PowerSwitch

Please can I ask other people to refrain from posting until Biff has answered. This has been split off from the thread on migrants so we can have a more detailed discussion about the underlying ethics.

UE asked

Under what circumstances would you agree to limiting immigration into the UK? Are there any circumstances at all, or would you continue to advocate an open door policy.

Biff replied:

I have tried to set out the circumstances I would agree to limiting immigration into the UK and CLV101 seems to have understood. It wouldn't be before we had let in as many as, say, Jordan. And then my point was that in those circumstances I would expect other nations to act similarly so we would not be in the same situation and there would be no need for limits. That would make the second part of your question, "Are there any circumstances at all" redundant.

But since you press me into an unrealistic situation then I might say, Yes, If the UK had allowed 2 million immigrants and other nations were not acting in a similar way then we should consider closing our borders, pour encourger les autres.

Do please remember that I am both an ecologist, a deep ecologist, and a socialist, an international socialist. That means I'm concerned about the genuine sustainability of human civilisation on this finite planet and that all people throughout the world should have equal opportunity to share in what we've got left. Borders, however, I regard as arbitrary affairs, useful for delineating the reach of parishes, counties, nations and continents, with each tier used appropriately but with no tier being more important than others. I have no time for nationalism, let alone national socialism.

As the planet warms through the coming century it looks as though the British Isles will continue to have a relatively benign climate and so it may well be that people from areas that are more adversely affected will wish to come here. That's a pity, as they would probably prefer not to move and I like the quiet of our countryside. But don't blame me for global warming - there wouldn't be any if the world had done what I suggested 40 years ago! But realism dictates that we have to plan for what is, not what might have been. We should be planning for great migrations in various parts of the world over the coming decades. Building walls should not be part of that plan.
_________________

UE replied:

Do please remember that I am both an ecologist, a deep ecologist, and a socialist,

None of these things should cause a disagreement with me, because I am also all of them too. However, it should be pointed out that saying "remember I'm a deep ecologist" is not a substitute for an argument, any more than "remember I'm a muslim" is.

an international socialist. That means I'm concerned about the genuine sustainability of human civilisation on this finite planet and that all people throughout the world should have equal opportunity to share in what we've got left.

Well, in that case, unless you want to be accused of hypocrisy, you should have shared out what you've got left. Have you done that? No, you haven't. Instead, you are insisting the people of Britain, collectively, share out what we've got left, while you hold on to what you've got left. This result in the destruction of the living standards of poor people in the UK. We have explained this to you many times.

Borders, however, I regard as arbitrary affairs, useful for delineating the reach of parishes, counties, nations and continents, with each tier used appropriately but with no tier being more important than others. I have no time for nationalism, let alone national socialism.

Borders are not "arbitrary". They are not just randomly placed on a map. They are where they are due to the result of a long history of political, cultural and military processes, and they now delineate areas of governance. That is, areas where people in positions of power are required, both morally and legally, to govern in the interests of the people within that area. You can choose to be an "international socialist" but you must recognise that you have absolutely no right to expect anybody else to do so. I expect my the people who govern me to look after the interests of my town, county and nation. I do not expect them to take decision in the interests of the whole of humanity. Note that I am not only saying that this is what they are expected to do (look after their own areas) but that it is a moral requirement and if they acted as "international socialists" then they'd be acting both incompetently and immorally.

biffvernon wrote: I have tried to set out the circumstances I would agree to limiting immigration into the UK and CLV101 seems to have understood. It wouldn't be before we had let in as many as, say, Jordan. And then my point was that in those circumstances I would expect other nations to act similarly so we would not be in the same situation and there would be no need for limits. That would make the second part of your question, "Are there any circumstances at all" redundant.

My bold. Let's examine what you are arguing here. You are saying that you would want the UK to lead the way in letting migrants in, and you'd expect other nations to act similarly.

