes." Sure, unless the outcome is within a 1 vote difference some of those votes "won't matter", but statistically speaking it's very likely your vote "mattered."
To elaborate on that, take a yes/no vote with 2 million participants, which passes 55-45, meaning that 1.1 mil voted yes an 0.9 mil voted no. By the logic that excess votes are wasted, 0.2 mil 'yes' votes were wasted, out of 2 million voters, or only 10%, meaning you have a 90% chance that your vote influenced the outcome. You could assume that all the 'no' votes were wasted, since they didn't achieve their outcome, but unless you know the outcome before the vote (which does happen sometimes) that's shaky reasoning for not voting, and even then 'yes' voters only had a 0.2/1.1 or ~18% chance of "wasting" their vote.
That said, votes aren't looked at in a vacuum: policy makers will pay attention to margins. Take the US presidential primaries - Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders ~60-40 overall. If she wins the presidential election, her policy making decisions are going to be heavily influenced by the 40% of passionate Democrat voters who preferred Sanders since those voters will have a large impact on her re-election, whereas if Sanders had lost 95-5, Clinton would likely pay lip service at best to the ideals of Sanders' supporters. Taking this into account, literally every vote matters, since each and every vote will have an impact, however small, on the political climate.
Sorry if this post is too long...I see what you're saying (and thanks for taking the idea I brought up seriously in a RUclips comment section of all places.) From what I'm gathering, your main arguing points are that 1) only the number of votes by which a given side wins don't matter, and we can't know where we'll factor in that regard, and 2) that general election outcome ratios more broadly impact both social perceptions in future elections as well as what decisions the elected candidates make. Now, If I understand your first point (sorry If I didn't), you'd probably suggest that determining which votes no longer matter is a matter of whether or not the candidate has already mathematically won. That is, if Hillary is already definitely going to win, my vote after that point didn't count, for example. The issue is that voting power is more nebulous a concept than you're portraying: unless the vote comes down to 1, then no single vote matters in its own right REGARDLESS of when it's cast. I mean, imagine if Hillary wins and I voted for her after that was certain. It was pointless. But if every vote is cast the same way except that my own is cast before her victory is certain, the outcome is still the same. Clearly, ordering is not a metric to determine which votes are the ones that matter and which are the particular margin by which she's surpassed what she needs. You might argue back that perception of the voters will be affected along the way so that the time a particular person votes will affect how future votes play out so that there actually is a greater impact in voting prior to her certain victory, meaning that a particular set of votes ARE the ones that don't matter as opposed to the rest, but this doesn't negate my point about the insignificance of any single vote. It merely moves it to a different focus where I can still make that point: my vote needn't happen to affect the U.S. population's perception of how the election is going at a given time. The change would individually be too thin, still no less romantic a form of the notion that mine will be the straw to break the camel's proverbial back. This issue of it only being a refocusing of the insignificance applies to your second point as well, of course: my vote won't be the one to sway Hillary toward any particular policy, nor impact future elections the way you're making it sound. Again, if any of this wasn't what you meant, I apologize and eagerly await your reply (sorry if that was a bit rambly) :P
I also think it's important for me to note that what a person does when they, for example, make a video supporting a candidate CAN be rational in that it can affect how many more people then vote, increasing individual voting power in ways we cannot so easily predict. Sure, it's only ever the other person's choice ultimately, but this is a matter of raw utility, and so swaying the independent thinking processes of others to one's own benefit is no less rational regardless of it being THEIR vote: the action of persuading still changed one more vote than one's own...of course, even Olly can't affect enough people to sway an election this size, but it is the minute uncertainty in that regard which can justify his weighing the risk of having wasted his time as worth it, like gambling can sometimes be seen as rational.
With regard to my first point, my argument was more that since all votes are effectively cast simultaneously (all votes are cast, then all votes are counted), there is no "order" of votes, all you can determine is the probability that your vote affected the outcome, and the odds of that in a close election / referendum are quite good.
In the broader sense that your vote is an insignificant portion of a larger system: I get what you're saying, I guess I just fundamentally disagree. If you have a beach, take away a grain of sand and you still have a beach; take away all the sand and you have something else entirely. Any individual could make a logical and reasonable argument that they needn't bother voting, but if too many individuals make that argument and choose not to vote, you get intractable systems that are nearly impossible to fix like the US and UK's electoral systems, where one party has an entrenched government (the US presidency flips back and forth, but congress has been dominated by the Republican party for decades), which leads to voter disenfranchisement, which leads more people to choose not to vote, etc.
As an Australian, the lack of mandatory voting in the US and UK baffles me. On an individual scale abstaining can seem harmless, but on a national scale it drastically distorts politics and leads to worse outcomes for the majority of the population. With mandatory voting, if you have a moral objection to all the available parties and want to abstain you can still leave your ballot blank, but abstaining is an active choice at that point, rather than a passive one.
I guess my point is that if an individual is also part of a system, then a course of action is only rational for that individual if it would be rational for a large section of the population to take that action. Again, an individual could rationally choose not to vote, but if a million individuals make that same decision it starts to seem less rational and more of a huge problem, and there is nothing to prevent a million other people from making that decision.
Sorry if I'm repeating myself a bit, but this is all a little stream-of-consciousness, and I'm too lazy to go back and edit new nuances into previous paragraphs.
Regarding your second comment, I agree, though videos like this could be an attempt to educate instead of (or as well as) an attempt to persuade, which has different ethical implications (the quality of which I'm not intending to comment on, in case that came across as disparaging).
Can you make a video (or atleast a reply to this coment) about Auguste Comte's philosophy about god? I would really appreciate it!
thanks
Great video!
Great video
I noticed with some dismay that you were very careful to make note of the distinction between the right to kill and the right to let die by tying them together. I get that you're trying to erase that distinction, but the fact that even has to be done is upsetting in a lot of ways. You hear a lot of the same things about sovereignty here in the US. and it's ignoring something that is at least in the US foundational to our entire way of life. Understanding that almost all of Europe considers itself to be post-christian, that is... not the way that we do things in the US. However if we in the US are going to hold ourselves to that standard, we should be better than having to make that distinction.
The plain fact of the matter is that if you let someone die and you had the ability to stop it, then you have killed them. The fact that the distinction even needs to be made is highlighting an ugliness in the soul of, at the very least, America.
There is a difference between someone who can't integrate in to the culture they immigrate to and someone who refuses to.