Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "" video.

Why is it inhuman? If immigrants are of such benefit to national economies, why should we not share them with Rwanda?
3
Finally common sense. There you go. Another one.
1
@johnrussell3961 It depends what they willing and capable of. They seem reluctant to engage in agricultural enterprises other than cannabis production. I agree you have a point though. I don't understand why those in favour of unlimited immigration can't point to more instances where people who have got in illegally are fulfilling useful functions.
1
@Aarenby Then don't send them.
1
@Soul of a robotI think that's a very good idea.
1
@verystripeyzebra Why? As long as they realise it could be on the cards it should affect their decision as whether or not to come here or to some other country. Rwanda a very nice place these days, by all accounts.
1
@patchevansbrokencountry2583 But people are commodities. You are. I am. We may be animated to varying degrees but we still have marketable value. It's called work.
1
@verystripeyzebra Sounds an ideal place for Albanians. They are generally a tough and versatile people who could be useful in helping to run such a country. They will fit in nicely.
1
@verystripeyzebra International law can go screw itself. There is no such thing, really. Laws only apply in discrete communities and the world is no such thing.
1
@verystripeyzebra Kuwait's doing really great after that, isn't it? It'd probably have been better off under dear old Saddam. And it wasn't international law which "saved" it. It was US firepower protecting US commercial interests. Which, thinking about it, is a pretty good definition of "international law".
1
@verystripeyzebra And who polices these laws? Why are they in place? Hint: the word "America" occurs in both answers.
1
@verystripeyzebra Kuwait is a slave-owning Muslim monarchy which has close relations with Russia. It cleverly uses this to keep US interests in check. Saddam Hussein was a CIA shoe-in whose secular Ba'th party provided a useful way of keeping Muslim extremism in check and keeping Iraq reasonably stable. Unfortunately, like Gadaffi in Libya, he grew a bit too big for his boots and decided to strike out on his own, notably by invading Kuwait without permission. For this and other transgressions he was ultimately punished in the form of a violent invasion by the US and its vassal states which resulted in the deaths of thousands and possibly millions of innocent civilians. Which is OK because "international law" said it was okay. Make sense of that if you can.
1
@verystripeyzebra Power leads to corruption, and while kind and trusting people such as yourself believe that honour and decency play a part on the governance of the world, they very rarely do.
1
@verystripeyzebra Then what's all this about international law? You can better your bottom dollar that as soon as its cited some interested party is involved - and its usually the good old USA at the finish.
1
@verystripeyzebra By helping make the world safe for hypocrisy, I suppose?
1
Evil, racist, old white men are a distinct minority in Britain these days.
1
@andreasarnoalthofsobottka2928 But there are few of them it's hardly worth it. And they will vote Reform or Ukip anyway.
1
@andreasarnoalthofsobottka2928 I think it was your initial description which confused my. I am an old white Englishman and I want strict controls on immigration. But I am neither evil nor racist yet would certainly vote for any party which I believed could control the influx of foreigners to the country I love.
1