Vlad's main channel ruclips.net/user/VladVexlervideos Rory and Alastair debate Labour's plan on immigration ruclips.net/video/q3hZc1FMoyM/видео.htmlsi=PmRXykZxUPNhqNwM&t=984 Support Vlad's work on Patreon! www.patreon.com/vladvexler Support Vlad via PayPal www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
"No one knows more about human rights than Michael Ignatiff". What utter liberal nonsense. There are literally 10000s of experts in the field who know far more. Incidentally, I suspect most of those don't advocate for violating human rights and torturing terrorism suspects.
Immigration was generally tolerated when assimilation was the stated goal. If you come to another place, it's expected that it's better than the one you left, so you should adapt, or if you refuse, you should leave and return to your own homeland, instead of trying to replicate it inside your guest's home. When things were controlled, limited, and for genuine refugees, like those fleeing communist repression in East Europe or war in former Yugo, things were relatively stable. The Syrian war opened the gates and the liberal politicians tried to rub the noses of the right in it. Well, now it's time to see what results will that have.
The 'NEW' GOAL of immigration is to counter INFLATION. This is a straight road to hell. Making children and retiree to PARASITES. Sifting for 'UBER-MENCH' that produce, without any needs at all... A broken society/country... ( Sweden )
I can only speak to the mood in Australia, but reframing large scale immigration here as "this is still your country but you're being generous and it's a great compliment that they want to come here" is very unlikely to fly. The flaw in that reframing, for Australians, I think is that there is record net immigration (~500k per year in a country of 27 million) during a housing, cost of living and infrastructure crisis such that so many people are in survival mode that they would be completely uninterested in being complimented for their generosity. Likewise I suspect any gentle or not so gentle reminders that massively cutting immigration would be brutal to those aspiring to live here would fall on deaf ears. The vibe I'm getting is that survival and the desire to reach a life that is more than just survival will trump all other considerations, rightly or wrongly. To summarise, the mood towards immigration at present here is foul to say the least. So it seems that Australians are not so different to the Brits in respect to immigration. I get the idea about modern life leading to people feeling alienated and that being projected on immigration. In Australia's case though one third of citizens were born in another country. It's my observation that this is large enough to form an independent source of alienation. It's perhaps difficult to understand until you've lived in a country where such a high fraction of citizens are foreign born.
Within a generation Australians will be the minority in their country, it’s already happened in Britain where foreign born and decent are the majority in schools. However foreign born in Australia comprise a majority from Britain, New Zealand and Hong Kong, whereas in the UK their immigrants are dominated by those from particularly backward countries. The West has set itself up for internal conflicts which means that the Right will likely form the governments and that’s when we will see a long term shift in the outlook of countries and how they will deal with internal divisions, the most obvious of which will be America undertaking mass deportations; expect other Western nations to do the same.
Housing pressue in Australia is real and intense. Labor is gambling that they won't be punished for their tepid housing policy. They may get away with it this election but the widening gap in supply and demand just adds fuel to the fire of xenophobia and mistrust to be leveraged by far right political actors.
A big problem with the immigration discussion is that asylum seekers, legitimate and not, are always framed as lacking agency. It is always about 'smashing the gangs', as if it is the gangs that are making all the decisions. And, in the early days, asylum seekers were advertised as future 'doctors' and 'engineers' to the point that it became a meme. People can simply take a look at Germany and Sweden and see that the project has failed. I would very much like to live in a world where, like you, you feel excited welcoming one or two Syrian refugees in your neighborhood. But what we actually got is sectarianism and the drastic change of communities through lack of assimilation. People see and feel the changes, even if they don't know the ins and outs of policy. And the immense powerlessness this brings about means that now democracy is literally at stake. The West used to have a rather sneering tone towards the likes of Singapore for their extremely pragmatic stances on immigration, race, and demography - but it is becoming increasingly obvious that when stability is at stake, you can no longer be utopian.
You can't gaslight people into being "generous". At the end of the day, states represent their people (citizens), whom they prioritize ahead of any foreigners, regardless of their victim status. Regimes who prefer using outsiders to propagate their security and economic situation are by default illegitimate and fairly feudal (see the Gulf states).
But most immigration is legal. And most of those immigrants contribute to our economy and society, making things better for the state's citizens. That's why it's happening. Illegal immigration is a separate problem, but the numbers just aren't that big.
As a Right-Wing watcher of yours: If the choice is between immigration ending our national identities or giving up democracy to save it, everyone on the Right (+ vast majority of centre when push comes to shove) will choose the latter. If (big if) democracy/human rights prevents us from solving the issue, that's a risk we'll unhappily but necessarily take. This is existential for us - it's easier to get democracy back than a country.
Since you self-identify as a Right Winger, let me bounce this idea off you: How do think the public would react to the idea of monetizing immigration? That is, giving native born citizens a % of the $income$ of the new immigrants? It would make native labor more competitive and provide a mechanism for immigrants to literally earn their entry into society while providing a social safety net for natives against any potential economic shocks. It would discourage those would be migrants who were only interested in making a profit off the backs of the natives. It would square the circle, so to speak, about all these arguments proponents of immigration make about demographic balance, etc., and how a certain level of immigration is necessary to maintain the current level of economic goods and services, versus the arguments opponents make about social cohesion and competition for jobs.
@@JackRMason Isn't this essentially already the case due to taxation? No one believes it works. Multiple studies have proven that MENA immigration produces no net tax-paying at any age - everyone is doing worse than before despite (or perhaps because of) unprecedented influxes of people. And this ignores the increasingly undeniable reality that the cultures are immiscible.
@@JohnSmith-tw6po No. Not at all. You're referring to complicated ideas about indirect government subsidies which nobody ever really believed were true. I'm saying you should get an actual literal check every month that represents a direct deduction from this immigrant laborer's wages. If not actually have direct management over the immigrant's labor contracts themselves, as in historical indenture relationships.
@@JackRMason This sounds like a lot of bureaucracy as a gimmick which again doesn't solve the reason there's such worry about immigration. Economics is four or five places down the list. People don't want their home communities to no longer exist, especially if crime goes up big time, or they don't think the new residents share their values. And the economics of MENA immigration is still terrible.
The reality in Britain is that the native population did not consent to the level of immigration we have had but more importantly, they were never given the chance to consent. We were told for years that the numbers would not be significant, then we were told that it was a temporary spike and would fall imminently, then once significant numbers had arrived we were told it was all beneficial and would boost our living standards and finally once it ceased to boost our standards of living we were told that to go against mass immigration was racist/bigoted/xenophobic. I firmly believe that the majority of people are decent and understanding. A sustainable level of immigration, focused on assimilation and societal harmony would have been viable. Now it’s too late.
17% of British youth (18-24) voted right-wing (Reform and Conservatives) in 2024. This is a decrease from 21% of 18-24 voting right-wing in 2019. This is a decrease from 35% of 18-24 voting right-wing (Conservatives and UKIP) in 2015. British youth are becoming less right-wing with each passing generation. Greens and Lib Dems got 34% of British youth vote in 2024. Highest proportion of the youth vote ever.
@@atrlawes98 the native populations of wide swaths of the world did not consent to being colonized, enslaved, and economically exploited to impossible degrees by the British empire, either
@rachelatwood9555 Of course not, but that argument is nothing more than whataboutism. The people who did the colonising are not the same people dealing with the issues about immigration today, so how is it relevant?
@@rachelatwood9555That is true but irrelevant. What British people did over a century ago should have no bearing on what British people decide is the right policy now regarding immigration.
Very true but the British people who benefited from empire are the same ones that benefit from vast immigration lowering the salaries and bargaining power of the working class. The descendants of servants and coal miners are the British people who are actually being harmed. A reminder that Britain has one of the harshest class systems in the world.@@rachelatwood9555
Thank you for recognising this issue. I have noticed it both in the UK, but also Germany as another prime example. I had thought for some time that this issue if ignored could cause history to repeat itself in Germany with the AFD. If a large portion of the population feel that their needs are repeatedly being ignored by the coalitions that retain power, they are at risk that the only way for the AfD supporters to get representation and be able to enact change involves them dismantling the democratic systems that denies them their voice. No matter how unpleasant some might find it.
Germany probably seems more susceptible to migration related disturbances due to that society's emphasis on the social contract. Anglos are kind of a heartless, selfish cut throat bunch who have historically just flushed away the people they don't have any immediate need for. Germans historically had a more wholistic view of society as a collective enterprise. Suddenly introducing a massive number of new members to the team, without the group's explicit approval is bound to be more offensive to Germans, who come to expect a level of consideration that the average Anglo does not.
I don't think you understand the UK In the UK, only 22% of people aged 18-34 say immigration is a major concern compared to 47% of those over 55. Plus, only 20% of young people in the UK say immigration has been bad for the country compared to over 50% of French and Swedish youth. The UK is very different to Europe.
17% of British youth (18-24) voted right-wing (Reform and Conservatives) in 2024. This is a decrease from 22% of 18-24 voting right-wing in 2019. This is a decrease from 35% of 18-24 voting right-wing (Conservatives and UKIP) in 2015. Greens and Lib Dems got 34% of British youth vote in 2024. Highest proportion of the youth vote ever.
The feeling of not feeling at home in your own home is very much reflected by the emigration numbers. People talk about the net migration, but fail to discuss the UK emigration. They don't mention the record number of EU and non-EU citizens leaving the UK, namely many of whom don't feel at home in the UK anymore. The British emigration drop in numbers hides the fact that while the free movement has ended after brexit, the British who are leaving are the highly skilled workers that can always get a skilled visa in most countries. This has been especially true for junior Doctors, who most likely share this sentiment of not feeling at home in their own homes, of not feeling appreciated.
Net emigration of British folks is actually pretty small. Part of the immigrant figures are British people returning and the net figure is now about -80,000 per year (It was significantly lower than that until the last few years).
@CurtOntheRadio that is my point exactly. While Brits are emigrating a lot less, the highly skilled individuals make up the overwhelming majority of British migrants. Basically, a working class British person can no longer move to Spain and work in the tourism industry. There a real brain drain happening in the UK.
A big chunk of those British citizens returning to the UK are elderly Brits who were deprived of their right to free healthcare in Spain and France by Brexit. Meanwhile most of those leaving are the young and highly-skilled. This is not likely to help the overburdened NHS.
Saying doctors are leaving because of immigrants is very silly. Maybe it's more due to the 15 years of NHS neglect by the right? More than immigrants, for sure.
19:30 “not feeling at home, even though you are at home” reminds me of the era of industrialization that set in in Western Europe in the mid-19th century and eventually culminated in WW2. Literature is full of poems that deal with loneliness and the feeling of lostness of the individual in the world. Hannah Ahrendt argues that fascism has its roots in these feelings of abandonment, homelessness and loneliness. Perhaps we are once again at the point where people feel “homeless” & disoriented despite having a home?
I think we are feeling the alienation of capitalism, the lack of community. Individual Consumers are lonely by design. My home is in a country but the *entire country* is not my home. Perhaps we need to relearn how to share
Share my *what* exactly @@mfallen2023..? No one is asking you to give up your bed, or cook for anyone. It's easy to be callous, but more cost effective to just be a good person. It ain't all about you.
It’s hard to trust the authorities when you disenfranchise victims in order to appease certain ethnic groups. When the Rotherham scandal broke a few years back, I couldn’t believe my ears. Not calling a spade a spade made things so much worse. For the victims, but also for social cohesion. And for Keir Starmer to be talking about ASIAN grooming gangs above all else 😢 I’m all for granting people the opportunity to come to our countries, for human rights as well as for other reasons. I’m just no longer sure that this hospitality should be extended to those who don’t respect free speech, including the right to criticise any religion and any ideology, who threaten violence to apostates, gay people etc., who treat the members of other ethnic and religious groups with utter contempt. We do need immigration. We do need to care about human rights. But we also need to demand that those who come here respect the human rights of the other inhabitants of our countries. Lots of love, Vlad.
Philosophy Tube did a whole video on what we are encouraged to 'see', versus what we are discouraged to 'see'. And the whole debate on immigration is about that.
No doubt there's horror there. But the vast majority of sexual assault is undertaken by indigenous white men. It massively outweighs that of any other group. And so what of your wider point? Why single out immigrants as folk that need "respect the human rights of the other inhabitants"? In your own terms, by far the largest group disrespecting human rights is the indigenous white, British man. And yet not a word on that. You see how your position perverts the reality - and serves to gee-up racial animus, whilst disregarding every other sexual assault outside of the very narrow band of your concern??
The indigenous people have a right to a safe country. We also have the ludicrous situation where asylum seekers need protection from other asylum seekers, because they bring their conflict with them. It only makes sense for the UK to make some choices about groups of migrants that are a good enough fit for the dominant culture. And yes, religion should be part of that choice.
Mass imigration is simply not sustainable or comes at too high a cost and hosting hostile communities doesn't work too well either. But the reason it has become so toxic is the insistence on denying the issues.
I don't think you understand the UK In the UK, only 22% of people aged 18-34 say immigration is a major concern compared to 47% of those over 55. Plus, only 20% of young people in the UK say immigration has been bad for the country compared to over 50% of French and Swedish youth. The UK is very different to Europe.
