Brilliant. Fun stunt that clearly impacted lots of people & communicated the basic humanity behind opposition to immigration controls simply and effectively.

Dearie me. I’m all for people trying to make a serious case for open borders (or anything else), but what is a stunt like this supposed to prove?

Is there a follow-up in which a dozen pissed-off bridge-users go and sit in Mr Megaphone’s living room, shouting in his face that his rules on who gets to enter his house are just ‘arbitrary’?

“All immigration controls are unjust and racist.”

This statement is so extreme it will attract almost no support. If anything, it will harm the case for fewer immigration controls by associating mainstream discussions about society and the economy with smug idealists. It’s a bit like saying “we need to do something about rape, let’s start by saying all men are rapists”.

As ever, if you actually care about the issue, stand away from the extremists.

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2011/05/who-owns-sweden-nine-million-swedish-or.html

I agree that most immigration laws are arbitrary and silly, as well as aggressively enforced, but i am not sure this is hitting a deep moral intuition right here.

@3. “All immigration controls are unjust and racist.” / “No One Is Illegal”

Well, isn’t this the logical conclusion of progressive thinking?

Anyone who hates the unjust privilege of inherited wealth should also hate the unjust privilege of being born within a relatively wealthy country. What did we do to deserve a welfare state? Isn’t everyone equally deserving? Shouldn’t people who refuse to share be *forced* to share?

I would love to hear a progressive, liberal and Left-wing defence of closed borders as anything more than a temporary historical anomaly.

A great stunt that makes a valid point extremely well. A decade of ‘progressive’ government and all we got was more and more border controls in a desperate attempt to appease racists.

@ 5 Vladamir

“I would love to hear a progressive, liberal and Left-wing defence of closed borders as anything more than a temporary historical anomaly.”

Assuming you mean restrictions on immigration rather than totally open borders, there’s room to defend them on the grounds of regrettable practical necessity. In the hypothetical situation that 10 million people wanted to move to Britain at once, we’d have problems.

Would it really take as many as 10 million? Here’s a more realistic hypothetical: Say that we increase the amount of unskilled labour relative to skilled labour. If you are a member of the class of skilled labourers, your position has improved. If you are a member of the class of unskilled labourers, not so much. If the gains to the skilled class are large enough, this could even occur while the lot of the average labourer improves. This is something that any leftist should appreciate.

@ 8 vimothy

“Would it really take as many as 10 million?”

Hardly. I was deliberately using a massive figure so that it didn’t seem debateable whether or not the system would be able to cope.

“Say that we increase the amount of unskilled labour relative to skilled labour. If you are a member of the class of skilled labourers, your position has improved. If you are a member of the class of unskilled labourers, not so much.”

Yep, although morally we’re back to the question of whether the harm to existing UK unskilled labourers is higher than the benefit to the prospective immigrants. From a practical standpoint: sure, this is the sort of thing you have to take into account. It’s more an argument for managed immigration than reducing immigration.

Are you saying that no one has any right to object to immigration, even if their interests are harmed by it, as long as the interests of the immigrants are being furthered?

@7. Indeed, that’s the sort of thing I mean. From a progressive viewpoint, borders are only defensible on temporary practical grounds.

Therefore, I’m not so sure that the man in the video really is an “extremist”. Isn’t he just saying what we should all be thinking, but don’t dare to say?

To be clear, I must point out that this is not what I think we should be thinking at all. I think a country belongs to the people who live in it, who are perfectly entitled to choose who else can visit and who else can stay.

I’m not sure that I agree with the sentiment but it’s worth posting because it’s such a glorious stunt!

@ vimothy

“Are you saying that no one has any right to object to immigration, even if their interests are harmed by it, as long as the interests of the immigrants are being furthered?”

Of course not. You have the right to object to anything you like.

“Therefore, I’m not so sure that the man in the video really is an “extremist”. Isn’t he just saying what we should all be thinking, but don’t dare to say?”

