It annoys me you feel the need to step into this. As you note, it's a problem in the US, but not in most of Europe. Why do you feel the need to tell us how we should act. I don't get it. — T Clark

I will reply to the latter tomorrow morning. I would just like to quickly pick this weird comment up. This is a forum for discussion in many arenas, I pay a lot of attention to US politics, even more than my country. When I am at work I am always listening to a debate which is 80% of the time based on US politics.

This is the topic I would like to talk about, if you don’t like that, you can move on with your day rather than engaging with it. This just seems like an attempt to instantly discredit anything anyone has to say on the matter simply because we do not have bodies piled up from an issue most in Europe seem to have a grip on, maybe you should pay attention.

Can I ask why you dedicate so much energy into arguing a point that is illogical? What is the point of this if there is no effort to find common ground?

This may tell you something about your argument, then. If all and sundry are rejecting it for being both impractical, and logically weird (not a knock-down, to be sure) you might want to rethink it. Either you think crimes constituted by speech are not crimes (fraud, perjury, incitement, contract evasion and several other kinds besides) should never been curtailed by law..... — AmadeusD

Couldn't of said it better myself.

Wasn't it your argument that they rioted BECAUSE they didn't know the race of the person? You can't have your cake and eat it too. — Harry Hindu

Are you justifying the riots? I don't understand "You can't have your cake and eat it too" in this context.

That sounds like a straw man argument. You're misrepresenting my position.

where a select few get to say what they want without repercussions - when there is no counter to what is being said. — Harry Hindu

Not at all am I saying that I only ever want one side of the story to be propagated and I will forever agree that people should be able to question authority

Exactly. The person that is disseminating propaganda is not exercising their right to free speech. The ones that possess the capacity to question authority - what is being said - are the ones exercising their rights. The one disseminating propaganda is actually infringing upon the rights of others free speech precisely because they are suppressing other information that would allow listeners to make up their own mind instead of being incited. So again, you are simply describing an instance of totalitarianism - where only one view is propagated while all others are suppressed, not free speech. — Harry Hindu

Another straw man, I have not once disagreed with this

In all the examples provided thus far, would the people be incited if they had access to all the information? If there wasn't a riot, would the speaker still be arrested for what they said? — Harry Hindu

This is an extremely entitled view. Why do YOU need all the information, are you that special? Are you going to riot if you don't have all the information? I have already outlined why the initial information wasn't released to the public, should we change the law in place that protects minors because racist people will riot if they are not immediately told EVERYTHING.

This is where absolutism falls apart in my opinion, because you have to defend the indefensible. I am not saying people should not be able to question authority. I think if you were to look at exactly what I would allow and not allow it would probably be you can say 99.99% of things. but that 0.01% is filled with hatred and it doesn't do any favour to society to allow it to exist.

The Issue comes when you have to decide who choses what is acceptable and what isn't, which I completely understand and it is where my argument falls apart. Both sides have a crippling factor in their ideals and I understand why people would rather let everyone say anything rather then risk having their freedom taking away from a governing body constantly moving the goalposts.

These are two different things. You can have the ability to question authority and disagree with others AND also face repercussions when you are completely out of line. This is why I outlined a restrictive point of view and a Absolutist point of view.

Whilst people disagreeing and questioning is technically a repercussion, I would consider it more of people exercising their rights as much as you,(and if you are an absolutist you would also agree). I would also not put it on the same level as jail time / community service.

So whilst I understand how it may come across as contradictory if you look at it at face value, I think you have to accept that people disagreeing is going to be a fundamental certainty but it should not mean that you can be extreme or push hatred.

Now that I have answered yours, please respond properly to my previous post:

↪Harry Hindu

I have just given you an exact example and then you go, "no that doesn't count name another one"?

Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.
— Harry Hindu

This is an extremely ignorant view. An intelligent adult would be able to groom your 8 year old child no matter how you much you are going to inform them. Can I also ask what your young child will know about that will be able to protect your child from being groomed, because it is all good telling them don't go in a van but what else are children going to absorb that will prevent this? Please elaborate because I am genuinely curios.

Plus, that is entirely irrelevant and doesn't prove anything. Just because YOUR kids may not be the victims of grooming, what about the actual victims? are they considered miss-informed?

