One thing we could do against this is to lobby our govts to crack down on mainland chinese spies and ccp supporters in our areas. In Vancouver, there were counter-protestor chinese who were recording and taking photos of hong kong protestors. Our govt needs to be very careful of who they let in from the mainland china.
Uighur attacks only happened after a decade of repression. The CCP govt moved Han chinese into the region and took away employment and other things that Uighurs used to enjoy turning them into second class citizens. Some people out of frustration committed the attacks which is exactly what CCP wanted to fully go in and start clearing and fully occupying them.
You sound like a Han Chinese. Imagine yourself in their shoes. There's lots of Chinese diaspora in other countries. What if one of the countries decided to do that with the Han Chinese? Would you still side with the host country?
Imagine yourself in the shoes of the person who was killed by a bombing. Imagine yourself knowing family members or your kids getting slaughtered by these terrorist attacks.
Let me put it to you clearly. The situation is complex, no side is right, but to bury the action of one side and justify the actions of another because it's convenient for some stupid US-China rivalry is the wrong way to view it.
I'm not saying either side was right. I'm saying it's wrong to comment on how this is disgusting. It is a valid opposing perspective, just like how your perspective is valid.
What isn't valid is insults and a mass mob mentality.
I'm not American so the US-China rivalry comment is not relevant to me. If my family was killed by a bombing attack I would want to get to the bottom of why it happened in the first place without just blaming an entire population and justifying their genocide.
I am not saying that jihadist extremism is not to blame. But I don't think an entire Uighur culture is to blame either and especially not Uighur people who are being victimised.
>I'm not saying either side was right. I'm saying it's wrong to comment on how this is disgusting.
It's not wrong at all to comment on this. What the Chinese govt is doing is plain disgusting and they should be held accountable just like anybody who is supporting them. We hold extremist groups who carry out attacks responsible, so why not a racist, genocidal govt who instigated the whole thing anyway?
>I'm not American so the US-China rivalry comment is not relevant to me. If my family was killed by a bombing attack I would want to get to the bottom of why it happened in the first place without just blaming an entire population and justifying their genocide.
When someone bombs your family you take the time to find out why they were bombed and try to understand the otherside before shutting down the otherside.
But when someone voices their own opinion. You just call their opinion disgusting and accuse them of genocide.
The man is obviously not supporting genocide. If the chinese are supporting genocide than the man obviously doesn't know but an accusation of genocide needs extreme proof and right now there's only rumors.
Maybe what's really going on is you're selectively applying your empathy to whatever suits your preconceived viewpoint.
>When someone bombs your family you take the time to find out why they were bombed and try to understand the otherside before shutting down the otherside.
I didn't say I would try to understand the side that bombed my family. Those would be the terrorists. I said I would get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened. I would not condemn an entire people or a culture (unless of course every single one of them believed the same thing as the terrorists) to seek some sort of sick justice. Please don't invent things I didn't say.
>The man is obviously not supporting genocide. If the chinese are supporting genocide than the man obviously doesn't know but an accusation of genocide needs extreme proof and right now there's only rumors.
It's not rumours. There is genuine proof. My own government declared it as genocide after investigation (Canada).
>But when someone voices their own opinion. You just call their opinion disgusting and accuse them of genocide.
My comment was directed at the Chinese govt and whoever supports them (obviously knowingly). I didn't call his opinion disgusting. Please learn to comprehend at a level above that of the sixth grade.
>Maybe what's really going on is you're selectively applying your empathy to whatever suits your preconceived viewpoint.
Yeah and you are selectively applying your generosity in trying to understand those you disagree with to whatever suits your needs.
>I didn't say I would try to understand the side that bombed my family. Those would be the terrorists. I said I would get to the bottom of what happened and why it happened. I would not condemn an entire people or a culture (unless of course every single one of them believed the same thing as the terrorists) to seek some sort of sick justice. Please don't invent things I didn't say.
I didn't invent anything you said. I'm telling you what you should do.
>It's not rumours. There is genuine proof. My own government declared it as genocide after investigation (Canada).
Alright. Show me the pictures of the mass killings and the slaughter that's occurring in China. I want to see pictures of the executions and the graves. We have pictures that corroborate the events of Nanking and the holocaust show me the pictures of the genocide that's occurring in China.
>My comment was directed at the Chinese govt and whoever supports them (obviously knowingly). I didn't call his opinion disgusting. Please learn to comprehend at a level above that of the sixth grade.
This whole topic is about a comment calling the original topic disgusting. My comment is defending the original comment. You attacking me is agreeing with the premise. Stay on topic.
>Yeah and you are selectively applying your generosity in trying to understand those you disagree with to whatever suits your needs.
I'm not. Show me the pictures and proof of the "genocide" and I'll do a 180. I'll believe you.
>I'm not. Show me the pictures and proof of the "genocide" and I'll do a 180. I'll believe you.
