Immigration - the great non-debate

Summary

The speaker addresses the controversial topic of immigration, challenging the binary view that one must either support open borders or oppose all immigration. They critique the tendency for people to take extreme positions without considering the complexities involved. The speaker also mocks the political parties for their contradictory stances and the public's tendency to oversimplify the issue. They conclude by urging viewers to either propose a specific, well-reasoned number of immigrants or refrain from making baseless statements, calling the heated debate 'hot air' without concrete proposals.

Takeaways

• 😀 The speaker acknowledges the controversial nature of discussing immigration and the potential for losing subscribers due to the topic's sensitivity.
• 😡 The script describes two types of reactions to the topic: one from those who are outraged and express their anger with vitriol, and another from those who are eager to engage in the debate.
• 🏛 The speaker criticizes the oversimplification of the immigration debate into two camps: 'too many immigrants' and 'too few immigrants', suggesting that this polarization is unhelpful.
• 🤔 The script points out the irony in the political parties' stances on immigration, with the Conservative Party traditionally favoring immigration for economic reasons and the Labour Party opposing it to protect workers.
• 👥 The speaker highlights the disconnect between the perceived representation of the political parties and the actual interests of the groups they claim to represent.
• 📈 The script questions the lack of clear policy from political parties regarding the optimal number of immigrants, suggesting that their positions are more about rhetoric than substantive policy.
• 🤷‍♂️ The speaker refuses to take a definitive stance on the number of immigrants, arguing that without a clear policy and understanding of the optimal number, any argument is baseless.
• 📊 The script mentions the complexity of the issue, with articles presenting conflicting views on whether immigrants contribute positively or negatively to the economy.
• 🤔 The speaker encourages viewers to consider that there may be more nuanced opinions on immigration beyond the binary 'more' or 'fewer' debate.
• 🗣️ The script challenges viewers to either state a clear, optimal number of immigrants and a policy to achieve it, or to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims.
• 🤐 The final takeaway is a call for viewers to either contribute meaningfully to the debate by providing concrete numbers and policies, or to remain silent if they cannot.

Q & A

What is the speaker's attitude towards discussing the topic of immigration?

The speaker is willing to discuss immigration despite acknowledging that it can be a contentious topic that may lead to the loss of subscribers.

Why might some people react negatively to the speaker's videos on political themes?

Some people may react negatively because they strongly disagree with the speaker's views, leading to anger, unsubscribing, and other negative responses like shouting in comments and disliking the video.

What are the two perceived camps in the immigration debate according to the speaker?

The two perceived camps are those who believe there are too many immigrants coming in and those who believe there are too few immigrants coming in.

How does the speaker describe the reactions of people who strongly agree or disagree with his stance on immigration?

The speaker describes people who strongly agree as cheering and sharing his content, while those who disagree react with outrage, often unsubscribing and using aggressive language in their responses.

What is the speaker's view on the labels 'right-wing' and 'left-wing'?

The speaker views these labels as arbitrary and meaningless, suggesting that they are just packages of unrelated policies associated with certain parties.

What does the speaker suggest about the Conservative and Labour parties' positions on immigration?

The speaker suggests that traditionally, the Conservative Party is seen as pro-immigration due to its association with business owners, while the Labour Party is seen as anti-immigration because it is associated with workers whose jobs might be threatened by immigrants.

Why does the speaker believe that the actual policies of the Conservative and Labour parties might not reflect the interests they supposedly represent?

The speaker believes that both parties are founded on contradictions and have to appeal to a wider range of voters, which can lead to them representing interests that are not aligned with their traditional labels.

What does the speaker suggest about the public's understanding of the immigration debate?

The speaker suggests that the public's understanding is often oversimplified and based on stereotypes, with each side accusing the other of extreme positions that they do not actually hold.

What is the speaker's approach to the immigration debate?

The speaker chooses not to take a firm stance on the number of immigrants a country should have, instead encouraging viewers to consider that there may be more nuanced opinions beyond simply 'more' or 'fewer' immigrants.

What challenge does the speaker pose to those who want to influence immigration policy?

The speaker challenges them to state a specific optimum number of immigrants and propose a policy that would achieve and maintain that number, suggesting that without these specifics, their arguments are just 'hot air'.