"Yeah sorry you got groomed. Next time, make sure to confront the perpetrator and get more informed" Would this be your advice? Victim blaming 101. — Samlw

What question?

I have just given you an exact example and then you go, "no that doesn't count name another one"?

Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed. — Harry Hindu

This is an extremely ignorant view. An intelligent adult would be able to groom your 8 year old child no matter how you much you are going to inform them. Can I also ask what your young child will know about that will be able to protect your child from being groomed, because it is all good telling them don't go in a van but what else are children going to absorb that will prevent this? Please elaborate because I am genuinely curios.

Plus, that is entirely irrelevant and doesn't prove anything. Just because YOUR kids may not be the victims of grooming, what about the actual victims? are they considered miss-informed?

"Yeah sorry you got groomed. Next time, make sure to confront the perpetrator and get more informed" Would this be your advice? Victim blaming 101.

What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts? — Harry Hindu

In no way am I saying that and you know that. Such a non-argument.

What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said. — Harry Hindu

The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"?

Your answer will probably be nonsensical in your efforts to defend predators right's to groom children along as they don't do anything with it.

How about this example:
If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance? — Harry Hindu

This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives.

A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't?

I would like to see how you answer this because of what you said:

It seems you are confusing actions with speech. — Harry Hindu

cor — Christoffer

They later revealed the information legally once he had been convicted.

As I said, the perpetrator of the crime was under 18 therefore his details were not able to be released to the public. Should we start releasing sensitive information about minors so that racists don't riot?

This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I've seen you say. Free Speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view and this type of well-poisoning is below even the worse discussions on TPF. — AmadeusD

Your are correct in saying Free speech absolutism is an entirely legitimate view but foolish if you believe that absolutism isn't used by extremists to tolerate the intolerable and as @Christoffer said "Shift the goal posts".

Free speech absolutists just want to spout hateful stuff and get no repercussions for it. .

Is it hard to believe that you may not represent the entirety of the population?

I think you are unable to say that you are incorrect or even give an inch even after we point out your stupidity.

2/10 rage bait

I understand what you mean, If it shouldn't be up to a court of law and a Jury of peers who should it be up to?

What was the source of this "large-scale" disinformation? If it were large-scale then I would expect that there would be large-scale opposition if it were known at the time that it was disinformation. Where were the gullible and stupid receiving their information? If we were to pop the bubbles that the gullible and stupid live in by abolishing bias in the media, then would that solve the problem? This is not to say that the media can no longer express certain points of view, but that those views must be expressed in the context of other views and we have a competition of ideas in front of the entire population. — Harry Hindu

You aren't from the UK so I will try and paint the picture. You had members of parliament such as Nigel Farage, prominent far-right figures such as Tommy Robinson and very popular voices such as Andrew Tate saying that the perpetrator was an illegal immigrant. It spread like wildfire across all social media platforms in the UK. He wasn't an illegal immigrant, the reason his personal information was not released to the public was because he was under 18, but because of this disinformation spreading across all anti-immigration circles, far-right protests were arranged in every city across the country lasting 2-3 weeks. These "protests" which were actually riots were violent, they caused major property damage as they set cars on fire and threw bricks at mosques and set a divide that we still experience today. When his information did get released he was a second generation legal immigrant born in Wales into a Christian family.

Let me say that again, CHRISTIAN... He wasn't even Muslim so all the hatred, violence and destruction against our Muslim communities can be entirely blamed on the disinformation that was spread. People in the UK have been arrested for their role in inciting violence which in turn, stopped the riots.

I think there is a fundamental difference between an assault and broadcasting ideas (even very unpalatable ideas) — Malcolm Parry

I know, I was seeing what @NOS4A2 had to say about that as he believes:

No, I do not believe there should be consequences for speech, and yes, I do believe people should be able to say whatever they want at any point with no consequence ever. — NOS4A2

Now, are you saying that certain groups in society shouldn't have the same rights as you based on who they are, or based on what they, specifically have done or said? — Christoffer

No, I believe it is the contents of the message that needs to be looked at, you can be black, while, gay, straight, it doesn't matter, if what you are saying is deemed in a court of law to be an incitement of violence, defamatory, abusive etc. then I believe there needs to be consequences.