Who says he’s an extremist? The idea that we should be thinking something but don’t dare to say it doesn’t make sense. You’re suggesting people are censoring views that they do not, in fact, hold.

@13. Chaise Guevara

But you wrote that,

“morally we’re back to the question of whether the harm to existing UK unskilled labourers is higher than the benefit to the prospective immigrants.”

I read that as a claim that the relevant measure of the efficacy of immigration policy is not whether it makes the citizens, in whose name elected representative govern, better off, but whether it makes somebody, anybody, better off regardless of whether or not they are actually citizens or not. In other words, you’re assigning equal weight to the welfare of the people policy makers are supposed to represent and everyone else.

Aargh, sorry, should read,

“I read that as a claim that the relevant measure of the efficacy of immigration policy is not whether it makes the citizens, in whose name elected representative govern, better off, but whether it makes somebody, anybody, better off, regardless of whether or not they are actually citizens.”

@ 14 vimothy

You read me right. But you seem to be seeing a contradiction in what I’m saying, and I honestly don’t know what it is.

Not a contradiction, sorry, just trying to clarify.

@ 17 vimothy

Cool, no worries.

I can see how one could view our immigration controls as being unjust, but I don’t understand how they are racist.

In Spain, young people are protesting about youth unemployment rates of 45%.
So I don’t know where all the young people from North Africa who are crossing into Europe are supposed to get jobs. Selling the Big Issue?
I heard some who have been frustrated by their experience of living rough in Paris, have said that they have an idea it could be better in England and so will try to get there.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tunisian+migrants+paris&aq=f

@ 19 ukliberty

It’s not necessary to be racist to desire closed borders, but for obvious reasons the two attitudes will at least correlate. So it’s reasonable to assume that some people who don’t like immigration are driven by racism.

That in itself does nothing to actually argue against closed borders, and our specific policies are not racist in any way I’m aware of, but I can see why accusations of racism tend to fly when this issue comes up.

@ 20 damon

“In Spain, young people are protesting about youth unemployment rates of 45%.
So I don’t know where all the young people from North Africa who are crossing into Europe are supposed to get jobs. Selling the Big Issue?”

The number of available jobs is not fixed. Immigration increases both the number of workers and the number of jobs available.

Try this BBC Newsnight video report about London versus the UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7368326.stm

According to the report, 40% of London’s population was born abroad.

@22. Chaise Guevara

That’s far too simplistic. Immigration increases the number of workers, by definition. But that’s all you can say for certain.

The economy, like the population, is always growing (well, apart from when it’s not). The relevant questions are: Will the economy grow at a faster rate because of immigration? And, What are the implications in terms of the distribution of wealth?

@13 “Who says he’s an extremist? The idea that we should be thinking something but don’t dare to say it doesn’t make sense. You’re suggesting people are censoring views that they do not, in fact, hold.”

Within this thread, @3 said: “As ever, if you actually care about the issue, stand away from the extremists.” So I’m really responding to that. I question whether this person really is “extreme” in any sense other than being outspoken.

Why might someone think something and not dare to say it? Well, suppose they believe that solution X is the best way to solve problem Y… but also know that a large group of people, Z, disagree with them to the extent that any advocacy of X will immediately get them written off as complete nutters. So instead of openly advocating X, they advocate a moderate position X’ which prepares the groundwork for X without annoying Z. I think this situation is quite common in politics.

@ 25 Vladamir

“Within this thread, @3 said: “As ever, if you actually care about the issue, stand away from the extremists.” So I’m really responding to that. I question whether this person really is “extreme” in any sense other than being outspoken.”

I don’t think his politics are extreme. His methods might be, but I’d shy away from the word “extremist” because people love using it to associate people they don’t like with terrorists.

“Why might someone think something and not dare to say it?”

That’s not what you said, and it’s not what I was asking you about. You said:

“Isn’t he just saying what we should all be thinking, but don’t dare to say?”