What advice does the speaker give to viewers who are about to express their opinions on immigration on social media?

The speaker advises viewers to either state a clear optimum number of immigrants or consider not expressing an opinion at all, to avoid contributing to the oversimplified and heated debate.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ The Challenges of Discussing Immigration

The speaker introduces the topic of immigration, acknowledging its potential to stir strong emotions and possibly lead to a loss of subscribers. They note the polarization in the debate, suggesting that people often fall into two camps: those who believe there are too many immigrants and those who think there are too few. The speaker critiques the binary nature of this debate and highlights the tendency for people to align with a group and demonize the opposing view. They also touch on the demographic changes in Britain, particularly in the southeast, where a majority of babies are born to mothers not born in Britain.

05:00

🤔 The Complexities of Political Stances on Immigration

This paragraph delves into the political landscape surrounding immigration, focusing on the Conservative and Labour parties in Britain. The speaker discusses the traditional associations of these parties with the owning and working classes, respectively, and how these affiliations influence their stances on immigration. They point out the irony that the Conservative Party, typically seen as pro-immigration for economic reasons, may not actually represent the interests of the factory owners, while the Labour Party, perceived as anti-immigration, is actually run by middle-class individuals. The speaker also criticizes the lack of clear policy on the optimal number of immigrants, suggesting that both parties may have more nuanced views than they publicly express.

10:02

📊 The Myths and Realities of Immigration Debates

The speaker challenges the common myths and accusations within the immigration debate, such as labeling those who want less immigration as 'evil xenophobes' and those who want more as 'incompetent idiots'. They argue that these labels are simplistic and do not reflect the actual positions of the individuals involved. The speaker suggests that both sides of the debate may actually have similar views on the optimal number of immigrants, but are posturing for political reasons. They emphasize the need for a more nuanced discussion that goes beyond binary positions and soundbites.

15:05

📝 The Need for Concrete Immigration Policies

In the final paragraph, the speaker calls for a more thoughtful and data-driven approach to discussing immigration. They argue that anyone advocating for a change in immigration policy should be able to provide a specific number that represents the optimal level of immigration and propose a policy that can achieve and maintain this number. The speaker acknowledges the complexity of the issue and criticizes the lack of concrete proposals from both sides of the debate. They conclude by urging viewers to consider the broader context and the need for a more sophisticated understanding of immigration's impact on society and the economy.

Keywords

💡Immigration

Immigration refers to the movement of people from one country to another with the intention of residing, working, or settling there permanently. In the video, the theme revolves around the contentious debate on immigration, highlighting the emotional and polarized reactions it often elicits. The script mentions how discussions on immigration can lead to anger and even loss of subscribers, indicating the sensitivity and divisiveness of the topic.

💡Outrage

Outrage, in this context, denotes a strong feeling of anger or annoyance provoked by what is perceived as unfair or wrong. The video script describes how some individuals react with outrage to discussions on immigration, often expressing their displeasure through aggressive messages and actions such as unsubscribing, sharing negative comments, and disliking the content.

💡Political

Political refers to matters, activities, or policies relating to the government or the public affairs of a country. The video script acknowledges that the topic of immigration is inherently political, as it involves government policies and decisions that can significantly impact a nation's social, economic, and cultural landscape.

💡In-group

An in-group is a social collective with which an individual identifies and feels a sense of belonging. The script discusses how people may share content that aligns with their in-group's views on immigration, using it as a way to signal their affiliation and to distinguish themselves from those with opposing views.

💡Xenophobia

Xenophobia is the fear or hatred of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange. In the script, the term is used to describe the negative characterization of those who are against immigration, suggesting that their stance is driven by an irrational fear of foreigners rather than a well-considered position.

💡Optimum Number

The optimum number refers to the most ideal or best amount or quantity for a given situation. The video challenges viewers to consider what the optimum number of immigrants might be for a country, emphasizing that this is a complex issue that requires more than just a simplistic 'more' or 'fewer' approach.

💡Polarization

Polarization describes a situation where opinions are divided into opposing groups with little common ground. The script illustrates the polarization in the immigration debate, with people taking extreme positions and engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than reasoned discussion.