Eventually most of the arctic will melt. So climate immigration is likely as believe if the total area melted it was supposed to mean 60-80m higher sea levels worldwide. Action will not be taken in time to prevent significant sea level rises because of lack of goal alignment due to energy needs and improving living standards that follows.
In order to address that challenge, we need a working social order, which we don't have. We have an exceptionally incompetent elite class who not only don't understand their responsibilities, but completely reject the idea that they have any responsibilities at all. Outlook is not good.
Climate refugees …. You clearly dont believe your own bullshit because if you did, you would not assume that climate based emigration will end up flowing into Europe…
I think a big mistake with discussions about immigration are that its talked about in far too generalised ways, even in this video it sounded like there was some comparison of the downsides of illegal immigration with the benefits of structured, planned immigration of skilled people. Nobody is going to object to people coming to the UK with skills, prearranged employment and the means to support themselves. But boatloads of unknown people arriving and being put up in hotels with what seems like a great deal of urgency and importance is going to rile up millions. How can you help but feel cheated or insulted if you've worked hard your whole life and are still struggling towards reaching a standard of living that is being seemingly gifted to others? Politicians treading the PC line makes them seem oblivious to all this, which I agree poses a serious risk to our continued democracy as people resign themselves to not caring or hoping for an alternative.
If democracy is to mean anything then immigration needs to be very strongly dialed back. Economic and social arguments are all secondary to the fact that large majorities of people in most migrant destination countries don't want immigration. Democracy is about the will of the majority and not technocratic policy implementation.
I don't think you understand the UK In the UK, only 22% of people aged 18-34 say immigration is a major concern compared to 47% of those over 55. Plus, only 20% of young people in the UK say immigration has been bad for the country compared to over 50% of French and Swedish youth. The UK is very different to Europe.
"when Alistair Campbell was in power"? Let's remember he was never elected to any office. He was just Blair's flunky, powerful then. He is now a Machiavel who has lost his mojo, Dorian Grey reunited with his portrait, the Wizard behind the curtain, a fuddyduddy who can't see the world other than it was in the golden years.
As long as governments make mistakes that they need to blame on somebody else, there will be opposition party politics. Granted, it's not as profitable as running the ruling party, but there is still plenty of $$$ in it for characters like Campbell. Don't shed a tear for him. He'll find a way to do well for himself.
The 'technocratic' governments broke the social contract, simple as that. The idea behind immigration - that imho was broadly accepted in the West - was on two grounds. Firsly, people who are oppressed and tyrannized in their countries can come and seek shelter with understanding that they will return once the situation improves. And secondly, people who are willing to respect our western liberal democratic values can come and become citizens in Western liberal democracies. But the 'technocratic' governments subverted this to attempt to right perceived crimes of capitalism and colonialism, to give third world the 'social justice'. And that's simply not what has been agreed on. Now, we will all reap the consequences of that...
@@JackRMason Yes. Notice 'improves'. Not becomes same as in western world. If the situation in their country is long-term hopeless, then obviously there's always option two I outlined, i.e., learn to respect western values and become a citizen.
Vlad, I feel like you are missing two things. One, is the perspective of a native that sees or maybe senses the change to their home when an immigrant joins their neighborhood. It's not an irrational feeling. The new comers are changing how things have been. It's often to the better but it is still an uncomfortable change. Two is a matter of scale. There are so many more people in the world and in general no government that is on the receiving end of immigration is doing a good job of growing their infrastructure to meet everyone's needs. So there is the additional pressure on everyone in these countries. The resources are spread more thinly amongst them and that increases competition between everyone.
Eh, for the second point, like, no? The largest problem for rich countries is not a lack of infrastructure, but shrinking population and lack of people to live and support existing infrastructure!
The second point doesn't accord with economically reality, I think. Yes, it's true that migrants add to the financial burden of the state in particular respects. But we shouldn't ignore the value they add to the economy. It makes sense that the natural born populations of host countries perceive the negative impacts more keenly than the positive, but I think that has more to do with the extreme levels of inequality that exist today in countries such as the UK, Canada, US, etc., than it does with the migrants themselves. For a simplistic example, consider a factory that is able to lower wages due to the availability of migrant labor. Let's assume that wages would be better for the native workers if immigration were stopped (seems reasonable.) Now we consider the impacts of the anti-immigration policy on society more broadly. Countries like the UK would, over time, lose lots of workers in key industries such as healthcare: ( commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7783/ ). The loss of these workers depresses the economy in the long term, so there's less the factory workers can actually buy with their admittedly increased wages. In my country of the US, the technology sector would be negatively impacted since migrants found tech companies at higher rates than US born citizens do (this isn't specific to tech but you get the point: www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2022/07/26/most-us-billion-dollar-startups-have-an-immigrant-founder/ ). My basic point is that it's too simplistic to conceive of society as a fixed pool of resources to be divvied out among the population. The real economic hardship affecting ordinary people in advanced economies is fundamentally about the unprecedented dominance of the ultra-wealthy over the politics and economies of those countries - a problem migrants did not cause, and which wouldn't be fixed by making migrants go away.
I'll admit, I do not understand immigration. My father's family has been in the USA since before it was the USA. I have no discomfort over meeting a new person, no matter where they are from. In fact, the father away, the less I know about their culture or history, the more curious I am. I have to remind myself not be be too nosy. I have no idea what you feel in this situation. My home is in the USA but the *entire USA* is not my home. {also, no one lives in like 7 states out west} . Isn't resource management a function of economics, ie Capitalism? Could it be that depending on *only* market based solutions is short sighted?
That's the problem though, there are places in the world like China that have entire cities empty & waiting for a population boom to occupy it. The rest of the world needs to get over the fact the West isn't the bastion of stable, peaceful living anymore. We mean it in the best way; go somewhere else.
@@raymondjacobs1955 the chat is not missing these points, it just doesn’t discuss them. On the first point the concern goes deeper - it’s not that people feel their home will be changed, it’s that people feel they will be changed.
When speaking of human rights the host nations peoples rights are never considered, especially those at the lower end of the economic and social hierarchy, low incomes get lower, housing costs go up and no one cared until it affected the middle classes ability to buy homes.
Its so strange how the issue of limiting immigration moved from a leftist issue back when the labor unions were afraid of salary competition to today being a rightist issue. I think what happened is that blue collar moved side, and the issue moved with them. Or perhaps the left dropped the issue going cosmopolitan, and the blue collar vote left with the issue.
Yep. The working class always had two desires - socialism, for it benefits them, and nationalism, for they are not completely stupid and understand that having socialism for foreigners is not sustainable. So, in a sense, nationalistic socialism. I think the time has come to try this novel idea.
It’s essentially the most popular ideology. A lot of the “right-wing populists” combine welfare and social policy with nationalism. You can’t really have a nation if you don’t consider the population a people, a big family or tribe, and cohesion among it only works when there’s not too much inequality within and everyone feels some sort of obligation to eachother and the state. If and when the centre left big party adopts stricter immigration laws, the populists are crushed. Nationalistic Socialism doesn’t have to include imperialism, militarism, and perceived supremacy like the Germans tried.
It seems to me that earlier less draconian changes (say thirty years ago) could have averted much of the tooth gnashing today. Now we have Trump and Steve Bannon.
However, a number of those countries could be hostile, has a different culture or have a very bad quality of life for that specific type of refugees, or simply don't want them to live there. For example, an Ukrainian refugee often has to cross Russia to get into Europe (once he is on the wrong side of line of combat). Russia generally is no less peaceful than most countries in Africa. Should we turn them back at the border? What about Ukrainian refugee who went through, say, Azerbaijan or Turkey? Those are peaceful countries. Shouldn't we left them there to settle? Is it that much to ask an Orthodox Ukrainian to become a muslim to better fit in? After all, European countries are hardly Orthodox... Okay, okay, you don't like those examples either. But let's put it this way. Why should those refugees from Ukraine, after entering Poland, go farther? After all, Poland and Ukraine are relatively close in language and culture! Shouldn't they all stay in Poland?
Pity all of them cannot afford boat and plane-rides just to get to the UK as a refugee... it's almost as though that is a great excuse to not have any refugees ever.
One important reason is the English language. English is the language that is taught in most schools in most countries so many people know at least the basics, and we've all encountered new immigrants who are in an anglophone country for the first time, yet speak English remarkably well.
Dear Vlad, writing from a country that has just seen a far right party win the elections a couple of months ago and with their coalition talks having just started with the the center right konservative party, I want to thank you for this extraordinarily important clip. I probably share your point of view on human rights and also on basic decency in politics to a large part but I am afraid that you and Rory are right. At the moment we are talking about the survival of the rest of our liberal democracy (which in fact means democracy in general) and the field in which this will be decided is in the issue of migration. So a tough, credible and understandable policy will have to be implemented, or else the bad guys will win. hopefully it is not too late for that.
Looking at the comments it seems that this really touched a nerve. There seems to be so much tension on this subject. While I mainly agree with the points raised by Vlad I would just add that when these measure with regard to emigration will be taken there will be need for serious, non-moralizing journalism showing the effects these measures have on the emigrant population. Nothing is better for realizing that our wishes have an effect on the world than feeling the burden of responsibility for our actions.
There is no compelling "human rights" case for immigration. The destination countries did not create the poverty that billions of people suffer in the world today. If the destination countries don't take them in, their situation remains the same, thus there is no moral infraction. Moreover, taking several tens of millions of mostly young and capable people from those billions does not address the situation for the rest. Even more over, there is limited capacity to take people in, before the importing cultures get diluted and changed into something that is no longer able to help anybody. This is not the ideal world we would imagine, in an ideal world we should work to make all countries prosperous, not move millions from one to the other, and with that process incentivize the creation of more desperate people in the departing countries.
I'm going to posit something far more pedestrian as an influence on issues that polarize both the UK and the US: housing affordability. When British citizens are told that they're going to have 700,000 more migrants "shoved down their throats," regardless of cause, regardless of WHY those 700,000 migrants are coming, they're going to throw their hands in the air and ask, "And, put them where? We're barely able to afford our own homes!" I don't know if the UK is plagued by Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but the US certainly is. One of them owns over 800,000 single-family residences, mostly in one city. They make cash offers, outbid individual home buyers, and make purchases without inspection contingencies. Private equity firms in this space have growth targets of 250+ homes closed per month. They don't need to own hundreds of thousands of homes in a municipality in order to become rental market makers. They simply raise the rent on ALL of them and smaller landlords generally are only too happy to follow suit. This keeps renters who would ordinarily have bought once their salaries permitted it to rent longer because new sale prices reflect potential rental income. By renting longer (and paying more in rent), they contribute to low housing availability. Another, more local cause of home price inflation is AirBnB. Any home that is near anything that people want to visit is priced on the basis of its short term rental income (if it was used as such). I know that this is very much the case in London, were literally hundreds of thousands of homes are short-term rentals. Prague suffers from this plague also, as I'm sure all European capital cities do. We usually get the developer's answer to the problem: "Well, we just need to build more homes." But that leads to more congestion, overburdened public transportation, unequal access to education and medical services, and greater social friction, with "our" migrants as the scapegoats. Maybe, we're a law change or two away from deflating a bubble and its resulting crisis. Maybe, we've mis-identified a cause. Not THE cause, obviously, there's no single cause. But we're all shouting about the same set of connected problems.
Structurally, every Western country is in population decline, like the fertility rate of the UK is 1.6 when it needs to be 2.2 just to be stable. One of the major reasons no one wants to build houses is: when the boomers * cough * leave us, we are going to suddenly be burdened with a whole bunch of excess real estate, which is going to leave any developers still working with huge losses on suddenly unwanted new properties. The one thing that has papered over the now multi-generational population loss issue is immigration, which has kept the overall populations of Western countries fairly stable. Though it must be noted, a lot of social programs are founded on having an increasing population, not a stable population, and they are all thus at very high risk of bankrupting the countries. Particularly so if they go hard against immigration. However, from time immemorial, going hard against immigration is a good way to get elected. Because the core of anti-immigration feelings is the fear of increased sexual competition, and that is something you can even just go watch a chimpanzee documentary to see. Thus going hard against immigration gets all of the sexually frustrated men riled up to go vote for you. And they are legion.
Having a problem with a "flood" of immigration from the same area, is not necessarily the same as being opposed to all immigration, in moderation and from diverse regions. Too much of anything, even usefull things, can be catastrophic, water, heat, dust etc..
The problem I have with the left is as soon you critic immigration they call you racist. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has to do with their number. Speculation is not the cause of the housing crisis in Montreal, it's the symptom. There is always more and more people but the infrastructure stay the same. They don't build more houses, libraries or swimming pool. And let's not talk about culture. Quebecois are a minority, we are fighting to preserve our culture. Having a lot people that doesn't care about it is not good. In the US? Sure. But Quebec is not the US. Regarding immigration, one size doesn't fit all.
@olafsigursons I have a similar perspective, being Welsh in the UK. My problem is with monoglot Anglophone migrants to Wales who come with no intention of integrating by learning Welsh. Most of those migrants are internal to the UK, coming from England. That internal migration had made Welsh a minority language in Wales by the end of the nineteenth century, so this is a long-term process. Do you have the same perspective on Anglophone migrants to Québec from the rest of Canada, or is your primary concern with immigrants to Québec from outside Canada?