What we SHOULD all be thinking. Which doesn’t mean we ARE all thinking it. And if people aren’t thinking it (regardless of how we think they SHOULD think), it doesn’t make sense to say they don’t dare express this thought that they don’t actually believe in anyway.

@ 24 vimothy

“That’s far too simplistic. Immigration increases the number of workers, by definition. But that’s all you can say for certain.”

It’s not simplistic to say that increasing the population will create more jobs by increasing demand. It’s an obvious fact. I suspect you’re assuming that I wanted to imply that immigration would create enough jobs to neutralise the effect of the increased number of workers. I’m not claiming that, I’m just pointing out that damon’s post ignores the fact that more jobs will be created. Immigration could lead to the ratio of jobs to workers increasing or decreasing.

“The economy, like the population, is always growing (well, apart from when it’s not). The relevant questions are: Will the economy grow at a faster rate because of immigration? And, What are the implications in terms of the distribution of wealth?”

Agreed.

The number of available jobs is not fixed. Immigration increases both the number of workers and the number of jobs available.

Yes it does. But not necessarily seamlessly and without complications and anomalies.
Several thousand Tunisian young men arriving in Paris all of a sudden don’t mean things will just open up for them. There’s racism for a start.
And they must be at the ”back of the queue” for work, behind the French youth from the suburbs who also have high rates of unemployment.

http://www.english.rfi.fr/france/20101216-french-city-suburbs-face-dramatic-rise-unemployment-rates

Also, their first need is for housing, and then papers to allow them to work.
And if they get that, their family and friends back in Tunisia will soon follow them there.

@ damon

Fair enough.

@26 “That’s not what you said, and it’s not what I was asking you about.”

Ah, ok. I misunderstood. I agree that my original sentence didn’t make much (any) sense.

I asked my genius six year old what he thought after watching the video. He said anyone should be able to go wherever they like “unless they did a robbery or hurt someone”

I’m becoming more and more convinced that the child-manifesto is the way to go.

I agree with the principles of a borderless world. However, I don’t think the world is anywhere near such an ideal. In fact, I think the world has mentally regressed over the last fifteen years or so in terms of large movements of people across arbitrary lines on the map. Nationalism is unfortunately more deep-rooted than desirable. Moreover, lefties need to confront what they value most because a borderless world is incompatible with a welfare state.

Islands have some sort of logic as natural borders. However, imaginary lines drawn across land masses are quite absurd.

The population density south of the Sino-Russian border is a great deal higher than that north of the border. Climate change could well improve the attractions of living in the far east of Russia and I would expect that could induce some of those presently living south of the border to want to settle further north. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Living in London, it has become very noticeable that some 40% of the population was born abroad – just travel on public transport, as I do, to hear the different languages spoken.

Free trade arguments are only logically consistent if the freedom of travel of goods is accompanied by freedom of travel of labour. Anything else under the banner of free trade will be a mess.

Good to see someone exposing the absurdity of the concept of borders, with good humour

@ 30

“Ah, ok. I misunderstood. I agree that my original sentence didn’t make much (any) sense.”

No probs!

@ David

“Good to see someone exposing the absurdity of the concept of borders, with good humour”

While I think the idea has style, I have to say I don’t like the idea of causing problems for random citizens, who have nothing directly to do with the issue and can’t change anything. There’s an element of random bullying there.

Why is it that while 40% of London residents were born abroad, for the rest of Britain the figure is about 8%?

At the time of the 2001 Census – sadly the figures for the 2011 Census aren’t out yet – almost half of all ethic minorities living in Britain were living in London:

Non-White ethnic groups are considerably more likely to live in England than in the other countries of the UK. In 2001 they made up 9 per cent of the total population in England compared with only 2 per cent in both Scotland and Wales, and less than 1 per cent in Northern Ireland.

The non-White population of the UK is concentrated in the large urban centres. Nearly half (45 per cent) lived in the London region in 2001, where they comprised 29 per cent of all residents.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=457

WHICH POLITICIANS ARE IN COLLUSION WITH THIS ISSUE?

