Hang tight while we fetch the video data and transcripts. This only takes a moment.
Connecting to YouTube player…
Fetching transcript data…
We’ll display the transcript, summary, and all view options as soon as everything loads.
Next steps
Loading transcript tools…
The Global Philosopher: Should borders matter? BBC News | BBC News | YouTubeToText
YouTube Transcript: The Global Philosopher: Should borders matter? BBC News
Skip watching entire videos - get the full transcript, search for keywords, and copy with one click.
Share:
Video Transcript
My name is Michael Sandell. Welcome to
this first episode of The Global Philosopher.
Lena in Germany. Lena, what do you say?
Why does it have to be nation? Why can't
it be the fact that we all have stripey
t-shirts or that we like to eat cheese?
You're being cynical towards it. No,
Lena, but you're being cynical towards it.
Today we take up one of the most fraught
moral and political questions of our
time, the question of immigration.
Few issues generate more heated debate.
But we rarely discuss the big
philosophical questions underlying this
debate. Should national borders matter?
And if so, why? [Music]
[Music]
To discuss this question, we've gathered
a group of people from around the world.
Not philosophers, but thoughtful
citizens from a great many places, and
we're engaged together in an experiment.
Participants from over 30 countries are
beamed up on these screens and will join
in our discussion.
In addition to the people visible here
in the studio, hundreds more are
watching online and will send comments
by text as the discussion proceeds. The
first question I would like to put to
our global group of discussants is about
the distinction if any between how
countries should treat refugees and how
countries should treat immigrants.
Now refugees
traditionally are defined as people who
are fleeing
war or persecution.
uh whereas immigrants
may be seeking admission to a country
for any number of reasons perhaps for
greater economic opportunity. Let's
begin with the following poll question
about refugees.
Does a country have a right to deny
entry to a refugee who arrives at its
86%
say no. A country does not have the
right to refuse admission to a refugee.
Now, I'd like to put another question to
you. Does a country have a right to deny
entry to an immigrant who arrives at its
border fleeing dire poverty or economic
42%
say no.
Tara in the US
I think the difference for myself um is
that in any country we have people
living in pover poverty and you cannot
control for that all the time you can't
save everyone but when someone's coming
in need of actual um safety and it's a
matter of life or death then I think
that that's a little different for myself.
myself.
Thank you for that. in Greece. Andrew
Leaky, what do you think about this?
Hello, professor. Uh, it's a great honor
to to be here with you with everybody. I
think that uh opportunities that are
everywhere, no matter where somebody is.
I think it's up to the individual to
find them. Uh, going to a richer country
doesn't always guarantee success. Uh I
mean we have all witnessed you know uh
immigrants ending up living in worse
conditions than you know the than the
ones they previously lived in. Uh and
besides I think that an immigrant has
the money to flee his country his or her
country actually. So I think that it's
up to the individual to decide whether
or not this is uh um a a risk worth taking.
taking.
Okay. So if I if I hear you right,
Angelique, you say the difference is
it's a humanitarian emergency in the
case of the refugee,
but in the case of the economic migrant,
that person might be able to realize to
find greater economic opportunity in a
great many countries. So there's not the
same kind of emergency in
Brazil. Leo, what do you say?
I was an illegal immigrant myself. Uh,
let me reveal that. Um, uh, and I spent
three months in a detention center
before I was deported back to Brazil
from the UK for being there illegally.
And despite all that happened to me
about this immigration matter, I still
believe that some countries, some
European countries have the right to
take unilateral actions. I was a kind of
economic migrant who moves abroad
looking for a better life. uh the real
big deal migrants we're talking about
are the refugees which are from
political persecution and religious
intolerance and things like that. These
migrants are the ones which we know
among them there will be some dangerous
people and
okay well let
this is this is very powerful testimony
Leo because if I hear you right what
you're saying is that you yourself were
an economic migrant to Britain and that
you were forced to leave. You were
deported. Is that right?