💡Stereotyping

Stereotyping involves making generalized and often oversimplified assumptions about a group of people. The video script points out how both sides of the immigration debate stereotype each other, attributing negative traits such as 'evil' or 'idiots' to those with differing views.

💡Hot Air

In the context of the video, 'hot air' refers to speech or arguments that are empty of substance or meaning, often used to criticize rhetoric that lacks depth or validity. The script suggests that much of the debate around immigration is 'hot air' because it fails to address the complexities of the issue or propose meaningful solutions.

💡Policy

Policy refers to a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual. The video emphasizes the need for clear and effective policies regarding immigration, questioning the audience to consider how they would formulate a policy that could achieve and maintain an optimum number of immigrants.

💡Sustainability

Sustainability, in this context, implies the ability to maintain a certain process or state in a long-term context without causing depletion or harm. The script uses the term to critique the idea of unlimited immigration, suggesting that it could be unsustainable and potentially lead to the depletion of resources.

Highlights

The speaker discusses the controversial nature of the immigration topic and its potential to cause audience reactions, including losing subscribers.

Two perceived camps in the immigration debate: those who believe there are too many immigrants and those who believe there are too few.

The emotional reactions to the immigration debate, with some people expressing outrage and unsubscribing from content they disagree with.

The tendency for people to self-identify with a group and share content that aligns with their group's views on social media.

The speaker humorously addresses the potential for misalignment between political party positions and the interests they supposedly represent.

The portrayal of the Conservative Party as traditionally pro-immigration due to economic benefits for the owning classes.

The Labour Party's perceived stance as anti-immigration, supposedly representing the working class whose jobs may be threatened by immigration.

The speaker points out the irony that the actual policies of political parties may not align with the simplified narratives often presented in the immigration debate.

The challenge of defining an 'optimum' number of immigrants for a country and the difficulty in creating policies to achieve and maintain this number.

The speaker suggests that the immigration debate often lacks concrete proposals and instead consists of accusations and generalizations.

The importance of considering the complexity of the immigration issue rather than relying on simplified narratives or emotional reactions.

The speaker encourages viewers to critically evaluate the immigration debate and to consider that there may be more nuanced views beyond the two perceived camps.

The call for individuals to either state a clear position on the optimum number of immigrants or to refrain from contributing to the debate without a well-reasoned argument.

The humorous conclusion that without a clear policy proposal or a defined optimum number, the immigration debate is largely 'hot air'.

The speaker's final recommendation for viewers to either articulate a specific stance on immigration or to remain silent on the issue.