Well, we have a real world example of this way of thinking and acting. It is precisely what the Germans did and said in the summer of last year. They said "We will lead the way. Let the migrants come to Germany. And we expect other nations to follow suit!" And nearly a million migrants poured into Germany. Only one nation followed suit, and that was Sweden. The rest of Europe said "No f******* way, Frau Merkel. Europe is overpopulated, half these of these people are economic migrants, they are bringing a vile religion with them, and worst of all, if you open your doors then you'll just encourage loads more of them to come. This is unsustainable! It's mad!"

So the first flaw in your argument is expecting that if the UK welcomed unlimted immigration, others would follow suit. That is just a nice dream, Biff. In reality, we know it wouldn't happen, because it has been tried, last year, and it failed miserably.

So your argument as to why my question is redundant has failed. The question is very relevant.

But since you press me into an unrealistic situation then I might say, Yes, If the UK had allowed 2 million immigrants and other nations were not acting in a similar way then we should consider closing our borders, pour encourger les autres.

My bold. You are further arguing that if, as has actually happened when Germany did as you suggest last year, others did not follow suit, that we should then close our borders to encourage the others.

What actually happened when Germany and Sweden took in vast numbers of migrants is that those migrants misbehaved, raping and assaulting western women, and in both countries the far right is now on the rise. And in both countries, the open door policy is being rapidly reversed. The doors are closing again.

Now, according to the argument you are offering, Germany and Sweden reversing their policy and closing their borders will encourage other European countries to open theirs.

And you expect other people to take this argument seriously? Do you see other European countries responding to the current situation by opening their borders and repeating the mistakes made by Germany and Sweden?

Your so-called ethical argument - your "international socialism" is nothing but a pipe-dream, Biff. The policies you are actually advocating have already been shown to not work. And for that reason, for all your good intentions, you cannot claim to be offering an ethical alternative to the majority view on this board. It is not ethical because it is not based on reality, and because implementing the policies you advocate would not lead to the outcome you desire. Instead, it would lead to increasing overpopulation and unsustainability in Europe, a breakdown of social cohesion, the rise of the political far right, AND it wouldn't even stop the flow of migrants. There is absolutely no ethical imperative on any sane person to take your crazy arguments seriously. If we followed your advice, the result would be an unmitigated catastrophe for everybody apart from muslim extremists who want to see the destruction of European civilisation.

We should be planning for great migrations in various parts of the world over the coming decades.

Indeed.

Building walls should not be part of that plan.

When you've got the first part of your argument sorted out - when it is based on reality instead of a pipe-dream - then we can talk about what the plans should look like.

and

We live in a world that is heading rapidly towards a whole series of interconnected catastrophes - overpopulation, environmental degradation, resource depletion, failing antibiotics and the emergence of new/old infectious diseases, deteriorating political stability, religous fundamentalism, etc... Together they make The Catastrophe, otherwise known as "die-off" - a rapidly crashing human population, and a time of terrible suffering.

In a world where it still looked possible that The Catastrophe could still be avoided, or at least if it looked likely that the sort of "international socialist" agenda you advocate could bear fruit before The Catastrophe hits us, then your ethical argument might work (might - probably wouldn't, but you could at least claim it was worth trying).

But sooner or later we must arrive at a point where The Catastrophe can no longer be avoided - when the the deteriorating situation has got so bad that there is no way back from the brink. Once that point is passed then your argument fails completely and utterly, because even if your agenda could work in principle, it can't work in the real world because time has run out. Beyond that point then all societies are in a mode of self-preservation - they are trying to maximise the chances personally and as societies of surviving The Catastrophe. There is nothing unethical about this. You cannot expect people to simply give up and lay down their lives for the benefit of a "greater good" that has ceased to have any meaning.

UE, I only have a limited amount of time I'm willing to give to PowerSwitch discussions and answering everything you write here is a daunting task. If I've left out things you think are important then feel free to flag them up - it isn't because I didn't want to answer them, just that I ran out of time and energy. I rather wish we were discussing this on twitter and were limited to 140 characters! However, here follows my response to the long piece you posted on the migrant thread a few days ago.