I don’t think you’d get the responses you’re looking for. The repercussion is you’ll be known as a liar, slanderer, and a defamer. You’d also have to live with yourself. — NOS4A2

I find it hilarious that you think that the best way to combat slander and defamation is to call someone a liar and let them carry on the rest of their lives... living with themselves. What if you wronged me and I didn't care? I could make up so much terrible stuff about you and completely ruin your life and wouldn't miss a second of sleep about it, if I disliked you that much it may even help me sleep at night knowing that I ruined your life... You simply cannot allow someone to do that with no repercussions.

Can I ask what you think about NDA's? Surely you don't think a piece of paper can stop you from speaking as well. What about Classified information? should there be repercussions for breaching these?

Kinetically speaking, causing damage with words is impossible. There isn’t enough energy in a word to inflict a wound on even the slightest of biologies. Perhaps yelling a word may harm an eardrum, but you could do the same with any sound.

The harms begin only in the reaction to words, and how people use them to justify their actions towards others. — NOS4A2

I find that Free speech absolutists ignore the damage you can do with words.

Technically speaking you are correct, words cannot cause harm and the harm comes through reactionary actions.

This is a similar justification with gun violence, "Guns don't kill people, people do". I feel like both are absolving the blame on one factor and piling it all on another factor simply because it fits their narrative. Speech can be used as a tool to: Incite violence, Abuse people, Cause fear, Slander, defamation and much more... Can I ask why you think that you are within your right to do these things and why your rights supersede the victims rights to not have these things happen to them?

If I was passing by a school on the street and I started screaming really threatening stuff to the children on the other side of the gate, should I be arrested?

I understand I am peppering you with questions, I am just seeing how far your absolutism goes.

What I mean by free speech is the ability to express opinions and ideas publicly, without fear of censorship or legal sanction.

The debate topic I would like to discuss is, should there be limits on certain speech and where people believe we should draw the line, hence my original post outlining absolutism and restricting speech.

I understand free speech is different in the UK and US but we do share a lot of similarities as does a lot of countries do in the western hemisphere.

A small quibble. Slander and defamation are usually civil wrongs, not criminal, but I don’t think they should be treated as such. In any case, the fact that something is a civil wrong or a crime doesn’t mean it ought to be. People still claim yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal, for instance, but they are merely repeating the fatuous ruling of Oliver Wendell Holmes, which has long since been overruled by later precedent. — NOS4A2

So should I be able to publicly slander and defame you for being a pedophile and lie, resulting in you losing your job and every social factor that would come along with that and be able to continue to carry on with my day with no repercussions?

As usual, TPFers are talking (writing) without knowing what they're talking about. What!? You object? Well, you must know what you're talking about. I think - subject to correction - that "free speech" is on the docket. Tell us, then, what that is. Is it, is there any such thing? What kind of a thing is it? What are its special features that distinguish it? What are its parts? For, or by, whom? For what purpose?

And in what country? I think all countries claim free speech, but what that means can be complicated, and I'm pretty sure it differs country to country. And of course the subject of rights, also needing to be limned. — tim wood

Can I ask what you mean by TPFers? your response has a very hostile tone but I am not sure who it is directed at. If it is at me I am sure we can air out any issue you have.

You haven't added anything to the discussion you are just spamming questions, I think I was clear in my definition of absolutism / restrictive. And I am speaking on free speech mainly in America and the UK, if people would like to speak about other countries feel free.

Let speech be free absolutely.

There is no point in censorship and it is a double violation of rights. It denies the speaker his fundamental right to open his mouth and speak, and it denies the rest of us our right to listen to it. I can’t think of one person, alive or dead, who ought to have the power to tell us what we can or cannot say. — NOS4A2

Do you believe that there should be consequence to certain speech? Realistically we can all say whatever we want at any point, but do you believe people should be able to say WHATEVER they want at any point with no consequence ever?