>Alright. Show me the pictures of the mass killings and the slaughter that's occurring in China. I want to see pictures of the executions and the graves.
Again you've shown yourself to be no more mature than a sixth grader. First, educate yourself about definition of a genocide. It's not all "mass killings and graves" that you are lusting after. A genocide can be a systematic destruction of a people through incarceration, torture, humiliation, destruction of language, cultural practices etc. simply based on their race, culture, or religion. Same thing that's happening to Uighurs. Vox did an expose a couple months ago using satellite imagery to find hundreds of mass detention and slave labor facilities corroborated by statements from victims.
A genocide is systematic destruction of people through killing. That is the oxford official definition and that is the colloquial meaning of the term. When people hear the word they don't think torture, they don't think cultural assimilation, they don't think birth control.
They think slaughter.
Using the word genocide in the way you define it.... makes gitmo become a genocide camp. You're own civilized neighbor the US of A is also basically conducting genocide of middle easterners under your highly convenient definition.
But I don't need to tell you this. You know this already. You throw down that word with the full knowledge that whenever you use that word people will think mass killings. You only fall back on a convenient definition when someone calls you out on the technicality. This is what the articles you read do to manipulate the sentiment, and you accept it because you enjoy calling China a country that is conducting mass genocide. You enjoy perpetuating China with a reputation that is an extreme version of the truth. This is what's going on.
I would tell you to educate yourself but the mind is not only limited by what it is capable of learning but also by genetics. Your limitations are of the latter kind, there is nothing for you to learn because you are already aware of what you're doing.
There's nothing left to argue on the main topic because we both never disagreed that detention camps exist. We can argue about the definition of the word "genocide" and about how your misguided brain works though, I'm sure there's still a disagreement on those two areas.
With regards to Gitmo, you are again purposefully lying. There are plenty of arabs and muslims living in USA with no problems. We have comedians (Hasan Minaj) making fun of Trump. Which Chinese, let along uighur, can make fun of Xi in China?
Now since we both agreed that the detention camps exist, and also the women of that group are being sterilized against their will, it meets criteria b, and d of the Genocide under the UN charter.
As for my genes, they're full capable of learning and not limited by brainwashing as you have been subjected to. Sorry for you and the rest of the CCP shills.
As a canadian immigrant, I'm actually against the ramping up of so much immigration because we do not have the infrastructure to support it. I liked the slow and steady pace of quality over quantity before liberals came into power.
It wasn't much lower in the past -- the number's been hovering around the high 2xx,000 to low 3xx,000 per year since 1992, and immigration per year as a percentage of the population has remained around 1% that entire time, according to IRCC and statcan. [1]
The real issue is that Canada's birth rate is 1.4 children per woman on average. This means within a generation the population would be reduced to 2/3. With a points-based immigration program, the country is able to be selective about who it brings in.
I find blanket statements like "the infrastructure can't support it" pretty weak sauce without citations, especially as more folks in the country means more economic productivity, which means more taxes, which means more money to throw at, you guessed it, infrastructure.
>The real issue is that Canada's birth rate is 1.4 children per woman on average. This means within a generation the population would be reduced to 2/3. With a points-based immigration program, the country is able to be selective about who it brings in.
And instead of supporting the native Canadian population in having more children themselves, Canada, like most of the modern West, simply opted to replace them over time via migration.
> And instead of supporting the native Canadian population in having more children themselves, Canada, like most of the modern West, simply opted to replace them over time via migration.
This doesn't make sense. The country already incentivizes child birth, and provides socialized medicine. You can't make people have children.
The reality is that as a country becomes more developed, it's birth rate plunges. There's a strong negative correlation between income, development and birth rate. [1] This is not an east-vs-west thing, it applies the world over.
In developed countries, women do not want to have more children, and you can't make them. So, you allow immigration
>> And instead of supporting the native Canadian population in having more children themselves, Canada, like most of the modern West, simply opted to replace them over time via migration.
>This doesn't make sense. The country already incentivizes child birth, and provides socialized medicine. You can't make people have children.
But this doesn't disprove the prior statement. It's possible that they're incentivizing having children, but not enough. Given the available choices of incentivizing having children even more (eg. free daycare or longer parental leave) or simply admitting more immigrants, Canada went with the latter because it's cheaper. After all, why bother letting the native population produce average workers when you can admit above average workers from across the world?
If you look at the chart, you'll see there is a substantial global negative correlation between income and fertility. High income countries have low fertility. Everywhere.
The question for me is why are you trying to force "natives" to have kids they don't want to have?
Applying pressure through substantial incentives is probably the better way of expressing it. I guess incentivizing someone enough is the same as forcing them but I digress. Why substantially incentivize locals to have children, when there's strong worldwide negative correlation between income/development and child birth? Why are local children inherently better than immigrants? To the extent that the society functions well and immigrants integrate into the broader country, what difference does it make?