Vlad, do you agree with the argument some make that a society needs an overarching dominant culture (in which minorities can exist and be respected within pluralism), so as to avoid a country falling into sectarianism? These people will point to Yugoslavia and Lebanon as examples where there is/was no one dominant culture, and failed state status was the result. Thoughts?
We call countries where a culture forcibly dominate other cultures as "Empires". British Empire, French Empire... Something happened to those empires, remember? Yugoslavia was Serbian empire. It was not really a country per ce, it was mini-empire, nothing strange that it wanted to dissolve, like any other. Generally, places where people don't have a reason to stay together, separate, like Chechs and Slovaks. However, a country may also be united by something other than ethnicity. It is not necessary for it to be a culture, but some uniting idea or ideology, as also a clear understanding of why being together is better than being separate, is necessary.
@@CurtOntheRadio as long as those cultures don't get uppity. But on the serious note, some cultures are harder to thrive with than others. I am, while considering myself a pro-immigration guy, also have a hardon for assimilation.
The issue in the UK.Is a dogma thats omehow you need to keep feeding people into the economy to sustain growth.. and a mythic belief that endless migration is good for society. Against which we have in the UK.Severe problems of infrastructure, lack of housing overcrowded roads overcrowded towns. Our young people are completely desperate seeing no stake in a country that will never provide them with the security of a home or secure employment... It's reached the point where many are giving up on the idea of having families or getting married.
Centuries? More like a couple millenia. All those red heads, for example. Those genes arrived. Look at your language: a good amount was adopted when the French ran the show.
That was so good Vlad. I feel you struck a deep current issue when you talked about us not feeling at home and the effect this has on attitudes to immigration. Your chat today makes the quandary of immigration an issue to be explored on all sides rather than a shambles to be yelled about. More about immigration please. It is even an issue here in distant NZ. People’s need for a safe home will not go away so your approach to the matter is hugely important.
Theres more to this debate. Immigration is not sustainable. The answer is to improve the lives of those who are forced or compelled to emigrate. We cant keep off loading the cost of adolescence and education to the areas people are leaving and expect them to improve.
There is a fundamental lack of trust and confidence in governments - in the U.K. Starmer is fuelling that dynamic by his reactionary label application of people who have genuine concerns as the extreme right. The solution is not zero immigration but to manage (and effectively police and control immigration by actually having a policy. The truth is we need legal migration but we need to manage it to meet our economic needs. Asylum and illegal economic migrants is almost a separate issue, but there can be no doubt that the current scale is unsustainable.
Holy shit, someone mentioned Ignatief in a context other than "failed Liberal party of Canada leader". I didn't know that was a thing! Be well Vlad, we're all better off with you around.
While I agree with the premise of democracy versus sound/ethical immigration, I’m sceptical whether moderate forces can make an electorally efficacious programme against immigration
I can't understand the vast majority of people in public transport anymore. Nobody really seems to know the cost and the benefit of it. Police, social services, housing, education, you name it it is overwhelmed. Technocratic experts of the government tell me there is no way that any voted government could change that because international or european law prevents that. That was the moment I finally understood Brexit. If 77% of the population thhink it is the most urgend matter and they want to radically change it and technocratic experts tell them they can't, the core of democratic rule is questioned. So, if I want the people to decide how they want to live together, what will I do?
52% see immigration as an important issue, the main ones are cost of living and economy. I think the economic issues are a big contribution to feelings towards immigration.
@@panemetcircenses6003 No, it is not. That's an explanation of someone that doesn't live in areas with a high amount of migrants. He sees it from afar, sees the people are not rich and draws a conclusion based on correlation.
The problem with this is that it is all too late. In the UK there is no actual policy except open borders. There is no mechanism to really control immigration or expel those who arrive who might pose a threat or an economic drain. The debate is therefore irrelevant and the views of centrist parties are also irrelevant as the areas that are experiencing the negative impact are far removed from where the people who run those centrist parties live. It will continue until there is a complete economic collapse as government funding will run out and then there will be chaos. Institutions are not only not trusted, but have proved themselves totally incapable - the lack of infrastructure planning is indicative of this and the current immigration level will show how that infrastructure cannot cope. Finally Ed Miliband's plan will push us to blackouts within this year and once the power runs out chaos will be triggered in the cities. Once we have anarchy there will be no human rights. Then everyone will leave. Our nation is a lot more fragile than we think. Still glad to see you looking a lot better Vlad.
One key thing that never gets talked about the very occasionally time I listen here is-Whether it’s immigration of even all types and said Ed Milliband etc -this was all thoughts funding and think tanks during an almost generation of low cheap money rates We’re a year into another swing generation of high or even historically normal rates now…. All this silliness will stop when we need to pay the piper for higher debts rates etc
Of course she does. She is a professional. Take a look at the party's policy program and you will revisit that assessment, I believe, once you come to the point where the AfD want's to get Germany out of NATO and end the right to asylum without exceptions. And don't even get me started on their positions on women's bodily autonomy!
It's her job to make AfD sound mainstream. But its programme and specifically its ideologues and rank and file officials aren’t. It’s them who bring nazism and revisionism back and it's them who want to define who is German on racial terms.
@@dayegilharno4988 Yes, I do not speak German so I don't know what I don't know. She spoke mostly on energy and immigration. My understanding is that over half the people on welfare in Germany are non-German citizens who utilised the asylum process - so I have to say I get why they might want to reconsider it.
@@EchoBravo370 it's not that simple. There is no simple "on welfare" thing. Poor people are entitled for some level of welfare even if they are working; there are a lot of poor people among migrants, so they may receive help in different forms, even though they are neither lazy, jobless or burden for society. There is also a specific program called "integration assistance" for migrants. If you coun't this as welfare, yes, migrants receive them even if they are working at the same time or study, so they are hardly "welfare queens". Children of migrants are often receive benefits in the form of educational opportunities, that also counts as welfare - but I think we all understand the importance and benefit of such things for society at large. It all depends on how to count. You can find support for absolutely any narrative if you turn the data this or that way.
The saying is that it is hard to beat someone who takes the low road because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. It already feels too late in the day to care about many of these issues because who has the power to do anything about them any more? Not British politicians who can now only hide under the table, hiding from the judgement of global markets.
@@matthewmulkeen I'm not the first person to observe the similarity between Germany and Japan in terms of their cultures' wholistic view of society. But how effective has that philosophy been historically? In terms of international competition? They both lost WWII due at least in part to a short sighted xenophobia which many argue was in fact a direct corollary of their focus on social cohesion. Social cohesion isn't all it's cracked up to be. It has a dark side that isn't really offset by a corresponding increase in competitiveness. Even within societies, order is created by differentiation and hierarchy, and therefore exploitation.
Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment is due to the economic stagnation that has been experienced by the working class in the past 4 decades. When people feel their lot in life is threatened, they look for someone to blame and populists are always around to point the finger at immigrants and other perceived outsiders. I find it a little irritating that Rory and Alistair cover these issues like they're so intractable because I feel like they have been some of the authors of our current problems.
Anti immigrant sentiment is even higher in wealthier areas though. It doesn't matter about economics, people don't like large numbers of people coming from other cultures into their homes. Its really simple. Just look at the sheer aesthetic violence of it. Do an image search in google for "Muslims in Bradford" Its visually akin to an invasion. Nazi Germany would have dreamed for an outcome like this in WW2. If they were Germans in England. 30% of Bradford is Muslim now. How on earth is this going to be solved? This is not economic. This is cultural.
What I find odd is Stewart has literally toured the world and seen countries torn apart by inter-ethnic conflict within the borders of nations. And yet he still doesn't seem to see the connection between ethnic diversity and civil conflict. It is bizarre.
Very interesting reflection at about 20:00. (About people "not feeling at home in their home"). You somehow always manage to slip in a thought-provoking idea, Vlad. Thank you.
@@BardovBacchus By our own Governments?? The vast majority of the time! Do you think the Japanese Government should be prioritising people in Afghanistan or Yemen over Japanese people?
That is not what anyone is saying @@benghiskahn3673. Local governments are responsible for local administration. because people are still basic and tribal. This is the legacy politic we have to deal with. If someone from Afghanistan or Yemen *goes to Japan* then the Japanese government would be obligated to ensure their care. The rest if politics. However, most people don't understand me, so I must be wrong..?
You could also think about it another way @@benghiskahn3673. If most everyone in your country is doing okay, but there is a huge disaster or a war in another country perhaps a friendly country close by; Should your country not send aid because that would "prioritize their citizens over you"..?
The culture war began in the early '80s. The immigration discussion is just one of the more current bandwagons right wing "populism" is jumping on. Brexit was never about fixing the UK's economical problems, the US' southern border topic never was about finding solutions, the "grooming gangs" issue was never about implementing better protections for minors, etc. etc...
Pro immigration are populists, they promise nice sounding but impossible idea of cultural relativism. They pretend that everybody becomes magically liberal just by moving to the west.
Excellent timing Vlad for someone in Canada like myself, where Immigration has shot up recently as an issue, where it wasn't previously discussed - but with it also being heavily entangled in the much more visible and entrenched Housing Crisis issue here.
I don't dramatize what Hungary is today: if my country becomes like it, i will revoke my citizenship and will do the utmost to disobey the law and be corrupt. There is no relevant difference between Hungary and Russia.
Ok so you framed the debate as one side just screaming and the other side worrying about economics, but I feel this is disingenuous. There are two aspects to economics, that of the workers and that of the employers. If you take jobs away from the workers to appease the economics of the employers, that is going to lead to more fuel for the populists, no? Policies have to balance that, not ignore it completely as has been happening.
The immigration issue is as old as human existence. Even the people of Rome complained that Syrians, Dalmatians and Galatians were flooding the city 2000 years ago.
As a Canadian, my government failed miserably on immigration an flooded the country with unskilled migrant workers. This is one of the pillars that led to the (rightful) downfall if the ndp/liberal coalition under trudeau.
You see the alternative in syria of the past decade. Fighting against the regime at the cost of many lives. Cooperating with religious fanatics and questionable states playing their own geopolitical game. This time they succeeded and the dictator is out, but we are yet to see what kind of government will replace him. Will it have been worth the cost? Only rarely it is enough for people to go to the streets peacefully. It requires the organization of oppostition and mobilization of the masses, but anyone taking first steps often gets swiped away long before the chance of having a serious impact, as long as the ones in power are using that effectifely in the form of a surveillance state (see russia). The risk, when forcing a systemic change in a corrupt state, is immense.
Sustainable for whom? Corrupted governments of inferior countries are beneficial for their more powerful colleagues from more developed countries. Where do your cheap resources come from? Where your old technologies and recyclables go? Some questions to consider yourself. I personally don't need the answers.
@@panajotov Corruption is incredibly bad and costly for the developed countries. I work for a large mineral extration company that simply don't do any buisness in Africa anymore. Its too dangerous, too unreliable, its nearly impossible to get things done, and in the end the product is not as advertised. If the african countries ever got their shit together for real, we'd have 200 local guys employed from every town on the continent. The cost isn't an issue. F****n a*****s are.
I will give more weight to your analysis of immigration when you show that you understand Islam. You may think your neighbourhood being mostly Syrian refugeess would be a beautiful thing. Would you feel the same way if you knew your Syrian neighbours supported ISIS as the true manifestation of Islam, i.e. that it was faithful to the Islam that Muhammad preached and was the correct interpretation of Islam? This regardless of whether they politically supported ISIS, and critically whether they accepted the head of ISIS as the Caliph of Islam (most Muslims don't). I have more than a casual knowledge of Islam, and it was the acquisition of this knowledge that changed my assessment of the challenge that Islam presents to modern democratic societies. If you demonstrate an understanding of Islam and how it functions then I will listen more intently.
Yes all these muslims are the same? 1½ billion people in all parts of the world. What is there common thing except you disliking them. The biggest muslim country is Indonesia and the one with most muslims India. More people supported Stalin, Hitler or Mao than ISIS both in numbers and as part of the population. Maybe teh Khmer Rouge can be comapre dto ISIS but are all the "evil" socialists or leftists Kmhere Rouge?
@@PMMagroIts not specifically about ISIS per say. Its more about the views and values. How many of the 1.2bn Muslims believe the Quran is the unadulterated and unquestionable word of God? Well, all of them, because that's what being a Muslim is. How many believe that Muhammad was the most perfect manifestation of what a human should be and should conduct themselves. Again, practically all of them as this is a perquisit of being a Muslim. So there absolutely ARE commonalities in beliefs. And there are unquestionably attitudes and beliefs that have their foundations in Islamic scripture that are inherently contrary to Western values and laws that will have widespread support amongst a large percentage of persons who identify as a Muslim. Being a Muslim isn't just benign practices like praying 5 times a day facing east and not consuming alcohol or pork. Its a whole philosophy on life and the human existence which does require followers to conform to and abide by certain view points and attitudes that are incredibly conservative and sometimes outright extreme.