I think one can say one is a socialist, even an international socialist, without having to give away all one’s property to the poor. (The hypocrite charge is a logical fallacy; it is better that the sinner says don’t follow my example than that he sneaks about quietly in his fell work.) You say “you are insisting the people of Britain, collectively, share out what we've got left”. No, that’s a strawman. What I wrote was “all people throughout the world should have equal opportunity to share in what we've got left”. Marx said something along those lines too. It’s the basic position of the socialist. I actually think that the quality of life for everybody can be raised, but quality of life may not be the same as wealth as currently measured by metrics such as per capita GDP.
When I said that I regard borders as being arbitrary of had in mind function rather than position. In my parish the council are currently engaged in deciding whether to maintain the streetlights. If the council were to only take into account the interests of their parishioners, the majority of whom like their roads lit, the decision would be simple. But other factors are being considered that relate to affairs beyond the border, the state of the UK’s economy and the desire to address the global issue of CO2 emissions. There is a long history of international cooperation on affairs that go well beyond the interests of the individual participating nations. And so it should be, since we are all connected.
I think, UE, here lies a fundamental difference between us and upon which we may just have to agree to differ. I do not regard the concept of ‘nation’ as anything very special. It’s a convenient unit of administration for some purposes, as are the parish, county and continent, but it does not have a special place for me. I am firstly, human, then European, then British and then an immigrant in Lincolnshire and emigrant from Kent. (Well, I say Kent, as that was where I was born, but I became a Londoner without moving house when the border changed.)
You wrote “You are saying that you would want the UK to lead the way in letting migrants in”. No, another strawman, I did not say I wanted the UK to lead. What I wrote was “I would expect other nations to act similarly”. To lead, the UK would have to go first. It might, or it might not and it would be best if a lot of nations acted in accord, simultaneously. The reality as you point out, is that Germany did a bit of leading. Unfortunately a lot of other nations did not immediately follow suit, leaving the Germans up the creek with everybody trying to pile into their canoe. That was the UK’s (and others) failure to follow suit rather than a failure in the German thinking.
You say “Europe is overpopulated”. One would have to decide just what ‘overpopulated’ means before we can decide whether or not that is a true statement.
You say “half these of these people are economic migrants”. That rather depends on how one defines ‘economic migrant’, but let us suppose for now that it is true. I ask, why does that matter?
You say “they are bringing a vile religion with them”. That may well be true of some migrants, while others appear to be fleeing the effects of a vile religion. Generalisations are dangerous and I am an atheist but I know many people with strong religious convictions, of various religions, none of whom the word ‘vile’ fits as a good descriptor. It seems that many of the world’s religions can be practised in a vile way and those who do so should be confronted, whether or not they have migrated.
Of course the criminal law should be applied equally to all irrespective of their origin, and, within the imperfect justice systems we have, I think it is. As has been pointed out by people in Germany, the incidents in Germany on New Years Eve differ from those at Oktberfest more in terms of media attention than crimes committed.
You say that international socialism is a pipe-dream. Maybe, but it does suggest a direction of travel. We could say that all political systems tried so far have failed. Western corporate capitalism the Soviet model of socialism, the Chinese form of Marxism followed by whatever it is they have now, are all leading us to climate catastrophe and have done little to prevent war and hunger. I see more hope in a move towards international socialism if imbued with a sense of deep ecology.
It is quite possible that progress in that direction will be limited, that it will remain a pipe-dream. It is also quite possible that human civilisation will not see the century out. Certainly that is the most likely outcome of a continuation of the current systems.

biffvernon wrote: I think, UE, here lies a fundamental difference between us and upon which we may just have to agree to differ. I do not regard the concept of ‘nation’ as anything very special. It’s a convenient unit of administration for some purposes, as are the parish, county and continent, but it does not have a special place for me.

It doesn't matter how special a place it has for you.

For the nine millionth time, we are talking about the world we actually live in, not some ideal world we wish existed. And in that real world, the concept of "nation" is very important indeed. It is important because it is the primary level of organisation where sovereignty lies. It simply does not matter whether or not you or I like this. It's just the way it is.

