3 ms·

That's just not true. Ever been to San Diego? Little Saigon? Chinatown?

midoridensha 3y ago
Right, that's called "ghettoization". It's not really a good recipe for a safe, prosperous nation. You really think things will work out great if you bring in millions of people and all they can do is work as exploited workers in restaurants in one little part of a city? I guess it worked "ok" for America historically because America abused and exploited so many immigrants for so long (go read "The Jungle"), but I don't think that's really something to emulate.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > Right, [San Diego / Little Saigon / Chinatown is] called "ghettoization". Just because a geographic concentration originated from forced-segregation policies over a century ago does not automatically mean those bad policies and pejorative status continues today. > It's not really a good recipe for a safe, prosperous nation. [...] exploited so many immigrants Hold up, I think the goalposts are moving a bit here: Earlier you said it was about "supporting themselves" economically. However now it sounds like no amount of economic-self-sufficiency is enough--you're saying those people ought to be blocked/deported unless they can satisfy some ill-defined requirement about where they live and who they socialize with. > bring in millions of people and all they can do is work as exploited workers in restaurants I am doubtful that millions of people who *checks comment-thread* have doctorate degrees and PhDs will be arriving to work for the rest of their lives in restaurants. If they do... well, then they're probably choosing it to escape something crappy enough that we should be letting them in for humanitarian reasons anyway.
Terr_ 3y ago
Also: 1. If being unable to support themselves is the concern, why not make that the actual requirement to stay... Versus of an indirect and error-prone language requirement set by what are probably a bunch of old white monolingual men in Washington, DC? 2. Automatic translation tools have advanced by leaps and bounds over the last few decades.
- midoridensha 3y ago
  >If being unable to support themselves is the concern, why not make that the actual requirement to stay... That's a good idea. That's how it is here in Japan: knowing the language is good, and gets you some points on your visa, but it's not a requirement. If you have a high-paying job offer from a sponsoring company, and a good educational and professional background (or other factors, like if you're in academia), then that's good too. They figure you'll learn the language on your own in that case. If you have no education and no way to support yourself, and can't communicate with anyone, why would they want you? Unless it's to exploit you. I don't think we should be promoting exploitation. >Versus of an indirect and error-prone language requirement set by what are probably a bunch of old white monolingual men in Washington, DC? US doesn't have a language requirement. We're talking about Canada, so you mean a bunch of white bilingual (English/French) people in Ottawa.

Right, that's called "ghettoization". It's not really a good recipe for a safe, prosperous nation. You really think things will work out great if you bring in millions of people and all they can do is work as exploited workers in restaurants in one little part of a city? I guess it worked "ok" for America historically because America abused and exploited so many immigrants for so long (go read "The Jungle"), but I don't think that's really something to emulate.

Terr_ 3y ago
> Right, [San Diego / Little Saigon / Chinatown is] called "ghettoization". Just because a geographic concentration originated from forced-segregation policies over a century ago does not automatically mean those bad policies and pejorative status continues today. > It's not really a good recipe for a safe, prosperous nation. [...] exploited so many immigrants Hold up, I think the goalposts are moving a bit here: Earlier you said it was about "supporting themselves" economically. However now it sounds like no amount of economic-self-sufficiency is enough--you're saying those people ought to be blocked/deported unless they can satisfy some ill-defined requirement about where they live and who they socialize with. > bring in millions of people and all they can do is work as exploited workers in restaurants I am doubtful that millions of people who *checks comment-thread* have doctorate degrees and PhDs will be arriving to work for the rest of their lives in restaurants. If they do... well, then they're probably choosing it to escape something crappy enough that we should be letting them in for humanitarian reasons anyway.

Terr_ 3y ago

Also: 1. If being unable to support themselves is the concern, why not make that the actual requirement to stay... Versus of an indirect and error-prone language requirement set by what are probably a bunch of old white monolingual men in Washington, DC? 2. Automatic translation tools have advanced by leaps and bounds over the last few decades.

midoridensha 3y ago
>If being unable to support themselves is the concern, why not make that the actual requirement to stay... That's a good idea. That's how it is here in Japan: knowing the language is good, and gets you some points on your visa, but it's not a requirement. If you have a high-paying job offer from a sponsoring company, and a good educational and professional background (or other factors, like if you're in academia), then that's good too. They figure you'll learn the language on your own in that case. If you have no education and no way to support yourself, and can't communicate with anyone, why would they want you? Unless it's to exploit you. I don't think we should be promoting exploitation. >Versus of an indirect and error-prone language requirement set by what are probably a bunch of old white monolingual men in Washington, DC? US doesn't have a language requirement. We're talking about Canada, so you mean a bunch of white bilingual (English/French) people in Ottawa.