Who on this forum would instantly jump up and stampede over other people when they hear, "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, without verifying that there was a fire first? Those that use this example are typically those that do what they are told without questioning, or act without thinking.
the
If we were to arrest those that ran over others (an action that qualifies as an assault) instead of the person that said something, then maybe we would encourage the rest of society to start thinking for themselves and not simply accept what others say without verification, and to think before they act. — Harry Hindu

I agree that it is very unlikely that a large group would stampede other people because they heard "fire" but I think you are deliberately missing the point of the example and I also sense a feeling of intellectual superiority in your answer

If we were to extrapolate the "fire" example to something much more serious such as the Southport riots where the UK experienced numerous violent riots targeted towards minority communities due to large-scale disinformation being purposefully spread, I think it would be correct to say there should be accountability for those people spreading the hurtful lies and not just blame the people who blindly follow.

You have to assume that some people are going to be gullible and stupid, and to not allow people to take advantage of that to push agendas. You can't punish people for not knowing better and not punish the people that do know better. (I am not saying the people committing criminals acts should not be arrested)

You are correct, it is all about context. If there was a fire then there would be no issue but if you are shouting "fire" falsely with the intention to cause panic then you are on grounds for disorderly conduct.

Then they made a mistake obviously. Why it got ruined would be the question here. Was it because they didn't understand the culture they were letting in? They were too altruistic for their limited resources? The issue is not whether legal immigration vs illegal immigration is moral in this case, but whether they made a misjudgement. If you're looking for a benefit vs cost analysis on a countries capacity for immigration, that's fine. If you're looking for a moral justification for illegal immigration, I still have yet to see it. — Philosophim

I am not understanding what you aren't understanding. Why risk the fate of a country on an issue so complex on average citizens and not experts in that field that have access to information that the general public may not. like I said in my previous post, it should be down experts chosen by elected officials.

If someone broke into your house for a warm nights sleep when its cold outside, when you did not want to invite them in yourself, that's a violation of your sovereignty of your home. — Philosophim

Again, the comparison doesn't meet the severity of the topic. I understand the logic you are trying to use however you simply cannot use a blanket answer from the situation you just described as the answer for a topic that is so complex as immigration.

And I think THIS is definitely debatable. It is the moral question of whether the person in control of the land/property should or should not let a person in. — Philosophim

This is literally the question from the start.

They could instead fight for their own country, or move to a place in their country that is not affected by war. — Philosophim

Both of those options are terrible, either potentially die and kill people for your country, or move to a poor place due to your country being war-torn and have a terrible quality of life. No wonder they choose to come over here.

I do not honestly think being 'nice' or 'nasty' has anything to do with anything. I would rather meet people who are honest than 'nice'. That said, a certain degree of civil grace is no bad thing. I find incessant 'niceness' intolerable :D — I like sushi

How has technology changed people being honest?

Possibly. I just see it in classrooms and in the streets. People are hooked to their screens. I think the rate of change is so fast that there is little time to assess anything atm. Maybe it is just a perspective of age and how I noted the changes happening years ago and seeing how things have 'progressed' since then. I guess things could turn sour or sweet just as quickly.

I am certainly not a pessimist about it though, I just think it is going to be a messy transition. I am not entirely convinced by what people like Harari say, but there is some points that are worth paying attention to by the doomsayers. — I like sushi

Understandable, difference in experience. I agree people are hooked on their screens, but at the same time, they are doing what they want. No one is forcing a phone in front of them. From the way you have worded your response I can tell there is a significant age gap which probably is why there is a difference of opinion on this. But you cannot disagree with: the way we evolve as a civilisation and better as many peoples lives as possible, is technology. With that will come with insane change, which is scary, we just have to hope and pray the people directing the ship have humans in their best interests.

Just for an example, suppose we find the following premise probable: "Donald Trump wouldn't have the huge level of influence he has if Americans weren't widely dissatisfied with migration."

And suppose Donald Trump provokes a full blown constitutional crisis in the US by overturning the upcoming election (this seems unnervingly possible, even if not likely). This in turn tanks future economic growth, health, safety, etc.

In this case, it seems like migration levels are a key (perhaps the key) factor in crossing a tipping point that craters metrics of well-being. Brexit might be a similar issue. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Me personally I think politicians such as Donald Trump and Nigel Farage inflate the issue of immigration to stir up a certain demographic, I am not saying they don't present any actual issues because they do. but using words such as "invasion" and creating lies about these immigrants is wrong and they are only doing it for their personal gain. Unfortunately, some people don't see that and the get swept up in their lies.

