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.