@@PMMagro @PMMagro You misunderstand my point and then make false comparisons. The 1.8 billion Muslims in the world are all followers of the religion of Islam. This is not the same as following a political ideology. The Qur'an is believed to be the direct speech of God/Allah revealed to Muhammad who then revealed it to humankind. It is what Allah has commanded and what Allah has forbidden. It cannot be changed and is binding on all Muslims. You conflate criticism of a religion with criticism of a people, as if Muslims were some kind of ethnicity. I do not dislike Muslims. I dislike the religion of Islam, which is full of bad ideas. If I were a critic of Christianity (and there are many, including me) would you claim this was based on my dislike of Christians? I think not. Bad ideas in Islam? Sharia, Islamic law, is derived first from the Qur'an, then the acts (ahadith) of Muhammad and his companions (the Sunnah), then biographies of Muhammad (the Sira) and finally considerations of the scholars. Bad ideas enshrined in law are: - the death penalty for anyone who criticises Muhammad or the Qur'an - the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam (apostates) - the death penalty for active homosexuals - the death penalty for adulterers - men are in charge of women and may strike disobedient wives (Qur'an 4:34 - search it) - a son's inheritance is twice the amount of a daughter's inheritance (Qur'an 4:11 - search it) - a man's legal witness is worth that of two women (Qur'an 2:282 - search it) - there is no age limit on marriage or sex for girls or women I could go on and on for there are many bad ideas formalised in Islamic law. I'm sure you mean well but as I said, your comparison of a religion and a political ideology is misplaced. I'm in the UK. We now have 4 Muslim/Gaza MPs with calls for Muslims to vote as a block in future elections to increase their influence. There is pressure to equate criticism of Islam the religion with "Islamophobia", as it it were a type of racism. Ditto for criticism of Muhammad. In the short term I expect pressure to: 1. Implement Muslim blasphemy laws to prevent criticism of Islam the religion 2. Extend the legal recognition of the currently estimated 80 Sharia courts in the UK @PMMagro I invite you to research Islam by reading the Qur'an (quran.com), reading the ahadith of Bukhari (sunnah.com - start with Sahih Bukhari 56 Fighting for the cause of Allah (jihad) ), reading the first biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq (the recension of the work by Ibn Hisham - available online). You could then turn to commentaries (The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir) and works of Sharia itself (The Reliance of the Traveller - Al-Misri) In short, you will need to put some effort into understanding Islam. I am happy to debate and discuss if you do. The assumptions you display in your comment are not adequate for this.
I had no idea that Brits faced such a challenge regarding immigration. Here in the states we face similar challenges. It seems that the world wants democracy but not enough leaders are willing to create democracy in their own countries so that their own citizens feel they can live and thrive in those countries and feel they must leave in order to achieve a lifestyle that suits them and their future generations.
These debates are generally not too productive because no matter what the nominal topic is, they're all really just about how the Establishment can stay in power without actually doing anything. Sometimes an outsider can get past the gatekeepers and try to confront the Establishment with Facts and Logic. But nobody cares. It won't change anything. Because, in a way, the Establishment are correct. It really is just about power. Like, even for the masses for whom immigration poses an immediate problem. Nobody's interested in getting a fair deal. They just want a path towards a better deal than anyone else is getting. Nobody sees shared interests because to admit a shared interest would be to admit that they're not really the special individuals they desperately want to be seen as. It's a particularly acute problem in mature liberal democracies, where there are almost no arbitrary social distinctions allowed any longer. Certainly for white males, who are supposed to understand that to the extent they are special at all, it's in a problematic way. Like, they're the literal Devil or whatnot.
This is an interesting conversation, and I am learning a lot, but shouldn’t we at least mention russia’s use of chaos and creating refuges as a weapon of political destabilization against the “West”?
Vietnamese people now make up the majority of refugees coming to the UK. They use Hungary as a transit point because it has visa free access to Vietnamese people. You’re quite right about russia and its proxies.
Don’t see too many Ukrainians flying their flags and protesting down the main streets of London every weekend yelling hate and supporting terra organisations
Thank you, Vlad, for this interesting take on immigration. Unfortunately, the (far) right has almost monopolized this field for quite some time, so any discourse is pretty tough to discuss in a meaningful way without being either labeled "too soft" or "far right". On top of all the issues that are connected to human migration (from causes in the home country to housing in the receiving country), this makes it quite easy for unfriendly nations to "play" with human life. To watch how certain states instrumentalize humans to destabilize receiving societies without regard to their lives, makes my stomach turn. Migration is a multilayered issue that needs to be understood as such. We need the discourse to move from the two-dimensional portrayal that it is currently stuck in. Lots of love to you and to the Very Beautiful Community. 🤗
(13:15) exactly. A Canadian Perspective on Immigration, Trade, and Political Shifts Early 1980s: Canada (pop. 24M) had immigration levels of 50,000/year under PM Pierre Trudeau (Liberal). This was seen as a sustainable level that the country could "comfortably absorb." 1988: Under PM Brian Mulroney (Conservative), immigration jumped to 250,000/year-a 500% increase-alongside the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. 1992-1994: NAFTA (including Mexico) was signed by Mulroney, 1995: PM Jean Chrétien (Liberal) introduced the Equity Employment Act (Canada’s version of affirmative action), deprioritizing white males in hiring. 2000: U.S. President Bill Clinton granted China WTO trading status, effectively enabling free trade with China. This led to the offshoring of 60,000+ American factories, triggering economic devastation, the tech collapse, and a growing wave of despair, drugs, and depression in communities across the U.S. Today (2024): Canadian immigration is set at 465,000 annually, plus: 800,000 international students with work visas Temporary foreign workers Refugees Family reunification programs, and more. Meanwhile: Fascist Pres. Trump is re-elected in the U.S. PM Justin Trudeau resigns. Pierre Poilievre (Conservative) is poised to win in Canada, bringing MAGA-style populism north. Trump threatens invasion, w democracy teetering on the edge...
How appropriate to her Ignatieff cited here, especially this week given ongoing events in Canadian domestic politics, which Michael once dipped his toe in. Haha. Next on my bingo card is Kymlicka. :) Your discussion of this topic is quite interesting. I know a federal court judge who was once a refugee and it has been fascinating to watch his views and perspectives shift over time.
"Not feeling home at home" because of the modern world etc, and therefore less well inclined towards new comers etc, that spiel is all balderdash. Of course the comfortable are shielded and have options, and so are more accomodating, thats why educated champagne socialists have lost the working classes, but not feeling 'home at home' is not about any complicated modernist angst. It's just human nature, stability and change. The choice between democracy and getting tough about human rights is a false dichotomy and disingenuous. Good luck keeping those human rights without democracy. If you have democracy human rights will follow but will be on the terms of the many not the few.
I think that it depends of whose rights we have in mind. It is not obvious at all that the human rights as a whole will flourish in a democracy--only the human rights of the people who take part in that democracy will obviously improve.
Of course not. There will always be some who don't get what they consider their share, or the right kind of, sunlight. But, as a whole, and being realistic, of the many not the few is the only good mandate. Utopia is always in the future, distopias by contrast are a penny a pound, past and present, always run by elites whose self interest always mysteriously aligns with the virtues of their ideology.
@@Himgonemountain As long as we realize that democracy is not an absolute good, it makes perfect sense to notice the conflicts that appear between democracy and other values, human rights, for example. It is not a false dichotomy, but it is contextual, depending on the social and economic environment.
Hello Vlad, nice to see you are still in the countryside. I wondered what you thought about Timothy Snyder's analysis in Timothy Snyder Speaks, ep. 4: Sadopopulism
Some may argue that any pause, any reduction, in immigration is a betrayal of our values. But I ask you to consider this: Is it truly ethical to welcome people into a system that is unprepared to support them? Is it fair to offer an open door, only to leave them stranded without housing, employment, or opportunity? Temporary constraints are not a rejection of our principles-they are an acknowledgment of our responsibilities. And taking the time to rebuild, to prepare, and to strengthen our systems is not a failure of generosity. It is an act of care, both for those who seek to come here and for those who are already here.
You talk about ' FEELINGS', the thing is, that there can acctually be concrete reasons for those feelings. Ignoring these concrete questions, will UNEVITABLY be disasterous.... Yet you can't adress issues, since it is just you and your 'FEELINGS' that are WRONG/BROKEN.....
Unfortunately, as Zuckerberg’s immoral decision has illustrated this week, facts no longer matter. Feelings determine everything, so actual issues will never be addressed in any meaningful way. We are entering a new Dark Age.
I was listening to u last night thinking how good u are at this and would u do ur thing on the rest is politics well I'm looking forward to this ,,,, and I wish u well copeing with ur condition and fingers crossed hey
As an american, grew up roman catholic of irish decent (full of personal guilt) i think everyone being opressed (starved) by their ruleds no matter whom deserves a place in a civil society that accepts and promotes human rights. Im afraid we are losing the shinig city on a hill of my birth and ending up somewhere much colder and darker so therefore mych scarier place. I truly thought i was escaping 45/47 by moving to my husbands country (plus my kids are much less likely to be killed at school). I have found he has stoke a nee wave of xenophobia and reinvigorating desires for authoritarian rule. Im so disappointed
Hi Vlad, a lot of philosophy - the question is- do you agree with unlimited and unregulated immigration. If not, the only questions are how many, who, when etc, etc, If you can't take everyone then adopt the American system of lottery. It just means some applicants will have to look elsewhere. That's a difficult life choice they must make..
Alienation also stems from resentment of others who have technical skills that they don’t have and can’t or won’t learn, or being priced out of the job market by cheaper foreign labor.
Vlad's main channel
ruclips.net/user/VladVexlervideos
Rory and Alastair debate Labour's plan on immigration
ruclips.net/video/q3hZc1FMoyM/видео.htmlsi=PmRXykZxUPNhqNwM&t=984
Support Vlad's work on Patreon!
www.patreon.com/vladvexler
Support Vlad via PayPal
www.paypal.com/paypalme/vladvexler?country.x=GB&locale.x=en_GB
"No one knows more about human rights than Michael Ignatiff".
What utter liberal nonsense. There are literally 10000s of experts in the field who know far more.
Incidentally, I suspect most of those don't advocate for violating human rights and torturing terrorism suspects.
With respect to the topic of immigration it would be interesting to hear your reaction on this: ruclips.net/video/Vt_Hb_UYG5k/видео.html
Immigration was generally tolerated when assimilation was the stated goal. If you come to another place, it's expected that it's better than the one you left, so you should adapt, or if you refuse, you should leave and return to your own homeland, instead of trying to replicate it inside your guest's home.
When things were controlled, limited, and for genuine refugees, like those fleeing communist repression in East Europe or war in former Yugo, things were relatively stable. The Syrian war opened the gates and the liberal politicians tried to rub the noses of the right in it.
Well, now it's time to see what results will that have.
The problem is Islam.
The 'NEW' GOAL of immigration is to counter
INFLATION.
This is a straight road to hell.
Making children and retiree to PARASITES.
Sifting for 'UBER-MENCH' that produce, without any needs at all...
A broken society/country...
( Sweden )
Lack of support/society, the immigration groups will naturally create a paralell goverment structure.....
So the Europeans who immigrated to America assimilated with the Indians?
@@MartinLundström-l4v That is BS
I can only speak to the mood in Australia, but reframing large scale immigration here as "this is still your country but you're being generous and it's a great compliment that they want to come here" is very unlikely to fly. The flaw in that reframing, for Australians, I think is that there is record net immigration (~500k per year in a country of 27 million) during a housing, cost of living and infrastructure crisis such that so many people are in survival mode that they would be completely uninterested in being complimented for their generosity. Likewise I suspect any gentle or not so gentle reminders that massively cutting immigration would be brutal to those aspiring to live here would fall on deaf ears. The vibe I'm getting is that survival and the desire to reach a life that is more than just survival will trump all other considerations, rightly or wrongly. To summarise, the mood towards immigration at present here is foul to say the least. So it seems that Australians are not so different to the Brits in respect to immigration.
I get the idea about modern life leading to people feeling alienated and that being projected on immigration. In Australia's case though one third of citizens were born in another country. It's my observation that this is large enough to form an independent source of alienation. It's perhaps difficult to understand until you've lived in a country where such a high fraction of citizens are foreign born.
Within a generation Australians will be the minority in their country, it’s already happened in Britain where foreign born and decent are the majority in schools.
However foreign born in Australia comprise a majority from Britain, New Zealand and Hong Kong, whereas in the UK their immigrants are dominated by those from particularly backward countries.
The West has set itself up for internal conflicts which means that the Right will likely form the governments and that’s when we will see a long term shift in the outlook of countries and how they will deal with internal divisions, the most obvious of which will be America undertaking mass deportations; expect other Western nations to do the same.
@@seanlander9321 which Australians are you talking about? Presumably the white ones that speak English?
@@Surfnoosa4567 To ask that question shows a particularly low brow approach to understanding the composition of a society.
Housing pressue in Australia is real and intense. Labor is gambling that they won't be punished for their tepid housing policy. They may get away with it this election but the widening gap in supply and demand just adds fuel to the fire of xenophobia and mistrust to be leveraged by far right political actors.
@@seanlander9321 The higher we soar the smaller we appear to those who cannot fly.
A big problem with the immigration discussion is that asylum seekers, legitimate and not, are always framed as lacking agency. It is always about 'smashing the gangs', as if it is the gangs that are making all the decisions. And, in the early days, asylum seekers were advertised as future 'doctors' and 'engineers' to the point that it became a meme. People can simply take a look at Germany and Sweden and see that the project has failed. I would very much like to live in a world where, like you, you feel excited welcoming one or two Syrian refugees in your neighborhood. But what we actually got is sectarianism and the drastic change of communities through lack of assimilation. People see and feel the changes, even if they don't know the ins and outs of policy. And the immense powerlessness this brings about means that now democracy is literally at stake. The West used to have a rather sneering tone towards the likes of Singapore for their extremely pragmatic stances on immigration, race, and demography - but it is becoming increasingly obvious that when stability is at stake, you can no longer be utopian.
