I feel like he leaves out one big issue with unfettered immigration: what happens when we take in large numbers of people who don't share our democratic values? People that would rather enforce religious law with an authoritarian government than the liberal democracy we expect in Europe. There's also the issue of space, we simply can't have unrestricted immigration because the number of people that would like to come to Europe far exceeds the number of people we can house and feed.

@JanBruunAndersen

18 күн бұрын

Nowhere does it say that the right to vote has to be given to all the people that legaly resides in a country. It was not that long ago that the right to vote was reserved for male landowners. Would it be that bad if voting was restricted to people who paid over X amount in taxes? Or make the number of votes each person can cast proportional to the amount paid in taxes?

@pauls6530

18 күн бұрын

@@JanBruunAndersen yes, it would be very bad, because it would lead to a monopoly of democracy by the wealthy, who would then make laws to keep the wealth in their hands at the expense of the poorer classes. Feudalism.

A state has no obligation to refugees. Let alone ones who are not actually fleeing persecutuon, but seeling economic prosperity. Let alone ones who've traveled throufh 20 safe countries. As for the legal obligations, aside from them not meeting this due to my points above, it alao states in the articles that a country has the right to refuse asylum on grounds of national interest and security.

@user-ds8rj2vc4v

16 күн бұрын

​@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn 1-That's not what it says. 2-They're not showing they're being persecuted. 3-They are economic migrants. 4-Outdated laws and regulations can be revoked. 5-UK laws supercede international laws. 6-The parts about asylum not only specify the migrants need to meet certain conditions (which these people don't) it also states that the UK has an obligation to its own citizens first and to prevent any form of damage to the UK and as such can refuse any supposed asylum seekers.

@user-ds8rj2vc4v

15 күн бұрын

@Letsthinkaboutit-mb7nn 1-Not wrong. 2-You're wrong. Acceptance doesn't mean that they're not economic migrants.

I can only hope that somewhere or sometime we upright apes will realise that we are all one species, one that can think it's way out of problems and not resort to primate dominance tactics (selfishness in our case), scaremongering (manipulation of opinion by vested interests), and territorial disputes (small minded bigotry). Yes, we have to be realistic about policy but the blanket presumption that refugees are a danger to an extant population reflects unthinking stupidity: is our culture so weak that it can't survive some newcomer's and, if it is, how useful a culture is it. A humane and deeply considered lecture. Thank you.

And THIS is the reason we can't have nice things! I wonder how many refugees the speaker might consider 'too many' in his own home? 1, 2, 50? Incredibly low resolution thinking from such a person in position of power within our Justice system.

We "MAY" have different religions and languages?

Since man stood upright till very recent (100 year ago?) most nations have no guarded border; they have guarded frontiers. We need to go back to the time tested way.

Great lecture and argument for fairness and justice over parochial hate

@freemanjackmsiradio

16 күн бұрын

Same question to you; Do you mind if I ask you, how many refugees would you willingly welcome into your home? 1? 2? how about 50? is there a limit to your support of such unbounded generosity?

Another brilliant and humane lecture.

@freemanjackmsiradio

16 күн бұрын

Do you mind if I ask you, how many refugees would you willingly welcome into your home? 1? 2? how about 50? is there a limit to your support of such unbounded generosity?

Never going to happen...