Can we agree to differ? Yes, but only on the understanding that if you are going to make ethical pronouncements and criticise other people's morality based on your thoroughly unrealistic idea that nation states don't matter, then there's going to be more trouble. You can have any ideals you like, but you cannot expect to get away with accusing other people of acting immorally because they base their views on a realism that you choose to reject.

You wrote “You are saying that you would want the UK to lead the way in letting migrants in”. No, another strawman, I did not say I wanted the UK to lead. What I wrote was “I would expect other nations to act similarly”. To lead, the UK would have to go first. It might, or it might not and it would be best if a lot of nations acted in accord, simultaneously. The reality as you point out, is that Germany did a bit of leading. Unfortunately a lot of other nations did not immediately follow suit, leaving the Germans up the creek with everybody trying to pile into their canoe. That was the UK’s (and others) failure to follow suit rather than a failure in the German thinking.

Rubbish, Biff.

Those who "didn't follow suit" told the the Germans that their policy was insane, because it would lead to far more migrants trying to get to Europe, which would end up making the problem worse instead of solving it. Exactly the same argument has been played out on this board, over and over again, with you taking the part of the Germans.

You were wrong, Biff. The Germans were wrong. What has led to this crisis is not the fact that other nations refused to follow the Germans' insane lead, but that the German policy was fundamentally wrong-headed. Has the number of migrants arriving in Europe multiplied by a factor of 25 because most European nations refused to follow Germany's lead? No, of course not. It has multiplied by a factor of 25 because of Angela Merkel's catastrophic declaration that anyone who reached Germany could stay there. It was entirely predictable, and the end result is going to be far more migrant deaths, the end of the Shengen zone and possibly the breakup of the EU. Had the rest of Europe followed the German lead then there'd probably 2 or 300,000 migrants would have arrived in Jan/Feb instead of 100,000. This policy is unsustainable and counter-productive. It makes the problem worse instead of solving it!

You say “half these of these people are economic migrants”. That rather depends on how one defines ‘economic migrant’, but let us suppose for now that it is true. I ask, why does that matter?

It matters because untold millions of people would like to move to Europe because they think a better life is available here than the one they are leading in Afghanistan, Iran, North Africa, etc...

You say that international socialism is a pipe-dream. Maybe, but it does suggest a direction of travel.

A direction in which we are, quite obviously, not headed. You are free to have your ideals. The problem is that you then go around lecturing other people, implying that they are immoral because they are basing policy and beliefs on the direction of travel that is really happening rather than a more desirable direction that is not happening.

What this comes down to, as has been explained to you an unimaginable number of times, is a clash between realism and idealism, and whether or not you have any right to criticise people who are facing up to realities that you are not willing to face up to. You use your idealism as means of avoiding making very tough moral choices that aren't going to go away, and when you combine that with ethical criticism of the people who are actually dealing with those harsh realities, the result is very serious bad feeling.

The problem is that you have a choice about your idealism, but nobody gets to pick and choose reality. Reality is what it is. And because of that, I'm afraid the ongoing "grief" regarding this topic is very much your responsibility. The realists cannot back down, because they are forced into their position by reality. But you have a choice about whether or not to continue basing your arguments on an idealism that is getting further and further from reality with every passing week.

It is quite possible that progress in that direction will be limited, that it will remain a pipe-dream. It is also quite possible that human civilisation will not see the century out. Certainly that is the most likely outcome of a continuation of the current systems.

Right. I'm glad you said that. And I'd go further and say that if the current system does not continue then the probability of it being replaced by anything resembling "international socialism" is nil.

The key question is this: upon what assumptions to we base or ethics, morality and policy decisions? And I am arguing that the answer is that we must start with reality, not idealism. If we fail to do so then we will end up making the sort of mistake Angela Merkel made last summer - mistakes that lead to very real political instability and deaths.

I think this can actually be summed up very simply.

On a national level, socialism has to be national. In other words, socialism can work if everybody has to work as part of the socialist system. But personal socialism in a society that isn't socialist amounts to a form of personal suicide.

And the same thing applies internationally. International socialism can only work if all nations are part of that system, but if one nation behaves in an international socialist manner while all the others continue as they do now then it amounts to national suicide.