You can't gaslight people into being "generous". At the end of the day, states represent their people (citizens), whom they prioritize ahead of any foreigners, regardless of their victim status. Regimes who prefer using outsiders to propagate their security and economic situation are by default illegitimate and fairly feudal (see the Gulf states).
He makes vague moral claims, yet his and other leftists goal is the deconstruction of nation states
But most immigration is legal. And most of those immigrants contribute to our economy and society, making things better for the state's citizens. That's why it's happening.
Illegal immigration is a separate problem, but the numbers just aren't that big.
@@hjones4922 why are you ly ing?
@ Where's the lie?
@ In your statement
As a Right-Wing watcher of yours: If the choice is between immigration ending our national identities or giving up democracy to save it, everyone on the Right (+ vast majority of centre when push comes to shove) will choose the latter. If (big if) democracy/human rights prevents us from solving the issue, that's a risk we'll unhappily but necessarily take. This is existential for us - it's easier to get democracy back than a country.
Since you self-identify as a Right Winger, let me bounce this idea off you: How do think the public would react to the idea of monetizing immigration? That is, giving native born citizens a % of the $income$ of the new immigrants?
It would make native labor more competitive and provide a mechanism for immigrants to literally earn their entry into society while providing a social safety net for natives against any potential economic shocks. It would discourage those would be migrants who were only interested in making a profit off the backs of the natives.
It would square the circle, so to speak, about all these arguments proponents of immigration make about demographic balance, etc., and how a certain level of immigration is necessary to maintain the current level of economic goods and services, versus the arguments opponents make about social cohesion and competition for jobs.
@@JackRMason Isn't this essentially already the case due to taxation? No one believes it works. Multiple studies have proven that MENA immigration produces no net tax-paying at any age - everyone is doing worse than before despite (or perhaps because of) unprecedented influxes of people. And this ignores the increasingly undeniable reality that the cultures are immiscible.
@@JohnSmith-tw6po No. Not at all. You're referring to complicated ideas about indirect government subsidies which nobody ever really believed were true.
I'm saying you should get an actual literal check every month that represents a direct deduction from this immigrant laborer's wages. If not actually have direct management over the immigrant's labor contracts themselves, as in historical indenture relationships.
@@JackRMason This sounds like a lot of bureaucracy as a gimmick which again doesn't solve the reason there's such worry about immigration. Economics is four or five places down the list. People don't want their home communities to no longer exist, especially if crime goes up big time, or they don't think the new residents share their values. And the economics of MENA immigration is still terrible.
@@JohnSmith-tw6po Okay. You do you. I'll take your check, then since you don't want it.
The reality in Britain is that the native population did not consent to the level of immigration we have had but more importantly, they were never given the chance to consent.
We were told for years that the numbers would not be significant, then we were told that it was a temporary spike and would fall imminently, then once significant numbers had arrived we were told it was all beneficial and would boost our living standards and finally once it ceased to boost our standards of living we were told that to go against mass immigration was racist/bigoted/xenophobic.
I firmly believe that the majority of people are decent and understanding. A sustainable level of immigration, focused on assimilation and societal harmony would have been viable. Now it’s too late.
17% of British youth (18-24) voted right-wing (Reform and Conservatives) in 2024.
This is a decrease from 21% of 18-24 voting right-wing in 2019.
This is a decrease from 35% of 18-24 voting right-wing (Conservatives and UKIP) in 2015. British youth are becoming less right-wing with each passing generation.
Greens and Lib Dems got 34% of British youth vote in 2024. Highest proportion of the youth vote ever.
@@atrlawes98 the native populations of wide swaths of the world did not consent to being colonized, enslaved, and economically exploited to impossible degrees by the British empire, either
@rachelatwood9555 Of course not, but that argument is nothing more than whataboutism. The people who did the colonising are not the same people dealing with the issues about immigration today, so how is it relevant?
@@rachelatwood9555That is true but irrelevant. What British people did over a century ago should have no bearing on what British people decide is the right policy now regarding immigration.
Very true but the British people who benefited from empire are the same ones that benefit from vast immigration lowering the salaries and bargaining power of the working class. The descendants of servants and coal miners are the British people who are actually being harmed. A reminder that Britain has one of the harshest class systems in the world.@@rachelatwood9555
Thank you for recognising this issue. I have noticed it both in the UK, but also Germany as another prime example. I had thought for some time that this issue if ignored could cause history to repeat itself in Germany with the AFD. If a large portion of the population feel that their needs are repeatedly being ignored by the coalitions that retain power, they are at risk that the only way for the AfD supporters to get representation and be able to enact change involves them dismantling the democratic systems that denies them their voice. No matter how unpleasant some might find it.
Germany probably seems more susceptible to migration related disturbances due to that society's emphasis on the social contract. Anglos are kind of a heartless, selfish cut throat bunch who have historically just flushed away the people they don't have any immediate need for. Germans historically had a more wholistic view of society as a collective enterprise. Suddenly introducing a massive number of new members to the team, without the group's explicit approval is bound to be more offensive to Germans, who come to expect a level of consideration that the average Anglo does not.
I don't think you understand the UK
In the UK, only 22% of people aged 18-34 say immigration is a major concern compared to 47% of those over 55. Plus, only 20% of young people in the UK say immigration has been bad for the country compared to over 50% of French and Swedish youth.
The UK is very different to Europe.
17% of British youth (18-24) voted right-wing (Reform and Conservatives) in 2024.
This is a decrease from 22% of 18-24 voting right-wing in 2019.
This is a decrease from 35% of 18-24 voting right-wing (Conservatives and UKIP) in 2015.
Greens and Lib Dems got 34% of British youth vote in 2024. Highest proportion of the youth vote ever.
The feeling of not feeling at home in your own home is very much reflected by the emigration numbers. People talk about the net migration, but fail to discuss the UK emigration. They don't mention the record number of EU and non-EU citizens leaving the UK, namely many of whom don't feel at home in the UK anymore. The British emigration drop in numbers hides the fact that while the free movement has ended after brexit, the British who are leaving are the highly skilled workers that can always get a skilled visa in most countries. This has been especially true for junior Doctors, who most likely share this sentiment of not feeling at home in their own homes, of not feeling appreciated.
Net emigration of British folks is actually pretty small. Part of the immigrant figures are British people returning and the net figure is now about -80,000 per year (It was significantly lower than that until the last few years).
@CurtOntheRadio that is my point exactly. While Brits are emigrating a lot less, the highly skilled individuals make up the overwhelming majority of British migrants. Basically, a working class British person can no longer move to Spain and work in the tourism industry. There a real brain drain happening in the UK.
A big chunk of those British citizens returning to the UK are elderly Brits who were deprived of their right to free healthcare in Spain and France by Brexit. Meanwhile most of those leaving are the young and highly-skilled. This is not likely to help the overburdened NHS.
South Africans coming to UK in drives who hold racist views. Why do they hold dual passport?
Saying doctors are leaving because of immigrants is very silly. Maybe it's more due to the 15 years of NHS neglect by the right? More than immigrants, for sure.
The reckoning, when it comes (and it is coming soon) will be be vastly more than most are able to pay.
The dreams of a beta male.... congrats keep it up (if you can 🤣😂)
19:30 “not feeling at home, even though you are at home” reminds me of the era of industrialization that set in in Western Europe in the mid-19th century and eventually culminated in WW2. Literature is full of poems that deal with loneliness and the feeling of lostness of the individual in the world. Hannah Ahrendt argues that fascism has its roots in these feelings of abandonment, homelessness and loneliness. Perhaps we are once again at the point where people feel “homeless” & disoriented despite having a home?
I think we are feeling the alienation of capitalism, the lack of community. Individual Consumers are lonely by design. My home is in a country but the *entire country* is not my home. Perhaps we need to relearn how to share
@@BardovBacchus Sure, share yours first. It's so, so easy to be generous with other people's time and money.
Share my *what* exactly @@mfallen2023..? No one is asking you to give up your bed, or cook for anyone. It's easy to be callous, but more cost effective to just be a good person. It ain't all about you.
I did! @@mfallen2023 I shared my opinion first. I'm very generous that way XD
@@mfallen2023A lazy trope.
It’s hard to trust the authorities when you disenfranchise victims in order to appease certain ethnic groups. When the Rotherham scandal broke a few years back, I couldn’t believe my ears. Not calling a spade a spade made things so much worse. For the victims, but also for social cohesion. And for Keir Starmer to be talking about ASIAN grooming gangs above all else 😢
I’m all for granting people the opportunity to come to our countries, for human rights as well as for other reasons. I’m just no longer sure that this hospitality should be extended to those who don’t respect free speech, including the right to criticise any religion and any ideology, who threaten violence to apostates, gay people etc., who treat the members of other ethnic and religious groups with utter contempt. We do need immigration. We do need to care about human rights. But we also need to demand that those who come here respect the human rights of the other inhabitants of our countries.
Lots of love, Vlad.
Immigration is an existential threat and human rights are a great injustice forced upon western citizens, it reduces us to slaves.
Philosophy Tube did a whole video on what we are encouraged to 'see', versus what we are discouraged to 'see'. And the whole debate on immigration is about that.
No doubt there's horror there.
But the vast majority of sexual assault is undertaken by indigenous white men. It massively outweighs that of any other group.
And so what of your wider point? Why single out immigrants as folk that need "respect the human rights of the other inhabitants"? In your own terms, by far the largest group disrespecting human rights is the indigenous white, British man. And yet not a word on that.
You see how your position perverts the reality - and serves to gee-up racial animus, whilst disregarding every other sexual assault outside of the very narrow band of your concern??
The indigenous people have a right to a safe country. We also have the ludicrous situation where asylum seekers need protection from other asylum seekers, because they bring their conflict with them. It only makes sense for the UK to make some choices about groups of migrants that are a good enough fit for the dominant culture. And yes, religion should be part of that choice.
The problem is Islam, not geography.
Mass imigration is simply not sustainable or comes at too high a cost and hosting hostile communities doesn't work too well either. But the reason it has become so toxic is the insistence on denying the issues.
I don't think you understand the UK
In the UK, only 22% of people aged 18-34 say immigration is a major concern compared to 47% of those over 55. Plus, only 20% of young people in the UK say immigration has been bad for the country compared to over 50% of French and Swedish youth.
The UK is very different to Europe.
@@jimg2850 absolute nonsense. North America was populated by mass migration after the original populations were decimated and displaced.
@@jasonhaven7170That doesn't answer the increased competition for housing as the population increases.
@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 House prices increase 10 times faster than population growth
@@hazzardalsohazzard2624 Doesn't answer how right-wing economics will solve the housing crisis
A lack of action on the climate crisis will inevitably lead to large numbers of climate refugees. All immigration policy must recognize this future.
Eventually most of the arctic will melt. So climate immigration is likely as believe if the total area melted it was supposed to mean 60-80m higher sea levels worldwide. Action will not be taken in time to prevent significant sea level rises because of lack of goal alignment due to energy needs and improving living standards that follows.
Reckognizing this by securing the borders against invasion
In order to address that challenge, we need a working social order, which we don't have. We have an exceptionally incompetent elite class who not only don't understand their responsibilities, but completely reject the idea that they have any responsibilities at all.
Outlook is not good.
Climate refugees …. You clearly dont believe your own bullshit because if you did, you would not assume that climate based emigration will end up flowing into Europe…
Yeah they can go somewhere else. The US and Europe have taken enough. Meanwhile rich countries outside the west China, Japan, Saudi, etc. took zero.
I think a big mistake with discussions about immigration are that its talked about in far too generalised ways, even in this video it sounded like there was some comparison of the downsides of illegal immigration with the benefits of structured, planned immigration of skilled people.
Nobody is going to object to people coming to the UK with skills, prearranged employment and the means to support themselves. But boatloads of unknown people arriving and being put up in hotels with what seems like a great deal of urgency and importance is going to rile up millions. How can you help but feel cheated or insulted if you've worked hard your whole life and are still struggling towards reaching a standard of living that is being seemingly gifted to others?
Politicians treading the PC line makes them seem oblivious to all this, which I agree poses a serious risk to our continued democracy as people resign themselves to not caring or hoping for an alternative.
If democracy is to mean anything then immigration needs to be very strongly dialed back. Economic and social arguments are all secondary to the fact that large majorities of people in most migrant destination countries don't want immigration.
Democracy is about the will of the majority and not technocratic policy implementation.
I don't think you understand the UK
In the UK, only 22% of people aged 18-34 say immigration is a major concern compared to 47% of those over 55. Plus, only 20% of young people in the UK say immigration has been bad for the country compared to over 50% of French and Swedish youth.
The UK is very different to Europe.
@@jasonhaven7170 Then carry on and see what the results are.
@@cliffarroyo9554 one day, there will be no Boomers
@@cliffarroyo9554 we're just waiting
If think you fail to realise the subject of immigration is being used by those who want ultimate power where democracy is just a mere illusion.
