← Back to context

Comment by diego_moita

1 month ago

> Canada's immigration is already quite lop-sided.

I don't even understand what "lop-sided" means here.

Would you say that Canada's oil and softwood businesses are lop-sided because we produce and export a lot of it? Or that the groceries' market is lop-sided because we don't produce a lot of it and therefore have to import?

Canada is an importer of people (not only from India) because it can't produce a lot of people. It is not different from groceries.

21 comments

diego_moita

Reply
breitling  1 month ago

Why not import from a variety of countries to preserve the social fabric? https://preview.redd.it/in-the-first-three-months-of-2025-ca...

  • triceratops  1 month ago

    Is India lacking in variety? It has more languages than Europe.

    Variety isn't a bad idea in and of itself. But you're making the mistake of assuming all the people who live inside a particular nation's boundaries are the same.

    • theflyinghorse  1 month ago

      India as a whole is diverse. Canada is NOT getting immigrants from all of India but rather from 2 states (mostly one). Please learn about the issue first.

    • poncho_romero  1 month ago

      The majority of Indian immigrants to Canada are coming from one state, Punjab, so the benefits of diversity within India is not necessarily reflected in the Indians coming to Canada.

      1 reply →

  • ryandrake  1 month ago

    What does "preserve the social fabric" mean?

    • poncho_romero  1 month ago

      Because there are so many Indians around, newly arrived Indians tend to spend most of their time with other Indians, and as a result don't integrate with the rest of society as much as previously waves of immigrants did. Canada is a cultural mosaic, but a certain degree of intermixing and assimilation is necessary, in my opinion, to preserve social and national bonds.

FiniteField  1 month ago

>I don't even understand [...]

>It is not different from groceries.

Do you appreciate that, in the wider historical context, this position is an exceptionally radical one? You seem to not understand how there could even exist a difference of opinion on this, but I'm confident that this outlook of humans as being completely fungible, transactional economic units would appear unthinkable to anyone throughout 99% of human history. Just the suggestion that a nation's population should be restocked by swapping it out with another nation's population would be tantamount to treason any time prior to the revolution of the 1960s.

modo_mario  1 month ago

>because it can't produce a lot of people.

So does every country that can't grow it's population indefinitely need to import a ton of people? What is the endgame there?

And I thought trade in people as some kind of fungible economic token was out of vogue.