Transcripts

I'm going to talk about immigration

that's right immigration now some people

might be saying oh Lloyd are you sure

you want to be taking on that topic I

mean a lot of people get very angry

about this one and you may lose

subscribers and it's true but every

single time that I make a video that is

even faintly political in theme I lose

subscribers but you know I'm not in this

just for the money so you know buh-bye

to those people I can probably do

without you but there are people who

just he's going to talk about

immigration

why and they thought and foam at the

mouth are they engaged they're outraged

cheap and they the type message is all

in big shouty capital letters with loads

and loads of exclamation marks filled

with lots of completely unnecessary bile

vitriol and hatred and then they

unsubscribe and unshared dislike and and

thumbs down all those buttons they could

think of and they wish that they were

more well bye-bye to you now but there's

another category a little bit more

common and which may be thinking of ah

he's gonna be talking about immigration

great I'll get the popcorn hey hey

talk away man because for me this is

win-win because there are only two camps

of opinion on the immigration debate

aren't there only two there are far too

many immigrants coming in or there are

far too few immigrants coming in those

are the only two possible views you

could hold on this topic and if you

agrees with me I'll be able to say yeah

damn straight yeah he's he's saying it

as it is

yeah you said going one-one Grif ik like

Sheltie comments long exclamation mark

share with all my friends on Facebook

yeah and by sharing it with my friends

on Facebook of course what I'm doing is

I'm saying to all of them I'm a member

of the in-group and reminding you all

that I'm I'm a good guy in this camp

whichever the correct camp is and and

we're all in this together not like

those other people who are all bad

because they're in the other camp of

opinion I only make friends with people

who agree with me on everything but wait

a minute

maybe I voice opinions that perhaps just

hint at my being in the other camp the

wrong count in which case they get to

how a wonderful moment of outrage and

they get to write the shouty that the

shouty thing and perhaps in

self-righteously unsubscribed and maybe

they could still share it on facebook

because they'll be able to say haha I'm

not in this group I am good look at this

man he's bad he's in the wrong cam

whichever camp that is so what are the

two camps well I don't know which

country you're in you may be in a

country which is not like Britain but I

think a lot of you are in countries

where there are far more people trying

and having difficulty getting into the

country than there are trying to leave

the country and having difficulty in

doing so Britain is certainly

oversubscribed in the southeast of

Britain right now most babies are born

to mothers who were not born in Britain

and most people in Britain live in the

southeast now in Britain actually I

can't say Britain all right in England

the nationalists have pretty much taken

over Scotland right now but in England

sorry Wales the the two parties that

stand any reasonable chance of actually

forming a government are the

Conservative which I shall put on your

on you is that your right yeah on your

right yes and the the Labour Party which

is on your left I'm a little bit

confused here because the monitor next

to the camera is of course mirror image

and everything's backwards that is your

right isn't it yes that's your that so

the Conservative Party is supposedly

right-wing now of course right-wing

doesn't actually mean anything it's a

completely arbitrary label where you get

a load of completely unrelated policies

and package them all together and and

associate them with one party and but

all those policies are subject to change

in fact at pretty much any given policy

whatever you pick at some point it has

been advocated by the opposition party

at some point in the past they chop and

change but it's a completely arbitrary

packaging of views into supposedly

right-wing now in the minds of the

population of Britain the Conservative

Party is associated with representing

the views of the owning classes you know

the landed gentry the factory owners the

farm owners and so forth the people who

employ other people whereas the Labour

Party which is the supposedly left-wing

party which isn't actually left-wing but

nevermind

besides left-wing doesn't mean anything

it supposedly represents the workingman

the wage earners so if a company does

really well these people pocket the

profit per a and these people don't lose

their jobs hurray

and there is a general Association

people's minds which is quite

unnecessary but never mind that this lot

want less immigration and these people

want more immigration now why should

that be so well traditionally these

people as I say have been the owning

classes so if you're a factory owner

then you'd be all for immigration with

new I mean it's terrific if you want to

get to skilled labor you either have to

poach it off another company and and pay

lots of money for it or you have to

train those people up which takes time

and cost money or you can just get a

skilled immigrant to straight in and

they'll be so happy to get the job

you'll be able to pay them less in their

very hard workers and you get loads

loads of cheap laborers as well and

that's terrific so they're going to be

really pro-immigration and they'll want

to I mean my last 300 pairs were all

that good so they're all super right so

these people can be naturally very Pro

immigration whereas these people are

getting naturally very anti-immigration

because they're the representatives of

the workers whose jobs are directly

threatened by the immigrants and who

rely on all the services the welfare

they're the National Health Health

Service the council housing and so forth

all those services which have been

stretched to the limit because of all

these immigrants um only wait wait now

wait a minute I've got it back to front

haven't I because these people are

supposedly saying there should be fewer

immigrants and these people should be

saying that there's more so how does it

manage to get back to front well of

course both of these parties are founded

on fundamental contradictions and