"when Alistair Campbell was in power"? Let's remember he was never elected to any office. He was just Blair's flunky, powerful then. He is now a Machiavel who has lost his mojo, Dorian Grey reunited with his portrait, the Wizard behind the curtain, a fuddyduddy who can't see the world other than it was in the golden years.
"Dorian Grey reunited with his portrait" a burn so hot I think you may just solved our energy problems.
As long as governments make mistakes that they need to blame on somebody else, there will be opposition party politics. Granted, it's not as profitable as running the ruling party, but there is still plenty of $$$ in it for characters like Campbell. Don't shed a tear for him. He'll find a way to do well for himself.
The 'technocratic' governments broke the social contract, simple as that. The idea behind immigration - that imho was broadly accepted in the West - was on two grounds. Firsly, people who are oppressed and tyrannized in their countries can come and seek shelter with understanding that they will return once the situation improves. And secondly, people who are willing to respect our western liberal democratic values can come and become citizens in Western liberal democracies.
But the 'technocratic' governments subverted this to attempt to right perceived crimes of capitalism and colonialism, to give third world the 'social justice'. And that's simply not what has been agreed on. Now, we will all reap the consequences of that...
" . . . once the situation improves . . . "
@@JackRMason Yes. Notice 'improves'. Not becomes same as in western world. If the situation in their country is long-term hopeless, then obviously there's always option two I outlined, i.e., learn to respect western values and become a citizen.
That’s not at all what the technocrats thought lol.
We named our son Meo, derived from Bartolomeo de las Casas.
The thought of letting human rights as a top priority go is hard on me.
Human rights is the greatest injustice forced upon the west.
It reduces citizens to slaves, nations of non.
Vlad, I feel like you are missing two things. One, is the perspective of a native that sees or maybe senses the change to their home when an immigrant joins their neighborhood. It's not an irrational feeling. The new comers are changing how things have been. It's often to the better but it is still an uncomfortable change.
Two is a matter of scale. There are so many more people in the world and in general no government that is on the receiving end of immigration is doing a good job of growing their infrastructure to meet everyone's needs. So there is the additional pressure on everyone in these countries. The resources are spread more thinly amongst them and that increases competition between everyone.
Eh, for the second point, like, no? The largest problem for rich countries is not a lack of infrastructure, but shrinking population and lack of people to live and support existing infrastructure!
The second point doesn't accord with economically reality, I think. Yes, it's true that migrants add to the financial burden of the state in particular respects. But we shouldn't ignore the value they add to the economy. It makes sense that the natural born populations of host countries perceive the negative impacts more keenly than the positive, but I think that has more to do with the extreme levels of inequality that exist today in countries such as the UK, Canada, US, etc., than it does with the migrants themselves.
For a simplistic example, consider a factory that is able to lower wages due to the availability of migrant labor. Let's assume that wages would be better for the native workers if immigration were stopped (seems reasonable.) Now we consider the impacts of the anti-immigration policy on society more broadly. Countries like the UK would, over time, lose lots of workers in key industries such as healthcare: ( commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7783/ ). The loss of these workers depresses the economy in the long term, so there's less the factory workers can actually buy with their admittedly increased wages. In my country of the US, the technology sector would be negatively impacted since migrants found tech companies at higher rates than US born citizens do (this isn't specific to tech but you get the point: www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2022/07/26/most-us-billion-dollar-startups-have-an-immigrant-founder/ ).
My basic point is that it's too simplistic to conceive of society as a fixed pool of resources to be divvied out among the population. The real economic hardship affecting ordinary people in advanced economies is fundamentally about the unprecedented dominance of the ultra-wealthy over the politics and economies of those countries - a problem migrants did not cause, and which wouldn't be fixed by making migrants go away.
I'll admit, I do not understand immigration. My father's family has been in the USA since before it was the USA. I have no discomfort over meeting a new person, no matter where they are from. In fact, the father away, the less I know about their culture or history, the more curious I am. I have to remind myself not be be too nosy. I have no idea what you feel in this situation. My home is in the USA but the *entire USA* is not my home. {also, no one lives in like 7 states out west}
.
Isn't resource management a function of economics, ie Capitalism? Could it be that depending on *only* market based solutions is short sighted?
That's the problem though, there are places in the world like China that have entire cities empty & waiting for a population boom to occupy it.
The rest of the world needs to get over the fact the West isn't the bastion of stable, peaceful living anymore.
We mean it in the best way; go somewhere else.
@@raymondjacobs1955 the chat is not missing these points, it just doesn’t discuss them. On the first point the concern goes deeper - it’s not that people feel their home will be changed, it’s that people feel they will be changed.
When speaking of human rights the host nations peoples rights are never considered, especially those at the lower end of the economic and social hierarchy, low incomes get lower, housing costs go up and no one cared until it affected the middle classes ability to buy homes.
Austerity hit hard, but low incomes got better under Labour last time. (And probably will again.)
Its so strange how the issue of limiting immigration moved from a leftist issue back when the labor unions were afraid of salary competition to today being a rightist issue. I think what happened is that blue collar moved side, and the issue moved with them. Or perhaps the left dropped the issue going cosmopolitan, and the blue collar vote left with the issue.
Yep. The working class always had two desires - socialism, for it benefits them, and nationalism, for they are not completely stupid and understand that having socialism for foreigners is not sustainable. So, in a sense, nationalistic socialism. I think the time has come to try this novel idea.
Novel indeed...
Yeah no. It HAS been tried and it HAS failed.
@@moritamikamikara3879it was a bit too invadey last time: maybe try it again without the military expansion?
Could you expand on this? I don't see what you are arguing for or against.
It’s essentially the most popular ideology. A lot of the “right-wing populists” combine welfare and social policy with nationalism. You can’t really have a nation if you don’t consider the population a people, a big family or tribe, and cohesion among it only works when there’s not too much inequality within and everyone feels some sort of obligation to eachother and the state. If and when the centre left big party adopts stricter immigration laws, the populists are crushed. Nationalistic Socialism doesn’t have to include imperialism, militarism, and perceived supremacy like the Germans tried.
It seems to me that earlier less draconian changes (say thirty years ago) could have averted much of the tooth gnashing today. Now we have Trump and Steve Bannon.
If person crosses many peaceful countries just to reach UK, that means he is economic migrant, not "refugee".
However, a number of those countries could be hostile, has a different culture or have a very bad quality of life for that specific type of refugees, or simply don't want them to live there. For example, an Ukrainian refugee often has to cross Russia to get into Europe (once he is on the wrong side of line of combat). Russia generally is no less peaceful than most countries in Africa. Should we turn them back at the border?
What about Ukrainian refugee who went through, say, Azerbaijan or Turkey? Those are peaceful countries. Shouldn't we left them there to settle? Is it that much to ask an Orthodox Ukrainian to become a muslim to better fit in? After all, European countries are hardly Orthodox...
Okay, okay, you don't like those examples either. But let's put it this way. Why should those refugees from Ukraine, after entering Poland, go farther? After all, Poland and Ukraine are relatively close in language and culture! Shouldn't they all stay in Poland?
Pity all of them cannot afford boat and plane-rides just to get to the UK as a refugee... it's almost as though that is a great excuse to not have any refugees ever.
One important reason is the English language. English is the language that is taught in most schools in most countries so many people know at least the basics, and we've all encountered new immigrants who are in an anglophone country for the first time, yet speak English remarkably well.
If you are "english" rather that garlic or pict in England maybe you should go home to your Anglo-Saxon origin country
Robert Clive was an 'economic migrant'...but let's look forward.ok
Dear Vlad, writing from a country that has just seen a far right party win the elections a couple of months ago and with their coalition talks having just started with the the center right konservative party, I want to thank you for this extraordinarily important clip.
I probably share your point of view on human rights and also on basic decency in politics to a large part but I am afraid that you and Rory are right. At the moment we are talking about the survival of the rest of our liberal democracy (which in fact means democracy in general) and the field in which this will be decided is in the issue of migration. So a tough, credible and understandable policy will have to be implemented, or else the bad guys will win. hopefully it is not too late for that.
Would more immigration, i.e. replacement be a solution with right-wing voters?
Looking at the comments it seems that this really touched a nerve. There seems to be so much tension on this subject. While I mainly agree with the points raised by Vlad I would just add that when these measure with regard to emigration will be taken there will be need for serious, non-moralizing journalism showing the effects these measures have on the emigrant population. Nothing is better for realizing that our wishes have an effect on the world than feeling the burden of responsibility for our actions.
There is no compelling "human rights" case for immigration. The destination countries did not create the poverty that billions of people suffer in the world today. If the destination countries don't take them in, their situation remains the same, thus there is no moral infraction. Moreover, taking several tens of millions of mostly young and capable people from those billions does not address the situation for the rest. Even more over, there is limited capacity to take people in, before the importing cultures get diluted and changed into something that is no longer able to help anybody. This is not the ideal world we would imagine, in an ideal world we should work to make all countries prosperous, not move millions from one to the other, and with that process incentivize the creation of more desperate people in the departing countries.
I'm going to posit something far more pedestrian as an influence on issues that polarize both the UK and the US: housing affordability. When British citizens are told that they're going to have 700,000 more migrants "shoved down their throats," regardless of cause, regardless of WHY those 700,000 migrants are coming, they're going to throw their hands in the air and ask, "And, put them where? We're barely able to afford our own homes!"
I don't know if the UK is plagued by Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs), but the US certainly is. One of them owns over 800,000 single-family residences, mostly in one city. They make cash offers, outbid individual home buyers, and make purchases without inspection contingencies. Private equity firms in this space have growth targets of 250+ homes closed per month. They don't need to own hundreds of thousands of homes in a municipality in order to become rental market makers. They simply raise the rent on ALL of them and smaller landlords generally are only too happy to follow suit.
This keeps renters who would ordinarily have bought once their salaries permitted it to rent longer because new sale prices reflect potential rental income. By renting longer (and paying more in rent), they contribute to low housing availability. Another, more local cause of home price inflation is AirBnB. Any home that is near anything that people want to visit is priced on the basis of its short term rental income (if it was used as such). I know that this is very much the case in London, were literally hundreds of thousands of homes are short-term rentals. Prague suffers from this plague also, as I'm sure all European capital cities do.
We usually get the developer's answer to the problem: "Well, we just need to build more homes." But that leads to more congestion, overburdened public transportation, unequal access to education and medical services, and greater social friction, with "our" migrants as the scapegoats. Maybe, we're a law change or two away from deflating a bubble and its resulting crisis. Maybe, we've mis-identified a cause. Not THE cause, obviously, there's no single cause. But we're all shouting about the same set of connected problems.
Structurally, every Western country is in population decline, like the fertility rate of the UK is 1.6 when it needs to be 2.2 just to be stable. One of the major reasons no one wants to build houses is: when the boomers * cough * leave us, we are going to suddenly be burdened with a whole bunch of excess real estate, which is going to leave any developers still working with huge losses on suddenly unwanted new properties. The one thing that has papered over the now multi-generational population loss issue is immigration, which has kept the overall populations of Western countries fairly stable. Though it must be noted, a lot of social programs are founded on having an increasing population, not a stable population, and they are all thus at very high risk of bankrupting the countries. Particularly so if they go hard against immigration. However, from time immemorial, going hard against immigration is a good way to get elected. Because the core of anti-immigration feelings is the fear of increased sexual competition, and that is something you can even just go watch a chimpanzee documentary to see. Thus going hard against immigration gets all of the sexually frustrated men riled up to go vote for you. And they are legion.
Having a problem with a "flood" of immigration from the same area, is not necessarily the same as being opposed to all immigration, in moderation and from diverse regions.
Too much of anything, even usefull things, can be catastrophic, water, heat, dust etc..
The problem I have with the left is as soon you critic immigration they call you racist. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin, it has to do with their number. Speculation is not the cause of the housing crisis in Montreal, it's the symptom. There is always more and more people but the infrastructure stay the same. They don't build more houses, libraries or swimming pool. And let's not talk about culture. Quebecois are a minority, we are fighting to preserve our culture. Having a lot people that doesn't care about it is not good. In the US? Sure. But Quebec is not the US. Regarding immigration, one size doesn't fit all.
Being part of a social collective is not racism
Quebecois are not indigenous
@olafsigursons I have a similar perspective, being Welsh in the UK. My problem is with monoglot Anglophone migrants to Wales who come with no intention of integrating by learning Welsh. Most of those migrants are internal to the UK, coming from England. That internal migration had made Welsh a minority language in Wales by the end of the nineteenth century, so this is a long-term process. Do you have the same perspective on Anglophone migrants to Québec from the rest of Canada, or is your primary concern with immigrants to Québec from outside Canada?
Vlad, do you agree with the argument some make that a society needs an overarching dominant culture (in which minorities can exist and be respected within pluralism), so as to avoid a country falling into sectarianism? These people will point to Yugoslavia and Lebanon as examples where there is/was no one dominant culture, and failed state status was the result. Thoughts?
We call countries where a culture forcibly dominate other cultures as "Empires". British Empire, French Empire... Something happened to those empires, remember?
Yugoslavia was Serbian empire. It was not really a country per ce, it was mini-empire, nothing strange that it wanted to dissolve, like any other.