That's right. But I don't blame the UK
border agents. They're doing just doing
their jobs. Okay, now
this is a pretty powerful story in Germany.
Germany.
First of all, obviously, I think it's
great that you've got a personal opinion
to share on this rather than me talking
theoretically, but I don't think it's a
question of countries. I don't think
it's a question of resources, as Tara,
you called it earlier, that aren't
enough for all of us. Because I think in
the world we've got space for all of us
and we've got enough resources for all
of us. And I think we're making it too
easy for ourselves if we say this
country is full or this country doesn't
have any more to give. Plus I think
Germany for example has an awful lot
more to give. So I think we just have to
stop thinking about countries, stop
thinking about races, stop thinking
about religions and all these issues and
just say there's one world, there's
people living in it and I think there's
enough for all of us here. It's a very
generous sentiment you've expressed,
Lena, but are you suggesting
that national borders ideally
from a moral point of view should not be
enforced in fact should be overcome in absolutely
absolutely
okay. So Lena has a very strong view
that there is no moral significance to
national borders that ideally we should
regard one another as human beings not
as members of this or that country
and therefore you would favor completely
open borders would you Lena? Yeah.
Yeah.
All right. Who disagrees with Lena and
would like to reply? I would like to reply
reply
in okay in India Sudhindra you disagree
with Lena tell us why
yeah I'd like I'd like to just preface
my answer with something that we have
always been told as children uh we've
always been told that the world is a
global village uh and that the earth is
our planet uh and that uh we have the
independence to stay wherever we can but
the truth of the matter is that the
reason why Some countries become popular
destinations for living is because they
do some things right. Today if people
choose to live in countries like
Switzerland, like Germany, like US and
UK, it's because they do some things
much better than other countries.
In the UK, Simon, what do you think?
I think we're at a really serious and
sacred moment in our human story and we
either see ourselves as brother or
other. And I couldn't agree more with
what Lena's been saying that we're all
natives of this earth. And I think that
um that globalization, the economy knows
no borders. Climate change knows no
borders as well. So the moral argument,
the logical argument just falls down.
And it shows for me how obsolete the nationentric
nationentric
entitlement comes in. We're in such a
privileged position to be able to say
yes to you, no to you. Who do we think
we are? It's time that we either listen
to the likes of Donald Trump or we look
into the children's eyes in Calala in
Dunkook and we say that we are one
global family together and let's open up
our hearts, open up our homes, open up
our borders. So, Simon and Lena favor a
universalistic ethic that regards humanity,
humanity,
not members of nations, as the relevant
moral considerations.
And Lena and Simon are arguing that we
should I we should overcome
the the use and the emphasis and the enforcement
enforcement
of national borders. I'd like now to
hear from people who disagree with that
idea in Israel. Basel,
thank you. The very existence of a state
was based on the uh presumption that if
there is no controlling state, if
there's no controlling authority, then
everybody would kill everybody because
that's just the laws of nature. And
otherwise when we think about it morally
uh I personally cannot live uh
comfortably with somebody who doesn't
speak my own language who doesn't have
my own culture we do not share the humor
we do not share the same cultural
background. So uh nullifying national
borders would really mix everybody with
everybody and there would be no uh
culture. There would be no national
heritage for any country for any person
to just say that this is who I am. There
would no person would be able to morally
define themselves
and that is very very dangerous. All right.
All right. Yeah.
Yeah.
Um in Brazil
what would you say? Actually I agree
with Basel because I think the word
already has a lot of difference. So I
think the borders is some way to
organize that to to allow us to to live
with the people are most like us.
To live with the people who are most
like us is what national borders enable
us to do. Jaw says in Brazil and that's
a good thing. No.
No. No.
No.
Who says no?
Who says no in in Italy? In Italy Jeppe
says no.