falsehoods and how can the conservative

party ever hope to be elected and it

does keep getting elected over and over

because if it represented really just

the views of the factory owners and the

ruling classes those people will be

massively outnumbered in a democracy by

all the workers and so they would stand

no chance ever of being elected so they

have to come up with strategies to

appeal to a wider market of voters and

how do they do this well they put

themselves across as the party of

strength you see if sensibleness we are

a strong capable pair of hands

we give leadership you see we're strong

economy strong borders we are in control

of our borders

we'll keep Johnny foreigner out don't

you worry everyone vote for us vote for

us we're bricked and by implication the

others must be incompetent idiots

whereas this lot though representing the

views of the people who are most

directly threatened by immigrants

they're not actually the

running the party T the people who

actually run the labor party they're all

suit-wearing educated middle class types

and though they of course embrace the

the working classes and are very proud

of any connection they may have with

with the working classes and they

completely ignore the fact that loads of

people on this side of the house

actually I have working-class

backgrounds but that's not part of the

narrative they want to tell and they

will embrace the working classes but

with tongs you understand because there

are just three things they don't like

about the working classes everything

they say everything they do and

everything they believe but apart from

that apart from what they say do and

believe they love the working classes

there's a salt of the earth they're

wonderful wonderful people you should

get to know them I mean that the actual

MPs might not know many of them but you

should get to know that wonderful and so

each side is actually sort of

representing the wrong vested interest

on on this debate or is it because when

have you actually heard either of these

parties state clearly and plainly what

they think the optimum number of

immigrants is or what policies might

actually achieve that optimum generally

speaking the debate goes something like

this

those people are evil evil evil you're

here oh yes they want no immigrants to

come into this country and why why

because they are I get you the magic

word no or do yes I get you the magic

word a magic word is xenophobic yes

that's right they're xenophobic because

they are evil xenophobes now of course

they're not actually evil xenophobes

that doesn't make any sense at all

because I mean they are actually you

know sort of people like like everybody

else and they have you know wives and

husbands and sons and daughters and and

they run companies and they have

business deals and so forth if they were

actually evil then they would do evil

things and no one would like them they

would marry them or stay married to them

they'd hate their children the children

would hate them their business partners

would all desert them because they'd all

have been swindled at some point and so

they can't actually be evil and yes it's

also true of course that the richer more

educated classes tend to be the people

who travel more and a far more likely to

marry a foreigner and learn a foreign

language and so forth so actually over

there they're the people who are

probably the least xenophobic in their

houses or at least of those that we

represent but anyway they are evil

xenophobes because that's what fits the

narrative I want the public to

understand

and as evils in the folks they want to

let no one in they want to shut the

borders because they're frightened

frightened of finest because I evil vote

for us but for us we are not evil

therefore by implication we must be

angels vote for me sleep with me I'm

great we're all great on this side and

then all the post as a Facebook update

associated with us will be on the side

of the angels the Angels

yes great so um that's generally what

that side of the debate says so what we

get from the other side those people are

idiots well they're not actually idiots

I mean obviously it can't actually bear

any scrutiny that this accusation of

idiocy because they are actually almost

entirely composed of well-educated types

I mean here with Air France has got a

double first from Oxford but well the

purposes of rhetoric you understand the

narrative I want to get across to the

general public those people are

incompetent idiots

and oh I need to get use a magic word

don't tow something soundbite EO I got

it right I'm going to use um

unsustainable yes their policy on

immigration is unsustainable which is a

really good word to associate with no

long term idiocy a if they're suggesting

something which is unsustainable that is

going to stray all the resources of this

country and and has no end to it no talk

to no end to them then into it then the

magic word so unsustainable they are all

idiots even though they're obviously not

and they would let everybody in yes they

think that I wish it throw completely

open borders is that sensible no I think

it is not but for us but for us we are

sensible we are good we are strong for

us

so she Tercel for us because we are good

and strong yeah so each side is accusing

the other one of holding a position that

it quite flagrantly does not hold these

people over here are not actually saying

that they should let no one in I mean

where are going to get their repairs

from and these people are not actually

saying they can they let everybody in

because that would make them just look

will just really kill us no one is

actually saying either of those things

and yet people are quite happy to accuse

each other of things that they are quite

obviously not qualified to accuse the

others of um now it's reasonable to

imagine that

between zero and infinity there is an

optimum number of immigrants that a

country might let in

what is that optimum well you know what

I'm not going to say I'm not going to

tell you but I don't have to tell you

you see I have the luxury of not being

required to come up with an optimum

number because I'm not trying to change

anybody's behavior on this I'm not I'm

not going to try to persuade you my dear

respected viewer that I think you should

believe there should be more or fewer

