Ward Churchill at bookfair- clips

These are segments which don't amount to the entire talk

(sorry for the delay here). By the way, I have had mac vs. pc vs. linux problems with Youtube, not to mention different file formats on other websites.
Sorry for the shaky camera work. Someone there had tripod video films of the speakers, and if this is available, it should replace this wire thread.

Here, although the first few seconds are cut off, Ward is referring to Chairman Bob Avakian of the RCP (who supposedly lived in Berkeley, although I don't know anyone who has seen him locally).

A lot of the questions during the question period related to the subjects that Ward Churchill is most famous during the bizarre national media phenomenon of the past two years that occurred after someone with power suddenly noticed the essay he wrote the day of the World trade center attack in 2001.

This stuff is interesting, but the bulk of Churchill's work, where he has written or contributed to 20+ books, is on other topics. His best writing is in the area of law (land, u.s. relation to indians, etc.) and the FBI's Cointelpro program.

Here is what my question would have been. I suspect Churchill doesn't really support the concept of 'open borders' in the sense that many anarchists include it in their core principles - after all, much of his work, such as his 'Indigenism' essay, is about dispossession of indigenous nations by other groups that move in, and also expresses the principle that 'The U.S. just needs to truly enforce the constitution' (such as the statement that Treaties are the highest law of the land).
He has several times strongly supported the right of central americans and U.S. citizens to move about north america, and across both the canadian and mexican U.S. border.
We're also coming up to an era where there *will* be climate refugees. I'd like the core principles here to be clarified. I suspect that one of the key ideas might be that immigrants would be expected to subvert their own culture or behavior to the national currently occupying the land.
For instance, 2-3 million irish came from Ireland when they were being starved by England, and millions more europeans came fleeing monarchy. Some of these groups, when they got to the U.S., transformed into oppressive cultures that fought local indians. It might have been variable by ethnic group - there are few african americans with polish/italian/swedish/german last names, because most white people engaging in slavery were from great Britain, yet North Dakota filled with scandinavian settlers.
A lot of Churchill's writings make me suspect he'd support staying home and fighting the king, yet also I bet he might support a principle of applications by refugees to move between countries, but with an understanding that they need to accept the new nation's laws.

But this is where a tricky area comes up. What if a region lacking agriculture is fairly sparsely populated, but another dense agricultural area might have to resettle millions of people because the sea level is rising. Would it be optional to just say no to large numbers of refugees because it would cost the welcoming nation to accept them? Is there any area of international law governing this? For instance, it is actually quite likely that tens of millions of Bangladeshis could run into trouble with water rising in the delta. Australians might have contributed to greenhouse gases a lot more than nearby india or Thailand. Are Australians compelled to accept them, or could they say no and let them die. Does India have to take them because they are closest? How does the fact that Australia is colonized affect this? The U.S. is in a similar position.