Which politicians are complicit? Does the border stay open for this reason?

You wouldn’t think that the illegal immigrant occupation of America would have anything to do with any conspiracy theory? Do I believe in conspiracies? Never did, but something turned up that seems to have a lot of credence to it? Each day Americans worry about feeding their families, paying mortgages or even the 15 million still seeking work? At the same time States adjoining Georgia or Alabama, less lenient States are angry that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens may be heading their way? Same situation with Arizona as new policing laws could have countless numbers of illegal immigrant families will find a sanctuary in California and Nevada, with lax laws. Specifically if you believe in the reams of classified information appearing from that very controversial website Wikileaks http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2005/01/05OTTAWA268.html

A covert document recently released by WikiLeaks discloses a elevated level of information between the US and Canadian Ambassador Paul Celluci promoting a merger of the United States, Canada, and Mexico as plans for “North American Integration,” also called “North American Union.” into pathway for a future North American “single market and a possible single currency.” For at least a decade investigators and whistle-blowers have attempted to warn the public relating to integration of the nations of Canada, Mexico and the United States of America and have been met with devastating mockery. The Wikileaks document unmistakably indicates that the agenda is to avoid the US in protecting citizens from terrorists or diseases from interfering with trade and other economic interests.

This agenda would be united with joint electronic security perimeter with a reduced amount of focus on physical borders. Are the American people to understand that the 20 million plus illegal aliens imported here, including border crossers and visa overstays was a treasonous intentional move to integrate the American culture, with people of every nationality? Is this undeniable proof that this is been deliberate moving on the part of previous and today’s administrations? Was President Bush’s Social Security Administration (SSA) recently signed in June 2004 a highly controversial accord that could add millions of Mexicans, some who worked here illegally, to the Social Security rolls associated with (NAU) North American Union? Is this why the 2006 Secure Fence Act was dismantled, by two Republican Texas Senators and unfunded? That the original two layer fence topped with concertina razor wire remains a dream.

Is this yet another reason why, the Democrats and Republicans have put every obstacle in the way of the business policing E-Verification program and the criminal national fingerprinting using Secure Communities ICE databases? Are both parties instrumental in this anti-sovereignty merger, forcing on the American citizens millions of foreign nationals demonstrating in the streets of every city and town? US politicians advocating to the North American assimilation plans are claiming “our immigration systems are broken” when in fact the immigration systems have been compromised by those pressing for a merger of the populations of the three countries? Perhaps this is why they want the 1986 Immigration Control & Reform Act rescinded as it’s an impediment to this cause?

These secret documents reveal a well developed plan that advocates secrecy, with an incremental approach as not to alarm the public. This issue was never about a person’s race or religion, but about money and power. Democrats have tried to drive a wedge between Hispanics and the General population, But the plain fact is that there are millions of legalized and multi-generations of Hispanic citizens, who wish to disassociate themselves from South of the border. Equally abhorrent are overstays recognized to be 40 percent of the illegal occupation. If Mexico and other countries has a way of tracking arrivals through ports of entry, by plane, ship or even over the Canadian border, why is this not implemented by Homeland Security and ICE? Hispanic and honest legalized immigrants are cordially welcome to join the TEA PARTY.

It’s more important than ever to join the PEOPLES party, the TEA PARTY. The Tea Party is for all legal Americans, naturalized citizens and those holding green cards. This un-American movement will not be tolerated, and should never be ratified without a national referendum. Our country is a nation of laws, especially when it comes to integration of other countries. Currently the Democrats desire to force on—ALL—the American peoples a new Amnesty, cloaked in Immigration Reform. Indirectly the Dream Act would have the same purpose, allowing these Students to sponsor family members. Chain Migration is already accelerating and costing Americans billions of dollars a year. Sanctuary states are another enigma, which is about sheltering foreign nationals which is California’s and Nevada’s cross to bare.

