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...

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.

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.

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.

Source?

What does "preserve the social fabric" mean?

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.

It's what the Irish said to us Italians when we were immigrating to Canada in droves.

It's a much larger drove this time around, to be fair.

It's a dog whistle for 'keeping Canada white'. There are a lot of racists in Canada.

This doesn’t work anymore.

Canada is one of the least racist countries in the world. Please travel.

Honestly so is the USA. Yes there is racism, more than I used to think, but it’s below average.

Not being racist is really a pretty modern idea that didn’t become popular anywhere until the last 50 years. For most of human history it was conventional wisdom that (whatever I am) is the obviously superior form of human. Statistically this is probably still what most living people think.

I mean of course whatever you are is the master race. Isn’t it obvious?

I've lived there. Bullshit.

What countries would you consider to not be racist? Canada is a functional pluralistic society. Yes there are racists here, but far fewer than elsewhere in my view.

>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.

>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.

Is it typical to consider immigration as a trade similar to apples and oranges?

To politicians and economists humans are fungible.