Some folks on here have been repeating this garbage as well

  • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    By which logic? What specific sentence gave you the impression that I think we should increase immigration targets?

    • BedSharkPal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      If the path to ensure that is not allowing them to immigrate, it really is impossible to spin this as anything else than anti-immigration…

      If you’re not allowing everyone who wants to immigrate here the opportunity - isn’t that anti-immigration?

      • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It depends on which kind of debate you’re having and which definitions you’re starting from.

        I’d say that most people who would call themselves pro-immigration don’t go as far as saying that absolutely anyone should be allowed immigrant status, so I wouldn’t call being against that position anti-immigration.

        I do think that most people who would call themselves pro-immigration would agree that it’s understandable that provinces can dial up or down on immigration programs of skilled labor depending on economic circumstances. So I wouldn’t say that reducing immigration numbers in any form is an inherently anti-immigration stance either.

        I do think, however, that saying that we should reduce immigration because immigrants are making housing unaffordable is solidly on the anti-immigration side. There’s a pretty intuitive divide here.