Generally, places where people don't have a reason to stay together, separate, like Chechs and Slovaks. However, a country may also be united by something other than ethnicity. It is not necessary for it to be a culture, but some uniting idea or ideology, as also a clear understanding of why being together is better than being separate, is necessary.
How about a dominant, over-arching culture that is open to other cultures thriving amongst its own?
This is an obvious truth. Without a dominant culture a state has no raison d'etre it it will end up like Syria in endless civil conflict.
@@CurtOntheRadio as long as those cultures don't get uppity.
But on the serious note, some cultures are harder to thrive with than others. I am, while considering myself a pro-immigration guy, also have a hardon for assimilation.
Comments are being deleted. Vlad, do you know why or how this is happening?
The issue in the UK.Is a dogma thats omehow you need to keep feeding people into the economy to sustain growth.. and a mythic belief that endless migration is good for society. Against which we have in the UK.Severe problems of infrastructure, lack of housing overcrowded roads overcrowded towns. Our young people are completely desperate seeing no stake in a country that will never provide them with the security of a home or secure employment... It's reached the point where many are giving up on the idea of having families or getting married.
We spent many centuries becoming a people. Now all is thrown up in the air.
Centuries? More like a couple millenia.
All those red heads, for example. Those genes arrived. Look at your language: a good amount was adopted when the French ran the show.
That was so good Vlad. I feel you struck a deep current issue when you talked about us not feeling at home and the effect this has on attitudes to immigration. Your chat today makes the quandary of immigration an issue to be explored on all sides rather than a shambles to be yelled about. More about immigration please. It is even an issue here in distant NZ. People’s need for a safe home will not go away so your approach to the matter is hugely important.
Thank you!
Yes, this was very insightful and transformative for my way of thinking about this. It really rang true.
High immigration contributes to the feeling of not feeling at home
Feeling at home in your own home. That counts. Thanks.
Listening to an immigrant who seems to have rarely left the South East of England discuss the UK zeitgeist is laughable.
Hi vlad, much love to you. Appreciate your chats
🌻
Much love!
Theres more to this debate. Immigration is not sustainable. The answer is to improve the lives of those who are forced or compelled to emigrate. We cant keep off loading the cost of adolescence and education to the areas people are leaving and expect them to improve.
There is a fundamental lack of trust and confidence in governments - in the U.K. Starmer is fuelling that dynamic by his reactionary label application of people who have genuine concerns as the extreme right. The solution is not zero immigration but to manage (and effectively police and control immigration by actually having a policy. The truth is we need legal migration but we need to manage it to meet our economic needs. Asylum and illegal economic migrants is almost a separate issue, but there can be no doubt that the current scale is unsustainable.
Holy shit, someone mentioned Ignatief in a context other than "failed Liberal party of Canada leader". I didn't know that was a thing!
Be well Vlad, we're all better off with you around.
While I agree with the premise of democracy versus sound/ethical immigration, I’m sceptical whether moderate forces can make an electorally efficacious programme against immigration
Why? Are they not allowed to?
Vlad, you are amazing.
I can't understand the vast majority of people in public transport anymore. Nobody really seems to know the cost and the benefit of it. Police, social services, housing, education, you name it it is overwhelmed. Technocratic experts of the government tell me there is no way that any voted government could change that because international or european law prevents that. That was the moment I finally understood Brexit. If 77% of the population thhink it is the most urgend matter and they want to radically change it and technocratic experts tell them they can't, the core of democratic rule is questioned. So, if I want the people to decide how they want to live together, what will I do?
52% see immigration as an important issue, the main ones are cost of living and economy. I think the economic issues are a big contribution to feelings towards immigration.
@@panemetcircenses6003 No, it is not. That's an explanation of someone that doesn't live in areas with a high amount of migrants. He sees it from afar, sees the people are not rich and draws a conclusion based on correlation.
The problem with this is that it is all too late. In the UK there is no actual policy except open borders. There is no mechanism to really control immigration or expel those who arrive who might pose a threat or an economic drain. The debate is therefore irrelevant and the views of centrist parties are also irrelevant as the areas that are experiencing the negative impact are far removed from where the people who run those centrist parties live. It will continue until there is a complete economic collapse as government funding will run out and then there will be chaos. Institutions are not only not trusted, but have proved themselves totally incapable - the lack of infrastructure planning is indicative of this and the current immigration level will show how that infrastructure cannot cope. Finally Ed Miliband's plan will push us to blackouts within this year and once the power runs out chaos will be triggered in the cities. Once we have anarchy there will be no human rights. Then everyone will leave. Our nation is a lot more fragile than we think.
Still glad to see you looking a lot better Vlad.
Stop blackpilling, the government could easily fix the problems they created, the only thing you need is political will.
Bet you are fun at parties.
One key thing that never gets talked about the very occasionally time I listen here is-Whether it’s immigration of even all types and said Ed Milliband etc -this was all thoughts funding and think tanks during an almost generation of low cheap money rates
We’re a year into another swing generation of high or even historically normal rates now….
All this silliness will stop when we need to pay the piper for higher debts rates etc
The AfD leader was interviewed in English on Bloomberg recently. It's on RUclips. I have to admit, she sounded mainstream.
Of course she does. She is a professional. Take a look at the party's policy program and you will revisit that assessment, I believe, once you come to the point where the AfD want's to get Germany out of NATO and end the right to asylum without exceptions. And don't even get me started on their positions on women's bodily autonomy!
It's her job to make AfD sound mainstream. But its programme and specifically its ideologues and rank and file officials aren’t. It’s them who bring nazism and revisionism back and it's them who want to define who is German on racial terms.
@@dayegilharno4988 For me their ideas about abortion are the best indicator of what they really are.
@@dayegilharno4988 Yes, I do not speak German so I don't know what I don't know. She spoke mostly on energy and immigration. My understanding is that over half the people on welfare in Germany are non-German citizens who utilised the asylum process - so I have to say I get why they might want to reconsider it.
@@EchoBravo370 it's not that simple. There is no simple "on welfare" thing. Poor people are entitled for some level of welfare even if they are working; there are a lot of poor people among migrants, so they may receive help in different forms, even though they are neither lazy, jobless or burden for society.
There is also a specific program called "integration assistance" for migrants. If you coun't this as welfare, yes, migrants receive them even if they are working at the same time or study, so they are hardly "welfare queens".
Children of migrants are often receive benefits in the form of educational opportunities, that also counts as welfare - but I think we all understand the importance and benefit of such things for society at large.
It all depends on how to count. You can find support for absolutely any narrative if you turn the data this or that way.
Thank you, Vlad for deeply challenging my assumptions and opening up a whole new way of thinking about this.
The saying is that it is hard to beat someone who takes the low road because they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. It already feels too late in the day to care about many of these issues because who has the power to do anything about them any more? Not British politicians who can now only hide under the table, hiding from the judgement of global markets.
That was good, thought-stimulating, and honest.
Why isn't social cohesiaon a human right?
That's what Marx was asking. History has not validated his judgment.
It's certainly a high priority in Japan.
@@matthewmulkeen I'm not the first person to observe the similarity between Germany and Japan in terms of their cultures' wholistic view of society. But how effective has that philosophy been historically? In terms of international competition? They both lost WWII due at least in part to a short sighted xenophobia which many argue was in fact a direct corollary of their focus on social cohesion.
Social cohesion isn't all it's cracked up to be. It has a dark side that isn't really offset by a corresponding increase in competitiveness. Even within societies, order is created by differentiation and hierarchy, and therefore exploitation.
Because living in an echo chamber is not a human right.
@@JackRMason Actually more homogenous societies tend to have lower crime, higher trust, happier etc.
Much of the anti-immigrant sentiment is due to the economic stagnation that has been experienced by the working class in the past 4 decades. When people feel their lot in life is threatened, they look for someone to blame and populists are always around to point the finger at immigrants and other perceived outsiders.
I find it a little irritating that Rory and Alistair cover these issues like they're so intractable because I feel like they have been some of the authors of our current problems.
They really do sound like some of the people least equipped to responsibly tackle these questions, indeed
Anti immigrant sentiment is even higher in wealthier areas though. It doesn't matter about economics, people don't like large numbers of people coming from other cultures into their homes. Its really simple. Just look at the sheer aesthetic violence of it. Do an image search in google for "Muslims in Bradford" Its visually akin to an invasion. Nazi Germany would have dreamed for an outcome like this in WW2. If they were Germans in England. 30% of Bradford is Muslim now. How on earth is this going to be solved?
This is not economic. This is cultural.
What I find odd is Stewart has literally toured the world and seen countries torn apart by inter-ethnic conflict within the borders of nations. And yet he still doesn't seem to see the connection between ethnic diversity and civil conflict. It is bizarre.
Thanks for another satisfying dose of intellectual nourishment!
Thank you for your help for thinking through this!
Very interesting reflection at about 20:00. (About people "not feeling at home in their home").
You somehow always manage to slip in a thought-provoking idea, Vlad. Thank you.
Vlad, you should do a reaction video to Sam Hyde's response to Elon Musk. It bears on some of the same topics you bring up here.
The Dalai Lama is saying too much immigration in Europe will not work. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is pointing out the Islamic dominance coming our way.
I saw the writing on the wall years ago, and that is why I left the country of my birth for faraway shores.
The immigration issue has caused the feeling of deprioritisation.
There are nearly 9 billion people on the earth. How much of a priority can we expect to be? Could the problem be our expectations?
@@BardovBacchus By our own Governments?? The vast majority of the time!
Do you think the Japanese Government should be prioritising people in Afghanistan or Yemen over Japanese people?
That is not what anyone is saying @@benghiskahn3673. Local governments are responsible for local administration. because people are still basic and tribal. This is the legacy politic we have to deal with. If someone from Afghanistan or Yemen *goes to Japan* then the Japanese government would be obligated to ensure their care. The rest if politics. However, most people don't understand me, so I must be wrong..?
You could also think about it another way @@benghiskahn3673. If most everyone in your country is doing okay, but there is a huge disaster or a war in another country perhaps a friendly country close by; Should your country not send aid because that would "prioritize their citizens over you"..?
In hindsight the immigration discussion was a prologue on the culture war and populist narration in total
The culture war began in the early '80s. The immigration discussion is just one of the more current bandwagons right wing "populism" is jumping on. Brexit was never about fixing the UK's economical problems, the US' southern border topic never was about finding solutions, the "grooming gangs" issue was never about implementing better protections for minors, etc. etc...
@@dayegilharno4988 Your tiny anglo island isn't the world. The whole west is flooded.
Pro immigration are populists, they promise nice sounding but impossible idea of cultural relativism. They pretend that everybody becomes magically liberal just by moving to the west.
What I learned from Mr. Trump: The key to successful management lies in how to properly delegate blame.
Brilliant, Vlad! Thank you for addressing this topic.
Huh, this is a really interesting analysis of immigration as a topic that I hadn't considered before. Thanks for making me think!
Excellent timing Vlad for someone in Canada like myself, where Immigration has shot up recently as an issue, where it wasn't previously discussed - but with it also being heavily entangled in the much more visible and entrenched Housing Crisis issue here.
I was just going to comment the same, it took too long for the government to see the problem.
Oh it was discussed. You just weren't allowed to hear about it
I don't dramatize what Hungary is today: if my country becomes like it, i will revoke my citizenship and will do the utmost to disobey the law and be corrupt. There is no relevant difference between Hungary and Russia.
Good to see you
@@slimski good to see you!
Ok so you framed the debate as one side just screaming and the other side worrying about economics, but I feel this is disingenuous.
There are two aspects to economics, that of the workers and that of the employers. If you take jobs away from the workers to appease the economics of the employers, that is going to lead to more fuel for the populists, no?
Policies have to balance that, not ignore it completely as has been happening.
The immigration issue is as old as human existence.
Even the people of Rome complained that Syrians, Dalmatians and Galatians were flooding the city 2000 years ago.
As a Canadian, my government failed miserably on immigration an flooded the country with unskilled migrant workers. This is one of the pillars that led to the (rightful) downfall if the ndp/liberal coalition under trudeau.
Thanks as always, Vlad!
It can't make sense for everyone to leave corrupt cultures and immigrate to countries with less corruption. Must find a sustainable alternative.
You see the alternative in syria of the past decade. Fighting against the regime at the cost of many lives. Cooperating with religious fanatics and questionable states playing their own geopolitical game. This time they succeeded and the dictator is out, but we are yet to see what kind of government will replace him. Will it have been worth the cost?
Only rarely it is enough for people to go to the streets peacefully. It requires the organization of oppostition and mobilization of the masses, but anyone taking first steps often gets swiped away long before the chance of having a serious impact, as long as the ones in power are using that effectifely in the form of a surveillance state (see russia). The risk, when forcing a systemic change in a corrupt state, is immense.
Sustainable for whom? Corrupted governments of inferior countries are beneficial for their more powerful colleagues from more developed countries. Where do your cheap resources come from? Where your old technologies and recyclables go? Some questions to consider yourself. I personally don't need the answers.
Corrupt cultures? Not even trying to hide it anymore eh?
@@panajotov Corruption is incredibly bad and costly for the developed countries. I work for a large mineral extration company that simply don't do any buisness in Africa anymore. Its too dangerous, too unreliable, its nearly impossible to get things done, and in the end the product is not as advertised. If the african countries ever got their shit together for real, we'd have 200 local guys employed from every town on the continent. The cost isn't an issue. F****n a*****s are.