And you have no right to ask the people of the nation you live in to commit national suicide. Asking them to do does not make you morally superior.

It doesn't matter how special a place it has for you.

For the nine millionth time, we are talking about the world we actually live in, not some ideal world we wish existed. And in that real world, the concept of "nation" is very important indeed. It is important because it is the primary level of organisation where sovereignty lies. It simply does not matter whether or not you or I like this. It's just the way it is.

Can we agree to differ? Yes, but only on the understanding that if you are going to make ethical pronouncements and criticise other people's morality based on your thoroughly unrealistic idea that nation states don't matter, then there's going to be more trouble. You can have any ideals you like, but you cannot expect to get away with accusing other people of acting immorally because they base their views on a realism that you choose to reject.
The problem is that you then go around lecturing other people, i

What this comes down to, as has been explained to you an unimaginable number of times, is a clash between realism and idealism, and whether or not you have any right to criticise people who are facing up to realities that you are not willing to face up to. You use your idealism as means of avoiding making very tough moral choices that aren't going to go away, and when you combine that with ethical criticism of the people who are actually dealing with those harsh realities, the result is very serious bad feeling.
But you have a choice about whether or not to continue basing your arguments on an idealism that is getting further and further from reality with every passing week.
And you have no right to ask the people of the nation you live in to commit national suicide. Asking them to do does not make you morally superior.

Your post is so full of personal attack that I find little incentive to proceed. I tried to engage politely with you, but once again I think the only sensible thing to do is walk away. That's the rather sad reality.

biffvernon wrote:
Your post is so full of personal attack that I find little incentive to proceed. I tried to engage politely with you, but once again I think the only sensible thing to do is walk away. That's the rather sad reality.

What personal attack?

All I've said is that you have no right to criticise other people's ethics when their position is based on realism and yours is based on idealism. This is not a personal attack. I am trying to find a way to end what has been a very long-running and acrimonious dispute between yourself and a few other people on this forum, including me. But there is no way to resolve it unless you are willing to stop having a go at us for being immoral when we are merely being realistic.

You do lecture other people (usually indirectly, but clearly implied) for being morally wrong on these issues. This is also a statement of fact.

The real reason you are walking away is because you are still unwilling to admit you are wrong, Biff. I ask you again: look at the real world results of Merkel's policy. Her intentions were good, but the results are very bad, and the reason for this mismatch was a lack of realism. The people who said "this will encourage many more to come, it will not solve the migrant crisis, but will lead to a major political crisis" were realists. We were right. This is fact, not theory. It is reality, unfolding in front of us.

This is not a personal attack. I am saying you were wrong - that policies based on an idealism identical to your own have led to the catastrophic real-world outcome. But saying somebody has been proven wrong by events does not equate to a personal attack.

I think biffvernon's reality has been called very clearly in this thread and it finally allows me to realise that I want nothing further to do with him and his judgemental posts that are all over this forum.

Sorry biffvernon but UE has demonstrated with clear logic and argument what your problem is and it leaves no doubt imo as to why anybody should try to interact further with you.

You have demonstrated time and time again that you never accept you are wrong on anything . And that your way is the only way - everybody else is wrong - I call it biffvernon truth..... it is sad but it is the way it is.

Good nite bf.

snow hope wrote:And that your way is the only way - everybody else is wrong

He is not unique in that. I tend to believe that everyone is open to a learning experience even LJ and UE.

Two Short Plays

One

Alice: My proposition is that A plus B leads to C
Bob: That's true as far as it goes but when D is factored in the result becomes E
Alice (thinking to herself) Hmmm, Bob's right so we need to investigate the phenomenon of D and find a way to counter its effect and thus allow C, but it's tea-time so I'll continue later.

