Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
It is a tougher topic that often can't be grappled with in Canada, but it's also not necessarily racist to want to conserve something about the place you live in or your culture. "I don't like that I go to the grocery store and nobody speaks English anymore" is a hypothetical valid opinion to have for non-racist reasons and it can be grounded in accurate observation.
Not sure if it could be said to be accurate around the Halifax area anywhere, but that is a question that can be dealt with directly rather than shut down with accusations of racism. In other words, the healthier objection is "the vast majority do speak English", not "shut up you racist".
|
If you think about other hypothetical scenarios like, an area that was predominantly White sees an increasing number of Black or Indigenous people moving in. So a longer term resident objects saying that they want to conserve the look or culture of the place - not because they're racist or anything, but they don't want the area to change. "I just don't like going to the grocery store and seeing all these people who look and sound different than before". The main focus should be on how healthy our objection should be?
If the staff at the grocery store couldn't speak English preventing the person from getting customer service, then sure. But that's on the grocery store for its hiring policies. If some of the other customers at the grocery store are speaking a different language, it honestly isn't anyone else's business. It's true that most immigrants can speak English, but it's natural for people to speak to one another in the way they're most comfortable. Sure others have the right not to like it, but if they claim that it's a reason people shouldn't be allowed in the country then I'm not sure how that wouldn't qualify as a form of xenophobia. There's no such thing as the right to have other people look, talk, dress, etc. the same as you. But it's true that xenophobia can exist independently of racism, so if the only issue is that word then fine. I tend to avoid accusatory language since most people aren't aware of their biases. But I also wouldn't focus on someone using it rather than on the main issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone123
One red flag I think is that the government did agree its own immigrant policy was too much but it's still hard to say that the now-reduced prior level of immigration was causing problems such as high housing costs. It's just obviously true that Canada has a certain capacity to absorb newcomers, it also depends on the people who come (like how good their English is and their education/skill level), and there is definitely a level that's "too high". Canada obviously can't support 10 million per year for example. It's not racist to debate 300k vs. 1 million, which is whether Canada should have one of the higher immigration rates in the world or go way above that as an outlier.
|
But that can still be discussed in terms of general growth policy and targets. Countries have trouble handling too high a rate of natural reproduction too. In fact, China famously instituted the "one child policy" for many years for that very reason. So it's too much growth that's the issue, not immigration specifically. And honestly, not singling out immigration makes the issue easier to discuss rather than harder because then you're not pulling in a lot of people who are biased against anti-immigrants in general so you're able to focus on actual substantive discussions on growth policy.
Threaded Mode