Yeah. I say uh what I can say for
example in Italy if you take Italy uh
people living in north of Italy are
culture culturally more close to German
people than the people living in the
south of Italy. A very famous statement
from a politician in Italy when Italy
has been built they say he say now we
have done Italy we have to do Italians
meaning that we came from very very
difficult cultures. So all the reason I
seen to defend borders are only a
cultural, economical, logistical reason
but I don't see really a moral reason
borders come from war or if you take the
plan the map of Africa you see straight
line put by someone say okay this is one
state this is another one
okay so so Jeppe's Jeppe's reply is
national borders are are the result of
accident contingency of war. So how can
they have any moral significance? That's
Jeppe's challenge in the US in
Wisconsin. Mitra
yes I would like to make several
comments. Uh one is historically if you
look at humanity
our history is a history of migration. I
mean humans as long as they have been
able to move they have moved across the
planet. This is one planet. I mean uh
look at Europe. They have been working
the last several decade or so trying to
open borders. Exactly.
Exactly.
Because they understand there is no more
reason for the borders. Uh also
understand people if they are
comfortable where they are they will
they are not willing to give up their
families, their own cultures, their own
beliefs to move halfway across the world
so that they can survive in one way or
another. I am an immigrant and trust me
I understand that it's not easy to move
uproot yourself uproot your entire
family and go somewhere else learn a new
language learn a new uh way of life
halfway across your life corporations
are also im immigrants if corporations
can easily move across borders I cannot
see why humans cannot
aha if if corporations can move across
borders why not may I ask you mentioned
You're an immigrant yourself from what country?
country?
I immigrated to the United States from Iran.
Iran.
From Iran. Yes.
Yes.
Okay. The Let's go to Dave, the BBC
who's been monitoring the comments from
those who are watching online.
We've got hundreds of comments coming
in. Alistister from South Africa is
puzzled by the difference between
inequality between countries and
inequality within a country. He asked,
"If you allow free immigration, where do
you draw the line? Living in a very
unequal society like South Africa, would
he Alisa have to allow someone from a
nearby township to move into his house?"
And Heita, we don't know where she's
from. He says that borders signify more
than just geography. They indicate
political thought, cultural history, and
national belief. There are others who
have thoughts about this. But I want to
call upon you in by look after we look
at two of the reasons people have raised
in defense of borders. One argument in
the defense of preserving and enforcing
national borders is to do with standards
of living,
protecting jobs at home,
protecting wages from erosion if
immigrants come and compete for jobs.
Standards of living. We often hear that
public services will be strained.
welfare provision will be strained if
immigrants come and take advantage so
that of those services. So that's one
argument economic arguments of various
kinds to do with standard of living GDP.
And then we've heard a different
argument which is about culture, history,
history,
shared traditions.
I would like to see what this group
thinks about these two different
arguments in favor of national borders.
Two arguments in favor of restricting
immigration in some circumstances.
Who thinks that national identity
preserving national identity is a
legitimate reason to restrict
immigration in Romania?
No, tell us why.
Uh, I think that uh preserving national
identity is something which has been
done by our uh predecessors for long
centuries and this is something which uh
identifies us
and in Kenya Deborah
you have to take into consideration that
certain uh some countries do not have
any national identity to preserve. So
for me the the issue of restricting uh
immigration based on that does not hold
water and I'm speak from a perspective
of uh African countries which were
cobbled up together without any regard
for nationality I mean nation would
rather so in this regard this national
identity does not arise and speaking as
a Kenyan I don't see that the fact that
we have Somalis in the country Sudanese
in the country oh these are the refugees
I'm I'm I'm I'm looking I'm looking at
the fact that we have them have has not
affected uh our Kenyaness or lack
thereof. So in my opinion this is not a
a reason for a country to restrict immigration
immigration
and and that's in part because you view
national borders as artificial to begin with.
with.
Absolutely. Yeah. They are totally unnecessary
unnecessary
in Athens. Christine,
what do you think? I think that the
national identity is very very important
for countries um that have common nation
because common nation is a constituted
commun community of people with common
traditions, common customs, uh common ethnicity.
ethnicity.