Two

Alice: My proposition is that A plus B leads to C
Bob: For the nine millionth time, we are talking about the world we actually live in, not some ideal world we wish existed. You were wrong, Alice.
What this comes down to, as has been explained to you an unimaginable number of times, is a clash between realism and idealism. But you have a choice about whether or not to continue basing your arguments on an idealism that is getting further and further from reality with every passing week.
Bob (aside to the Chorus): Alice's hideously bloated self-image of moral superiority means she will never be capable of admitting she has been and is hideously wrong on this.
Alice (thinking to herself): Ah well, I tried. There are better things to spend one's time on.

biffvernon wrote:Two Short Plays

One

Alice: My proposition is that A plus B leads to C
Bob: That's true as far as it goes but when D is factored in the result becomes E
Alice (thinking to herself) Hmmm, Bob's right so we need to investigate the phenomenon of D and find a way to counter its effect and thus allow C, but it's tea-time so I'll continue later.

Two

Alice: My proposition is that A plus B leads to C
Bob: For the nine millionth time, we are talking about the world we actually live in, not some ideal world we wish existed. You were wrong, Alice.
What this comes down to, as has been explained to you an unimaginable number of times, is a clash between realism and idealism. But you have a choice about whether or not to continue basing your arguments on an idealism that is getting further and further from reality with every passing week.
Bob (aside to the Chorus): Alice's hideously bloated self-image of moral superiority means she will never be capable of admitting she has been and is hideously wrong on this.
Alice (thinking to herself): Ah well, I tried. There are better things to spend one's time on.

No, this is important. E isn't some theoretical prediction. It is actually happening, and it is going to have very serious consequences indeed.

Germany proposed an open door policy as a solution to the migrant crisis.
Many people warned that it would make the crisis worse, because it would encourage more people to come. Those people have not only been proved correct, but on a massive scale. I predicted that the German policy would increase the rate of migration, but I didn't expect it to increase by a factor of twenty-five.

You "tried"? Presumably means "I tried to help them see the light, but their eyes are blind", or something along those lines.

Biff, you were wrong. You tried to convince us of what you believed was right, but events in the real world have conclusively shown that you were not only wrong, but that the very people you were trying to help are going to be the victims of your mistake. People are going to die because the Germans made an identical mistake to yours, but even now you simply will not accept it was a mistake, and fully intend to continue making it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... rrive.html

Germany could reverse its ‘open-door’ policy and close its borders to asylum seekers.

Official plans, leaked to a German newspaper, suggest restoring all border controls.

The policy would amount to an admission that Chancellor Angela Merkel’s invitation to refugees has been a disaster.

Now it's your turn.

Peter Mandelson was asked this exact same question on the Today Programme this morning. Was Merkal wrong, it encouraged people to come? ...and didn't have much of an answer: "...Germany's a moral nation, Merkal was exercising a moral responsibility, I'm not going to criticise her for doing that... faced with that situation difficult to know what to do otherwise."

UE, I see and accept your argument. However, I think you lean to heavily on 'reality'. I don't think we can be sure there's such a thing any more, at least not an uncontested objective reality. By that I mean situations absolutely aren't black and white, there is deep complexity. I simply don't believe there is a 'right' or 'simple' solution to the situation we face. Anyone claiming such is on a hiding to nothing in my opinion.

CLV, if we accept that this really is the fully fledged beginning of the the long emergency/great catastrophe - call it what you will- and that the tide of humanity that is now on the move is not going to end before the human global population has fallen back into line with the earth's underlying carrying capacity - if we really do accept that (as I certainly do) then this really does make certain choices very stark but very simple, at least in principle. It comes down to protecting and maintaining what semblance of civilisation it is possible to protect and maintain in the coming storm. And that may be precious little no matter what we do. But, one thing is certain, we cannot save the world. It's too late for that. It's way too late.

The crisis is now upon us. God help us, when global supply chains start to fail due to increasing global conflicts, as they surely will, we are going to have a hard enough time feeding the population that already exists here.

clv101 wrote:Peter Mandelson was asked this exact same question on the Today Programme this morning. Was Merkal wrong, it encouraged people to come? ...and didn't have much of an answer: "...Germany's a moral nation, Merkal was exercising a moral responsibility, I'm not going to criticise her for doing that... faced with that situation difficult to know what to do otherwise."