For example, I would imagine even people who embrace very open immigration levels would allow that if the US has 150 million people migrate to it over a few years there would be a crisis — Count Timothy von Icarus

Agreed, there is a limit.

Now, people often respond that people should just not be racist and xenophobic. This likely moves the tipping point much higher. Fair enough, I agree. But people ARE racist and xenophobic. So this is like saying that the solution to gun policy is for people not to murder or recommending that drug policy be handled by people only using drugs responsibly. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the issue is, when you call people racist and xenophobic for their personal views, that only alienates them and pushes them further in their mindset. The best way to combat bad speech is better speech, if you censor these people the anger will only fester.

This is a lot of assuming. That would be like me saying, "Assuming people have a good reason for stealing your car, there is nothing immoral about it - the necessity being instead grounds for a moral claim." Can you note when you think it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere, and why it is moral for a country to allow that illegal immigrant to be there? This is not an emotional issue for me or a "Its obvious" question. Lets engage in philosophy, the logic of it all. — Philosophim

You are comparing someone who has potentially escaped a war zone, their family killed, scared and not knowing where to go. To someone stealing a car...

Also for an example for an occasion for when it is moral to illegally immigrate somewhere and for a country to allow it, just read the first sentence again.

I think the opposite is happening. People are becoming more disconnected because of technology. The landscapes people spend a lot of their time in is no longer physical and this could likely lead to further disconnection and discontent. — I like sushi

How so?

I think this is a chronically online take. In real life this is not the case, the amount of people I come in contact with every day that are civil and friendly completely outweigh the odd occasion someone is nasty to me. However, if you were to always be online, constantly being fed news about war and hatred along with the constant arguments and attacks from every side possible you would think this.

Technology has made it so you and me can have this discussion, you can facetime your family wherever you are, you have an insanely large database where you can research whatever you want, you don't have to just trust whatever your told. Obviously there will be some Neanderthals that allow it to affect them negatively but it benefits the majority.

And there are negatives to technology I am not saying that there isn't. But I think the benefits insanely outweighs the negatives and as technology gets better I believe we will get more connected and more respectful of other people that may not be from our way of life.

Fair enough, I was just responding to the claim that no one can have valid concerns about legal immigration. One can even have valid concerns about natives moving within their own country, e.g. the population booms in areas that we predict will be below sea level in the medium term. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I understand, I enjoy hearing different sides, you brought a different perspective that I hadn't thought of.

The question of if the benefits outweigh the costs is very fraught because the question will be "benefits for who?" — Count Timothy von Icarus

I think the main topic has been bigger picture, talking about economies and broad subjects like housing and education. If you were to look at it individually then you would get lost in the possibilities, I think if you aim to increase wages, better education and provide affordable houses then that will benefit most people. Obviously, there will be people who won't benefit or have their quality of life decrease but if you are to subscribe to a countries way of life such as the UK and America, their societies have been built with the prior knowledge that some people will get the bad end of the stick. Not ideal but its the place we live in.

Can I ask what happens if a majority of a nation voted for open borders and the country gets ruined because of it?

I think that @tim wood point is that simply saying "let the people decide" is not an appropriate answer and may even make it worse. You are assuming that the average citizen has the ability to make the right choice with limited information, Also other outside influences may spread disinformation to try and persuade a majority to vote a certain way that may destabilize/ weaken that country.

I don't think it should be up to the people on this specific topic, I think it should be down to experts that are chosen by elected officials.

In the UK there are people who are literally squatting in public places and are protected by the law. I do not think people who do not hold a UK passport should be allowed to get away with this. The sad truth is SOME are just unfortunate, but nevertheless, they have to survive and often fall prey to less than legal means of sustenance. Deport. If this was done then I suspect we would see less complaints from the public. — I like sushi

I think squatting should be outlawed regardless on who you are, obviously if they do not have a passport they should be deported but if that is the case, if you have a British passport should simply be arrested and not be protected by the law.

It is a very difficult problem to tackle. Diversity is certainly beneficial, yet there are traditions and cultural ideologies that are engrained in some people who go to live in other countries that are hard to balance out. — I like sushi

I agree it is a very hard issue to tackle, however with our world becoming more and more connected through technology I believe it is only a matter of time until we are all so incredibly connected and diverse that it will simply become normal. And those who oppose it due to others culture's and beliefs will be told to simply get on with it.