So by allowing everybody to enter our borders
borders
uh yes I do believe that uh this will
destroy the special national character characteristics.
characteristics.
So Christine has cited national
identity, shared culture, shared
ethnicity as what makes countries
distinctive, what holds them together
and that's a reason to defend borders
and to enforce borders. Now, Simon,
earlier on, Simon in the UK, you argued
against the moral significance of
national borders. Let's see if we can
put Simon and Christine together on the
screen. Speak directly to Christine and
in Athens and see if you can persuade
her. Well, I I'd say Christine that in
in Britain here, we're we're often cited
by politicians about British values, but
any kind of national identity, if it
doesn't contain compassion for all and
openness to all, the identity, the brand
has no credibility whatsoever. The very
idea of a national identity is
oxymoronic. It needs to include all
otherwise it's simply not credible in
the globalized world in which we live.
You think there is no such thing as a
national identity. I I I think that it's
the only credible national identity is
one that that opens its arms to to
others that doesn't see itself as
privileged or entitled in any way or or
or sees others as less worthy of of
being on this earth than the rest of us.
I wonder if I could hear from someone
here who defends the idea of restricting
immigration for the sake of national
identity who can articulate what he or
she takes to be the idealism of that position
position
in Greece. Angeliki
uh I would like to underline this which
uh I think escapes
uh escapes us all without being
specific. There are certain religions
which are which are disguised
uh political movements. Okay. They
provide no education to their people.
They oppress especially females uh in
their countries. They brainwash their
citizens. Okay. And all these people,
okay? They want to invade
um and uh if you want corrupt uh
uh
uh civilized countries with uh their own identity.
identity.
So you do think so you do think that I
that preserving national identity is
it's very important.
We've had a lot of comments coming in
from those who are watching online.
Let's turn to Dave at the BBC. What are
they saying? We had a comment from Ying
in the Hay who says that preserving
national identity is the reason racists
give for restricting immigration. There
have been many comments about the pace
of change. Beth from India says there's
a huge difference between a gradual
change to identity over 50 years and an
enormous change which takes place in a
short period with a big burst of
immigration. And Alia says that we
should remember that melting a national
identity with newer arrivals can
actually enrich an identity.
Thank you for that. In Israel, you did.
What do you
what do you say?
I think Simon was presenting this this
one criteria for uh for being a
legitimate uh you know national
identity. I think that that some people
want to strive to have a sense of
connection to culture of heritage of
family. So to come and say that it's
only legitimate to have a national
identity which is all inclusive and
encompasses all citizens of the world, I
think it's ignoring the very fundamental
fact as a human being that we do connect
to things that are similar to us on an
emotional level. At least this is not a
purely logical argument. So you have to
not disregard the emotional connection
people have to things that are similar
to them.
You disagree with Simon and with Lena
that we should transcend these differences.
differences.
Yeah. I wouldn't say I complet I I
wouldn't say I completely disagree. I
would say that you cannot disregard the
fact that people strive to feel
connected to something. It's not only a
universal world. That's part of it. But
it's also a sense that people want to
feel connected and you can't completely
disregard that. Like why is that any
different than just wanting to be part
of everything?
Lena in Germany. Lena, what do you say?
Um why does it have to be nation? Why
can't it be the fact that we all have
stripey t-shirts or that we like to eat
cheese? You know what I mean? Or we
But you're being cynical towards it. No,
Lena, but you're being cynical towards
it. It's not it's not stripey t-shirts.
A person has a culture and heritage.
It's not something that's just a
t-shirt. You're just you're responding
in a very cynical manner. Some people
have connections. We have attachments to
things that are like us, not for just,
you know, no no sensible reason. Go ahead.
ahead.