That isn't a good enough answer. When you are faced with a choice between X, which is horrible, and Y, which is even worse, then you choose X, even though it is horrible. That is exactly what many people on this forum have been saying for at least the last 9 months - that we have to tell the migrants that Europe is not going to let them in, even though we recognise the desperate plight that many of them are in.

Those whose plight was truly desperate would probably have continued to come anyway, but Merkel's policy made sure than hundreds of thousands of economic migrants who would otherwise have stayed put have also come.

UE, I see and accept your argument. However, I think you lean to heavily on 'reality'. I don't think we can be sure there's such a thing any more, at least not an uncontested objective reality. By that I mean situations absolutely aren't black and white, there is deep complexity. I simply don't believe there is a 'right' or 'simple' solution to the situation we face. Anyone claiming such is on a hiding to nothing in my opinion.

There's an uncontested objective reality in the sense that 25 times as many migrants arrived in the first two months of this year than did in the same period last year.

I'd also argue that it is very hard to deny that the main reason for this increase is the German open door policy.

You are talking about what is morally right or wrong, and I accept that this is harder to define. This particular argument, on this particular forum, is partly also shaped by its history. That is, Biff has spent quite a lot of time condemning the morality of other people on the issue, and some of the claims he has made in the past have been conclusively proven false. He has on many occasions said that "there is no reason to believe millions of people would want to come here", in defence of an open door policy. Part of the reason this has come to a head now is that I want Biff to admit that this claim was wrong, and refrain from repeating it. It is very obvious that a very large number of people would like to come here - far more than we can reasonably accept. This alone makes Biff's open door policy untenable, regardless of any other considerations.

clv101 wrote:Was Merkal wrong, it encouraged people to come?

Quite frankly, I struggle to understand how anybody could have been so unbelievably stupid as to believe it wouldn't encourage more people to come. When Biff said he didn't think that many people would want to come, I accused him of being disingenuous. But maybe some people really didn't get it, although how they managed to get it so wrong I don't know.

Put yourself in the position of countless millions of people in north Africa, the middle east and western/central Asia. Not the ones who have had their homes destroyed by bombing or their towns taken over by ISIS - just ordinary people who aren't particularly well off in Iran, Afghanistan, North Africa, etc... They know that hundreds of thousands of people from Iraq and Syria are trying to get to Europe, and now they hear Angela Merkel say "Anyone who gets to Germany can stay!" If you are a young-ish single male (or "married" in the Islamic sense to some very young female) then why the hell not go for it? This might be the one and only chance you get of a better life in Europe. Why should all those Syrians and Iraqis have a monopoly on places in the Promised Land, with free health care and housing and benefits?

That some people couldn't see this coming is very hard to understand. For them to continue to deny that millions of people want to come to Europe even after it has become a manifest reality is totally unforgivable. It's not on.

The Germans must now reverse their policy, the borders of Europe must be sealed, and all economic migrants must be repatriated. The message has to be what it should have been 9 months ago: "EUROPE IS CLOSED. DO NOT COME HERE." And this is not temporary. It is permanent.

It is unfortunate that my words are taken out of context and re-interpreted to mean pretty much the opposite of what I intended.

"When Biff said he didn't think that many people would want to come" he meant (and had previously explained this) that most people do not want to migrate, preferring to be buried with their ancestors, but when their homeland is devastated by war or by climate catastrophe or when their economic situation is unbearable, and they see an opportunity for survival and betterment by migrating, the only rational course will be to up sticks and travel if they are able.

It's not that they want to come here; it's that the alternative of staying put is worse.

If we want to reduce migration (and I certainly do wish that) then we must reduce the push factors. We must stop making bombs, fighting wars, encouraging and enabling others to fight wars, we must stop the theft of natural resources and the exploitation of labour, we must mitigate climate change and we must pay for climate change adaptation and we must begin a massive transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor.

The object of the exercise is to create a global system in which 7 billion people can be fed sustainably and have other basic needs met so that we can all live securely in the region and culture of our birth and also have the right and freedom to move elsewhere and live with new people if we so chose. (Though we'd probably have to walk or ride a bike rather than fly.)

Those who see fences and borders as useful tools are heading in a direction I wish to have no part of.