immigrants to this country for several

reasons one being I don't know how many

immigrants you think should be led into

this country so how can I tell you this

you should think there should be more or

fewer when I don't know the number and

do these people know what these people

actually think you know what what number

would they come that's delicious

experiment but if only this could be

organized let's imagine that somehow we

get all the potential ruling parties to

agree to coming up come up in secret

with a binding number that they have to

stick to for the next 20 years or

something so how would they go about

that this lot would say right so we're

going to be committed to this quite

binding number so we better not come up

with a really small number for several

reasons one people might accuse us of

being evil and also actually there

already are loads of immigrants coming

into Britain right now and so if you

pick a really low target it's a target

we're gonna miss by miles and we're

going to look incompetent and that's not

very good and besides you know we we do

need a Latvian Au Pairs

so um let's actually pick a higher

number than they're expecting just come

up with well what actually in regional

what do you actually you attain herbal

reason is sustainable and lower hammer

okay yeah okay right well put what with

happening okay

see you in the envelope and this slot

house there but debate gonna go well we

can't actually pick infinity or II

actually you know if we pick five times

the current population of of the country

that's just going to make us look

absolutely ridiculous so we've gotta

pick something surprise actually a

speaker number that's lower than they

are expecting us so when they say AHA we

told everyone that they were idiots pick

up such a high number we're gonna bring

the wrong foot them by coming up with

actually a smaller number than they were

expecting so we don't look so stupid

and what actually is a reasonable number

yeah dismay and what numbers would they

come up with I think it's actually quite

likely that they would come up with very

similar numbers and it's far from

impossible that the numbers might

actually overlap this lot might actually

come help with a lower what it considers

to be the optimum number than this lot

and that would be hilarious and it would

prove that this entire debate has been a

load of posturing hot air and here's

where I I come to my to my point dear

viewer because I'm not in a position to

actually dictate policy in this country

I'm not an MP I'm not in government I'm

not in opposition to the government I

don't have to come up with cogent

arguments to counter the the policies of

the government and I'm not trying to

influence you one way or the other

into one of these two camps in fact I'd

like you to pop in to spot the fact that

maybe there are there are other possible

opinions to have on this than to simply

more or fewer now I've read articles in

papers where a journalist has has read

it written something really quite

reasonable well argued and backed up

with facts and statistics showing that

immigrants do in fact contribute to the

British economy and some people that's

the entire debate if they contribute to

the economy then they must be good in

every way as though that's everything

and then the next day or even the next

hour I will read another article written

by another very reasonable a journalist

who's backed up with facts and figures

and so forth the argument and I think oh

right actually yeah you're right they

they don't contribute to the economy in

fact it's a long term drained if we if

we bring in people to look after our old

folk then that's actually just a

long-term pyramid scheme that'sthat's a

bubble that's got to burst and no no

that doesn't make it to oh wait a minute

now I don't know what to think so do

they contribute to our economy or don't

they attribute to our contribute to our

economy it's almost as though it's quite

a complicated issue hmm so what I say to

you my dear respected an intelligent

viewer is if you are going to say

something which requires other people to

alter their behavior if you say to other

people you should think you should

accept more or fewer immigrants or

whatever it is then you're going to

actually have to come up with a number

an optimum number of immigrants that you

believe Britain should be should be

letting in or have within its boundaries

and you've also got to come up with and

this is I would say considerably harder

a policy which would actually achieve

that figure and then maintain it so

imagine there are at the moment this no

matter this is the optimum number of

immigrants we've only got this number at

the moment well obviously what we can do

we've got to come up with a policy which

increases the number till we get there

but then what's to stop that happening

oh no hang on oh no no no no no so then

you'd have to come up with a hook what

what policy could actually hold things

right there you're going to suddenly

change the law and then have what zero

immigration how is that going to work

if you can think of a policy that would

actually come up with the optimum number

and then maintain it well you're very

clever and I've never heard anyone come

up with a policy that will actually do

that but if you come up with one that

will be fantastic well done you but

until you come up with a policy that

will actually achieve that and until you

state quite definitely what the optimum

number of immigrants in whatever country

you're in is then everything you're

saying is just hot air you can't accuse

this lot of trying to let in more than

the optimum burr or this lot trying to

let in fewer if you don't state what you

think the opportunity is and you haven't

heard what they say the optimum number

is in fact it's all hot air so I say to

you before you update your status in in

Facebook or whatever and try to impress

all your friends by being solidly in one

camp or the other and you should perhaps

do one of two things one state the

number that you believe is the optimum

number of immigrants so that the people

here in your argument can actually

understand the context of it a context

which is entirely necessary for them to

make up their mind whether you're right

or wrong or - and there is a second

option and it's one which I think you

should really seriously consider shut up

lemurs