I'm afraid to even ask what you mean by a "corrupt culture" 😮
Germany was Generous with they refugee welcome sings, how did it work out for them?
I will give more weight to your analysis of immigration when you show that you understand Islam. You may think your neighbourhood being mostly Syrian refugeess would be a beautiful thing. Would you feel the same way if you knew your Syrian neighbours supported ISIS as the true manifestation of Islam, i.e. that it was faithful to the Islam that Muhammad preached and was the correct interpretation of Islam? This regardless of whether they politically supported ISIS, and critically whether they accepted the head of ISIS as the Caliph of Islam (most Muslims don't).
I have more than a casual knowledge of Islam, and it was the acquisition of this knowledge that changed my assessment of the challenge that Islam presents to modern democratic societies. If you demonstrate an understanding of Islam and how it functions then I will listen more intently.
Yes all these muslims are the same? 1½ billion people in all parts of the world. What is there common thing except you disliking them. The biggest muslim country is Indonesia and the one with most muslims India. More people supported Stalin, Hitler or Mao than ISIS both in numbers and as part of the population. Maybe teh Khmer Rouge can be comapre dto ISIS but are all the "evil" socialists or leftists Kmhere Rouge?
@@PMMagroIts not specifically about ISIS per say. Its more about the views and values.
How many of the 1.2bn Muslims believe the Quran is the unadulterated and unquestionable word of God? Well, all of them, because that's what being a Muslim is.
How many believe that Muhammad was the most perfect manifestation of what a human should be and should conduct themselves. Again, practically all of them as this is a perquisit of being a Muslim.
So there absolutely ARE commonalities in beliefs. And there are unquestionably attitudes and beliefs that have their foundations in Islamic scripture that are inherently contrary to Western values and laws that will have widespread support amongst a large percentage of persons who identify as a Muslim.
Being a Muslim isn't just benign practices like praying 5 times a day facing east and not consuming alcohol or pork. Its a whole philosophy on life and the human existence which does require followers to conform to and abide by certain view points and attitudes that are incredibly conservative and sometimes outright extreme.
@@PMMagro @PMMagro You misunderstand my point and then make false comparisons. The 1.8 billion Muslims in the world are all followers of the religion of Islam. This is not the same as following a political ideology. The Qur'an is believed to be the direct speech of God/Allah revealed to Muhammad who then revealed it to humankind. It is what Allah has commanded and what Allah has forbidden. It cannot be changed and is binding on all Muslims.
You conflate criticism of a religion with criticism of a people, as if Muslims were some kind of ethnicity. I do not dislike Muslims. I dislike the religion of Islam, which is full of bad ideas. If I were a critic of Christianity (and there are many, including me) would you claim this was based on my dislike of Christians? I think not.
Bad ideas in Islam? Sharia, Islamic law, is derived first from the Qur'an, then the acts (ahadith) of Muhammad and his companions (the Sunnah), then biographies of Muhammad (the Sira) and finally considerations of the scholars. Bad ideas enshrined in law are:
- the death penalty for anyone who criticises Muhammad or the Qur'an
- the death penalty for anyone who leaves Islam (apostates)
- the death penalty for active homosexuals
- the death penalty for adulterers
- men are in charge of women and may strike disobedient wives (Qur'an 4:34 - search it)
- a son's inheritance is twice the amount of a daughter's inheritance (Qur'an 4:11 - search it)
- a man's legal witness is worth that of two women (Qur'an 2:282 - search it)
- there is no age limit on marriage or sex for girls or women
I could go on and on for there are many bad ideas formalised in Islamic law. I'm sure you mean well but as I said, your comparison of a religion and a political ideology is misplaced. I'm in the UK. We now have 4 Muslim/Gaza MPs with calls for Muslims to vote as a block in future elections to increase their influence. There is pressure to equate criticism of Islam the religion with "Islamophobia", as it it were a type of racism. Ditto for criticism of Muhammad.
In the short term I expect pressure to:
1. Implement Muslim blasphemy laws to prevent criticism of Islam the religion
2. Extend the legal recognition of the currently estimated 80 Sharia courts in the UK
@PMMagro I invite you to research Islam by reading the Qur'an (quran.com), reading the ahadith of Bukhari (sunnah.com - start with Sahih Bukhari 56 Fighting for the cause of Allah (jihad) ), reading the first biography of Muhammad by Ibn Ishaq (the recension of the work by Ibn Hisham - available online). You could then turn to commentaries (The Tafsir of Ibn Kathir) and works of Sharia itself (The Reliance of the Traveller - Al-Misri)
In short, you will need to put some effort into understanding Islam. I am happy to debate and discuss if you do. The assumptions you display in your comment are not adequate for this.
@@PMMagro Their ideology DEMANDS them to feel and behave the same!
Not all Christians follow the Bible to the word, and not all Muslims follow the Quran to the word.
I had no idea that Brits faced such a challenge regarding immigration.
Here in the states we face similar challenges. It seems that the world wants democracy but not enough leaders are willing to create democracy in their own countries so that their own citizens feel they can live and thrive in those countries and feel they must leave in order to achieve a lifestyle that suits them and their future generations.
These debates are generally not too productive because no matter what the nominal topic is, they're all really just about how the Establishment can stay in power without actually doing anything. Sometimes an outsider can get past the gatekeepers and try to confront the Establishment with Facts and Logic. But nobody cares. It won't change anything.
Because, in a way, the Establishment are correct. It really is just about power. Like, even for the masses for whom immigration poses an immediate problem. Nobody's interested in getting a fair deal. They just want a path towards a better deal than anyone else is getting.
Nobody sees shared interests because to admit a shared interest would be to admit that they're not really the special individuals they desperately want to be seen as. It's a particularly acute problem in mature liberal democracies, where there are almost no arbitrary social distinctions allowed any longer. Certainly for white males, who are supposed to understand that to the extent they are special at all, it's in a problematic way. Like, they're the literal Devil or whatnot.
This is an interesting conversation, and I am learning a lot, but shouldn’t we at least mention russia’s use of chaos and creating refuges as a weapon of political destabilization against the “West”?
Vietnamese people now make up the majority of refugees coming to the UK. They use Hungary as a transit point because it has visa free access to Vietnamese people. You’re quite right about russia and its proxies.
Very good point!! Of course, the West did create the environment where these tactics found fertile ground.
@ true
Yes we should.
Don’t see too many Ukrainians flying their flags and protesting down the main streets of London every weekend yelling hate and supporting terra organisations
Thank you, Vlad, for this interesting take on immigration. Unfortunately, the (far) right has almost monopolized this field for quite some time, so any discourse is pretty tough to discuss in a meaningful way without being either labeled "too soft" or "far right". On top of all the issues that are connected to human migration (from causes in the home country to housing in the receiving country), this makes it quite easy for unfriendly nations to "play" with human life. To watch how certain states instrumentalize humans to destabilize receiving societies without regard to their lives, makes my stomach turn. Migration is a multilayered issue that needs to be understood as such. We need the discourse to move from the two-dimensional portrayal that it is currently stuck in. Lots of love to you and to the Very Beautiful Community. 🤗
I gave up on discussing immigration.
There never was a discussion, labour just forced immigrants on the public to punish the people and hurt the economy for their own ego's.
Thank you thank you thank you Julia 🌻
For me democracy versus economy there is two problems immigration and wages versus shares and only the riches are well.
Always a layer below whatever has recently been exposed.
(13:15) exactly.
A Canadian Perspective on Immigration, Trade, and Political Shifts
Early 1980s: Canada (pop. 24M) had immigration levels of 50,000/year under PM Pierre Trudeau (Liberal). This was seen as a sustainable level that the country could "comfortably absorb."
1988: Under PM Brian Mulroney (Conservative), immigration jumped to 250,000/year-a 500% increase-alongside the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
1992-1994: NAFTA (including Mexico) was signed by Mulroney,
1995: PM Jean Chrétien (Liberal) introduced the Equity Employment Act (Canada’s version of affirmative action), deprioritizing white males in hiring.
2000: U.S. President Bill Clinton granted China WTO trading status, effectively enabling free trade with China. This led to the offshoring of 60,000+ American factories, triggering economic devastation, the tech collapse, and a growing wave of despair, drugs, and depression in communities across the U.S.
Today (2024):
Canadian immigration is set at 465,000 annually, plus:
800,000 international students with work visas
Temporary foreign workers
Refugees
Family reunification programs, and more.
Meanwhile:
Fascist Pres. Trump is re-elected in the U.S.
PM Justin Trudeau resigns.
Pierre Poilievre (Conservative) is poised to win in Canada, bringing MAGA-style populism north.
Trump threatens invasion, w democracy teetering on the edge...
How appropriate to her Ignatieff cited here, especially this week given ongoing events in Canadian domestic politics, which Michael once dipped his toe in. Haha. Next on my bingo card is Kymlicka. :)
Your discussion of this topic is quite interesting. I know a federal court judge who was once a refugee and it has been fascinating to watch his views and perspectives shift over time.
Thank you very big Vlad! Agree on a lot and contemplating the rest... Another braingym experience! 😄😆
Hello dear Vlad! xx 🎉
Thanks
"Not feeling home at home" because of the modern world etc, and therefore less well inclined towards new comers etc, that spiel is all balderdash. Of course the comfortable are shielded and have options, and so are more accomodating, thats why educated champagne socialists have lost the working classes, but not feeling 'home at home' is not about any complicated modernist angst. It's just human nature, stability and change. The choice between democracy and getting tough about human rights is a false dichotomy and disingenuous. Good luck keeping those human rights without democracy. If you have democracy human rights will follow but will be on the terms of the many not the few.
I think that it depends of whose rights we have in mind. It is not obvious at all that the human rights as a whole will flourish in a democracy--only the human rights of the people who take part in that democracy will obviously improve.
Of course not. There will always be some who don't get what they consider their share, or the right kind of, sunlight. But, as a whole, and being realistic, of the many not the few is the only good mandate. Utopia is always in the future, distopias by contrast are a penny a pound, past and present, always run by elites whose self interest always mysteriously aligns with the virtues of their ideology.
@@Himgonemountain As long as we realize that democracy is not an absolute good, it makes perfect sense to notice the conflicts that appear between democracy and other values, human rights, for example. It is not a false dichotomy, but it is contextual, depending on the social and economic environment.
Hello Vlad, nice to see you are still in the countryside. I wondered what you thought about Timothy Snyder's analysis in Timothy Snyder Speaks, ep. 4: Sadopopulism
Some may argue that any pause, any reduction, in immigration is a betrayal of our values. But I ask you to consider this: Is it truly ethical to welcome people into a system that is unprepared to support them? Is it fair to offer an open door, only to leave them stranded without housing, employment, or opportunity?
Temporary constraints are not a rejection of our principles-they are an acknowledgment of our responsibilities. And taking the time to rebuild, to prepare, and to strengthen our systems is not a failure of generosity. It is an act of care, both for those who seek to come here and for those who are already here.
It’s one thing to have Spanish or Eastern European immigrants and another one to have Moroccans or Pakistani ones. This is the truth.
You talk about ' FEELINGS', the thing is, that there can acctually be concrete
reasons for those feelings. Ignoring these concrete questions, will
UNEVITABLY be disasterous....
Yet you can't adress issues, since it is just you and your 'FEELINGS' that are WRONG/BROKEN.....
Unfortunately, as Zuckerberg’s immoral decision has illustrated this week, facts no longer matter. Feelings determine everything, so actual issues will never be addressed in any meaningful way. We are entering a new Dark Age.
The post-modernist is terminally allergic to material analysis, that why he has to exclusively talk about feelings, it’s his entire schtick.
Reality is about to treat Vlad‘s ideas like the Wehrmacht treated the Polish cavalry :DD
Why is Vlad here in the Uk? Why did he leave his motherland.
He mentioned going to Israel when USSR collapsed, so racially he is a J, not a white man.
Alastair Campbell was not ever in power, only press officer for Blair, he wasn’t even a junior minister
I was listening to u last night thinking how good u are at this and would u do ur thing on the rest is politics well I'm looking forward to this ,,,, and I wish u well copeing with ur condition and fingers crossed hey
Rory, the guy with his finger on the pulse ...
... when he's buying lentils at the supermarket.
We are at a point where we cannot walk away from Omelas.
As an american, grew up roman catholic of irish decent (full of personal guilt) i think everyone being opressed (starved) by their ruleds no matter whom deserves a place in a civil society that accepts and promotes human rights. Im afraid we are losing the shinig city on a hill of my birth and ending up somewhere much colder and darker so therefore mych scarier place. I truly thought i was escaping 45/47 by moving to my husbands country (plus my kids are much less likely to be killed at school). I have found he has stoke a nee wave of xenophobia and reinvigorating desires for authoritarian rule. Im so disappointed
Hi Vlad, a lot of philosophy - the question is- do you agree with unlimited and unregulated immigration. If not, the only questions are how many, who, when etc, etc, If you can't take everyone then adopt the American system of lottery. It just means some applicants will have to look elsewhere. That's a difficult life choice they must make..
Alienation also stems from resentment of others who have technical skills that they don’t have and can’t or won’t learn, or being priced out of the job market by cheaper foreign labor.
Reminiscent of Lot offering his daughters to the mob to uphold the laws of hospitality.