It’s unfortunate we don’t follow the same laws as countries in Europe, which is using a “PointsSystem” for legal immigration. Offering entry visas to the highly skilled people with profession experience in their specialized occupation, as they will not end up in the welfare offices? Today, in most cases through illegal immigration the American people are serving on a plate education to illegal children, free treatment in emergency rooms, pre and post pregnant women receiving free natal care and delivery, with food stamps, Section 8 housing and $600.00 payments for every child conceived. We are Catering to In-state tuition for illegal students, although America’s children from other States must pay full cost.

The 1986 Amnesty cost taxpayers 76 billion dollars. A new reform package will cost an astronomical figure, which comes out your pocket. Even scarier is supporting the illegal alien household that has already settled here? Some say 12 million, but most non-profit sovereignty groups say it’s over 20 million and counting? Can we afford subsidizing the farming community anymore, as they pay nothing in benefits and small living wage? No health care and we pay their children’s schooling. Temporary Guest Worker programs are rampant with fraud, as all special visas for employment. It certainly makes no logical sense when 15 million Americans cannot find work? We just cannot be the emergency room care or education entitlement for the rest of the world, anymore. Another major issue is foreigners voting in only-for-citizens election. This is no longer a isolated issue and States nationwide, need to enact stringent rules that includes showing picture ID to prove they are legally able to vote? Join the Tea Party and also ply your representatives in Washington, State or even local level for answers?

Contact them at Senate—202-224–3121/ House—202-225–3121.

NO Copyright. Copy & Paste. Distribute Freely

now, that, that I like.

Excellent stunt making an excellent libertarian point.

People should be free tot travel and live where they wish regardless of arbitrary state borders.

Head back to the fundamentals “Why do you think you have a right to be on that side?” Because some of the money the government took from me went into paying for it. I paid for that, I’ve bought that; at least in part.

Look at it that way and the rich getting in makes sense. They’re doing what we’re doing – buying their way in. Workers are also buying their way in through income tax. Refugees don’t. From a populist point of view they come here and expect us to maintain them; is that right and fair?

Say no, as readers of some newspapers probably would, and one has to ask what about the unemployed currently in this country. How are they paying to be in this country? If their parents are working or did work did they pay for their descendent to stay? How many generations back can we go or is it perpetual?

I’m not disagreeing with the message just that they rules aren’t necessarily as arbitrary as they’re made out to be.

Charlie Vietch strikes again! – showing the idiocy of Government and the lack of scrutiny by the sheepeople.

To all the objectors on this post to this activity I have one thing to say.

FREE MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL BUT NO FREE MOVEMENT OF LABOUR TO FOLLOW IT.

Go work it out dumbasses.

@ Bob B

“Why is it that while 40% of London residents were born abroad, for the rest of Britain the figure is about 8%?”

Why does this matter? And why do you never bloody say what you mean until you’ve asked some weird tangential questions?

@ Bob B: “Why is it that while 40% of London residents were born abroad, for the rest of Britain the figure is about 8%?”

Which reminds me of the apocryphal story about Willie Sutton who robbed banks “because that it is where the money is”. In the case of UK residents born overseas, they are most likely to live in London and the south east because that is where they can get jobs.

Bob also mentioned the extraordinarily low immigration rate in Northern Ireland. Sadly, this is reflection of NI racism. In the 1970s the UK government settled some Vietnamese boat people in Belfast. In a bizarre press interview, the refugees were asked whether they felt safer in NI than their former homes, and the answer was yes. I do not know how similar refugees would respond today.

@42

lack of scrutiny by the sheepeople.

Yet not the lack of scrutiny of the government, who almost definitely want free movement of both capital and labour; but lack of scrutiny of the media who’s banging on about waves of immigration.

The government want to be re-elected. If the people, through the voice of the most popular tabloids, want a tougher immigration stance they’re just giving them want they want.