I would further argue that "bringing in immigrants" isn't the "easy way out" or even likely the "cheap way out" but rather probably more challenging. Creating a society that deals well with the gaijin isn't easy.
I see no evidence that free daycare or longer parental leave actually incentivize adults to have children. The birth rate in Finland is 1.49 and falling rapidly, Sweden and Norway are 1.8ish. Iceland is 1.75. Germany is 1.57. Spain is 1.34. These places have incredibly generous programs and are well below the replacement rate of 2.1.
Finland's mat leave is 4.2 months and pat leave is 2.2 months and offers public daycare centers. If that's not long enough or free enough to boost their brith rate over 1.49 I'm not sure what you'd suggest.
Yes, mat/pat leave is great, and should exist. So should free daycare. However, I don't see any evidence that'll move the needle. If anything, it appears that pushes the birth rate further down being correlated broadly with increased development.
eh... sounds typical right wing comment. Japan has low immigration rates, yet they are not having any more babies. So is Hungary (most restrictive country in EU for immigrants), Italy (lax about immigration), or even Albania (has outflow of people).
It is a world wide issue in all western countries, and it is independent of net 'in or out' immigration. The more developed a country becomes, the less babies it makes.
Even if you stopped immigration, people would not be making more babies, as countries that don't have net immigration still don't make more babies. Baby making seems independent with net immigration rates.
>So is Hungary (most restrictive country in EU for immigrants)
Hungary incentivizes its native population to have larger families, a policy of Victor Orban's, and has seen consistent growth in its fertility rate since ~2010. This is, as far as I'm concerned, the way it should be tackled.
> The more developed a country becomes, the less babies it makes.
America and the UK's birth rates nose-dived in the mid-60's and hasn't recovered since. I'm failing to draw a connection to these countries being drastically more developed by the end of the 60s than they were at the start of them.
Right, in the long term it would be beneficial, but the infrastructure takes time to build up. Most immigrants understandably crowd in either Vancouver, Toronto or a couple of other big cities because that's where the opportunities are. Not sure where you live, but the food and rent have gone up dramatically in these cities. Forget about being able to afford buying a house or an apartment even if you've been responsibly saving up. The commute before covid was killer. I don't understand this off-hand dismissal of concerns because I don't have citations.
Immigration to Canada has stayed very consistent over the last 20 years, check the wiki article [1] for details. It's not political (well, the rhetoric is political. The actual policies and statistics are not.)
There's a lot to be said for a slow steady pace. Society's relationship with politics tends to be oscillatory. If you push too hard in one direction (liberal or conservative), things swing back the other way and you end up with two steps forward, one step back and a loss of power for your team.
A more productive approach would be to set the cruise control just left of center and not get greedy. If you do that and simultaneously monitor and manage externalities of policies you see as progress, you'll probably see more mileage.
The complete lack of concern for externalities of policies and disregard for second and third order effects is why I've largely abandoned supporting most democrat positions. It's gotten so destructive that I'd rather stick with the devil I know than the devil I don't. And I would rather avoid oscillating between which devil has power since it's at the point in the reversal of political direction that the worst authoritarian abuses from either side happen.
If you're expecting HN, in all its "rational glory", to be anything but extremely pro-migration to the West when most of the users' are likely either 1st or 2nd generation migrants to the West themselves, then you're very naive.
It's about _carrying capacity_, not "infrastructure". We can only absorb people at some maximum rate and still have a chance of bringing them on board with hard-fought Canadian cultural values, getting them up to speed with our official languages, and integrating them into local communities. Past that rate, the tendency is for newcomers to seek out people who are from their home country and speak their language. This creates insular bubbles of culture and damages any effort to actually create a cohesive whole.
Multiculturalism in Canada is different than in America. Here, there's something bigger for us to assimilate to that actually still holds value as a construct; a greater Canadian archetype that has done extremely well as a common point for newcomers to converge on for the past few decades. However, it would be easy to exceed the rate at which this is workable, and end up with a fractured country where people retain their entire original identity and never "become Canadian". This is a legitimate concern for people that love the country created by people who are Canadian through and through and want to see some of our lesser-known values (such as anticorruption, engineering quality, sustainability, etc) continue to propagate.
Well, there are certainly areas of Vancouver and Toronto and their outlying suburbs that are on the verge of this; but it's more of an issue with recognizing the potential issues by looking at other countries that are further down the demographic path than Canada is. Or do you think it's necessary to have a problem in order to understand it?
Thank you for explaining it so well. Like I said I am not against immigration as I myself am one. I would just like our government to be mindful about the challenges it poses as well and adjust the rate based on how much we are able to take in at any given point without stressing out the system and making life worse for people already here.
"annoyed" is a rather dismissive way to phrase it. I'm a light sleeper and it would be torture to me at night and would affect my quality of life tremendously. I wouldn't be able to focus on family or work if I couldn't get good quality sleep.