It's still the case, however, that a sovereign nation's first responsibility is to its citizens, and not to the displaced people of the world.

So, we have a choice: help people manage to live better where they are, or resort to barbed wire, land mines. guard towers, guns, drones, and so on to keep them all out. — BC

I agree with that statement but I would add that even though the first responsibility is to protect their citizens. I would argue that powerful countries, (such as the UK and USA) have just as an equal responsibility to displaced people in the world. If you are a global superpower, you bear additional weight on your shoulders to help. To even deserve a voice on the global stage I believe you should be helping out as much as you can. I understand that isn't how politics works and I am being idealistic but along with all the pros immigration brings, helping is so important.

And I think this is true even if the goals of your immigration criteria are purely humanitarian. Arguably, if that's the case, you have the most motivation to make sure only the most deserving benefit from your resources, which will always be limited.

So, to reiterate, I think the big challenge right now is to find a set of procedural rules that is sufficiently humane but also sufficiently predictable and efficient to actually make immigration cirteria meaningful. — Echarmion

I wouldn't say I am purely humanitarian however I lean more to that side, in my opinion the ideas of "our" resources or "my" resources is what is limiting us here. Although I am not calling for a communist regime, I believe that, for us to further as a civilisation there needs to be a way for us to let go of certain ownerships and have everyone own it, equally. I do understand how that sounds extremely close to communism but I do prefer capitalism over communism, I just wonder if there is that sweet spot in-between.

I have issues with it. Problems can be caused by legal immigration just as problems can be caused by internal migrations within a state. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You raised valid concerns about the level and impacts of migration. However you are pinpointing negatives about them where I believe if you look at a broader picture, the benefits often outweigh the challenges:

They also tend to bid down each other's wages, undercut the ability of their workplaces to unionize, and bid up each other's rents. And finally, to the extent that they destabilize the world's largest economies and militaries they can actually have negative effects for other potential migrants who are unable to leave their states. There is also a crowding out effect such that economic migrants take the spots of future asylum seekers. — Count Timothy von Icarus

You touched on economic growth, immigrants often fill labour shortages in critical sectors such as healthcare, manufacturing/factory work, agriculture etc. This helps sustainability of these industries but also drives economic growth.

Then, probably the biggest issue is the effect on inequality. In America, most immigrants are from the developing world and come with low levels of education and low networth. Some are eventually very successful, but most tend to be low income at first and they tend to have lower incomes across their lifetimes. Of course, if you add millions of new citizens with lower earnings potential and a very low starting wealth you're necessarily going to increase inequality (particularly wealth inequality), at the very least in the short term (but likely for a generation or so). And if you add a lot of migrants to one region you will exacerbate the issue by bidding down wages in relevant fields those migrants tend to work in and driving up regional rents. — Count Timothy von Icarus

This is a good point, however, I would not say that this is not a stain on immigration but more of a responsibility of the country to introduce policies that can mitigate this. These can be to increase wages, bring down housing costs, investing in education and training, (for everyone, not just immigrants).

what happens to an established culture and values when different and perhaps antithetical values and beliefs enter in large numbers? — Tom Storm

I think this is the biggest cause of conflict when it comes to immigration. Me personally, I do not think that this is a big deal however for someone who is patriotic. Changing their countries culture and beliefs is this worst thing you can do. I think some aspects is just conspiracy paranoia as well, for example, those who are very against immigration in England believe that due to the high Muslim immigrant population, Shariah law will take over our laws. Which I just think is a silly idea but people will use this as a reason to push hatred.

I think diversity in society is a good thing as long as everyone is willing to be open to others, unfortunately that is an ideal situation that rarely happens.

Is the "parole" plan in 3. above a reasonable policy? I think not. — jgill

Can I ask why you think this and what you think should be done differently?

The OP is not anti-democratic. If you're not interested in the topic of the thread I'm not sure why you are posting in it. Adios. — Leontiskos

You are making sense don't worry, @Philosophim thinks we are trying to take over and rule every democratic country with this conversation.