First of all, I've got four grandparents
from four countries. So, which of these
countries am I supposed to identify
myself with? I don't know. That's what I
mean by stripy t-shirts. For me, it's
not about a country. It's about the fact
that I feel strongly about, let's say,
feminism. So, yeah, I'm connected with
feminists across the world. I feel
strongly about children. So, I like
people who like children. It doesn't
have to be people who also happen to
have a German passport. Another point
that I think is very important is we
mustn't forget that nationalism
and religion and culture and all these
things have been used time and again as
a reason to discriminate people to kill
people. Germany not so long ago said you
know what you group of religious people
no longer part of our country. You're
not citizens anymore as a reason to
think we were then allowed to do
whatever with them. So, I just think
there's a massive risk to creating these
kind of us and them ideas. Uh, and and I
don't care if it's stripey t-shirt or
religion or race or whatever. I just think
think
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Go ahead, Yita. Finish your thought.
Lena, I just think that essentially we
don't really disagree. I think that it's
a legitimate idea to want to be a
citizen of the world, but it's also a
legitimate idea to want to be a citizen
of my city, of my hometown. And to find
that balance between between nationalism
on a global scale and nationalism on an
urban scale, for instance,
is not a disagreement, but you have to
be able to accept both ideas.
All right, I want to try to
think Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
wait, wait. I there there are a lot of
people who are diving in at once. I am
in the UK. You are a sim Syrian
immigrant to the UK. Is that right? Tell
us what you've learned from your
experience. Yeah. Yeah. About the debate
we've been having.
First of all, I would like to ask
everyone say that the government should
say no for the immigrants. Can you
imagine your living in a city of GS?
Imagine the diseases or illnesses
surrounding you and your
can you imagine having a child in need
of urgent medical care. This is how
hundred of the people especially the
Syrians are being made to experience
every day. I think the countries don't
have the right to say not for the
refugees. when we say about the
humanitary rights the countries don't
have the right to say no at some time
the people who is saying that refugees
will be like not a good people I am
disagree with this uh with this say why
because now I have been in the UK one
year now I am studying I am volunteer
with four organization one of them is
national complete our study for a safe
life for our children not just for to
found a simple life for us.
Well, thank you for joining us. You
broke up a little bit there. I know
there are others with things to
contribute, but let me see if I can draw
together some of the strands of the
discussion that we've
heard here today
and to see how it all connects to the
debates that are raging in countries
around the world about the question of
immigration. On the surface, the debates
about immigration seem to be about
economics, about the effect of
immigration on jobs, on wages, on
welfare benefits, on standards of living.
living.
But it seems to me that the reason the
immigration debate generates such
heat and passion and anger and anxiety
is that this debate touches on deeper,
bigger questions than economics alone.
Questions like, what do we owe one
another as citizens?
Do we owe more to our fellow citizens
than we owe to humanity as such?
Should I, as an American, care more
about the welfare of someone, let's say,
in Texas whom I've never met, than I
should care about someone living in
Mexico, just about the across the border
or not?
And then there's the question of
patriotism which underlies much of this debate.
debate.
Is patriotism a virtue or is it a kind
of prejudice?
Back in the 18th century, Jean Jacqu Rouso
Rouso
wrote powerfully in defense of patriotism
patriotism
and particularity. He said, "It seems
that the sentiment of humanity
evaporates and weakens in being extended
over the entire world and that we cannot
be affected by the calamities in Tartery
or in Japan the way we are by those of a
European people." Rouso thought that we
can't be affected by calamities half a
world away.
But what happens
when we can witness
those calamities
almost from the moment they happen? What
happens when we can discuss and debate
the appropriate response to those calamities
calamities
with people from around the world in a
conversation like this?
When we can do that,
could it be that the line between
members and strangers
will begin to blur? Well, it's hard to
know. This technology and the
discussions it makes possible
are really just at their infancy.
But I think it is fair to say that this
discussion offers us a glimpse of what
reasoned global public discourse might
be. And so to our participants from
around the world, to those listening on
radio, to those watching online, I want
to thank you for joining us for this the
first episode of the global philosopher.
Thank you
Thank you. [Music]
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
Chrome Extension