I am the New Minister of Immigration!

[turningrite]

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

Such as?

I'm not sure there's space here to list and elaborate on all the relevant issues, however, below I've listed five, for starters.

1.) Ongoing wage suppression: Despite claims of labour shortages and resulting calls for higher immigration levels, wages in Canada for the most part remain stubbornly stagnant. Application of neoclassical economic theory, therefore, leads to the conclusion that there are no broad labour shortages and objective analyses substantiate this.

2.) Housing affordability crisis: Housing costs, particularly in principal immigration destinations like the Toronto and Vancouver regions, are out of control and have rendered living costs for ordinary people unaffordable. Home ownership and rental costs in these locations have for long periods of time risen at rates far above the inflation rate.

3.) An overwhelmed health care system: Again this problem is most acutely illustrated in places like Toronto where waves of immigrants are taxing an infrastructure that simply hasn't responded. Instead of resolving some of Canada's ageing challenges, immigration appears to be exacerbating them. The reality of "hallway medicine" has now become sadly too commonplace in our hospitals.

4.) Significant reliance on public support: There's an over-reliance among many newcomers on government support. The net social program costs (benefits paid to less taxes paid by immigrants) funded by taxpayers to support immigrants is estimated to amount to tens of billions of dollars a year.

5.) Increasing segregation and ghettoization: Reportedly, a fairly recent federal government study concluded that too many immigrants simply aren't integrating into Canadian society. The long term consequences of this cannot be assumed to be positive. And in contrast to previous generations of immigrants, who often temporarily settled in diaspora-focused inner city receiving neighbourhoods, the new segregated neighbourhoods (or "ethnoburbs" as they're sometimes called), which are mainly located in the suburbs of some of our major cities, are purpose-built and more-or-less intended to be permanent.

Edited November 2, 2018 by turningrite

[Bonam]

42 minutes ago, turningrite said:

I'm not sure there's space here to list and elaborate on all the relevant issues, however, below I've listed five, for starters.

Miscommunication. By "such as?" I didn't mean "such as which issues?" but rather "such as which parties will address this?" Argus understood. The answer, of course, is none. 

[Rue]

On 9/11/2018 at 3:10 PM, Hudson Jones said:

When someone who is not a Canadian citizen is charged with a criminal offence, immigration officials will be notified.

You could lose your permanent resident status and you could be deported to your country of origin if you are convicted of a serious crime.

A crime is serious if:

• the maximum sentence you could get is 10 or more years in prison (even if you get a shorter sentence), or
• the sentence that you do get is more than six months in prison.

Betsy referred to refugee claimant. If the refugee claimant is not yet a Canadian citizen becausevthey have not yet been found to be a refugee then your answer does not apply.

In fact the second part of the refugee definition has been interpreted to mean if you are convicted of a crime in another country that is not a crime in Canada or exposes you to a longer sentence in jail in that other country, or capital punishment in that other country, you are entitled to refugee protection in Canada. That is why Betsy asked her question. Zippity zap over your head.

Conviction for a serious non political crime  used to be an exclusion from applying for refugee protection now it is not necessarily and criminal fugitives not yet charged, or charged but not yet convicted or have been convicted are not automatically excluded from seeking refugee protection.

Show the sentence or potential sentence is stricter than in Canada or we do not have an equivalent criminal law, and you can come to Canada and apply as a refugee and get citizenship status in this matter and therefore avoid deportation to the country of the alleged offence.

If you are a Canadian citizen overseas who commits a crime overseas our foreign ministry asks to have you serve the sentence in  Canada if possible.

Of course if you are a Canadian citizen engaged in terrorism overseas, we take you back and pay you 10 million and who knows might send you to a Trudeau re-education camp where you can learn all the words to Oh Canada and join this political forum and call yourself James Bay Smith or Fraser Valley Watson  or Rocky Mountains White or Winnie Peg, Marla Maple or Bud Worm.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Rue

[Rue]

I think the current regular immigrationsystem needs some updates yes but pretty much already does what Argus has suggested.

In regards to the refugee process I would scrap it entirely and instead focus aid on food, water, clothing, shelter, medical, vocational training support at refugee camps and concentrate on taking on a limited no. of rprivately sponsored refugees from the refugee camps per year who pass language and psychological tests and are first given basic vocational training for jobs identified in Canada they will be asked to do.

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Rue

[Rue]

I would deport all persons entering Canada from the US illegally back to the US.

I would not take in convicted criminals as refugees and instead have a humanitarian ground hearing when they only can stay if they face death or torture on  return.

If they qualified to stay  then they only get a conditional permanent residency.

If in Canada they commit a crime they are stripped of their conditional permanent residency status and detained in prison until the end of their sentence. 

The law will require they must make an effort to learn and pass an English or French test or do not qualify for conditional permanent residenc and they must learn  a vocational skill needed in Canada and work or they lose thus status as well..

If they are a sex criminals, violent offenders, or murderers and/or escaping capital punishment they only get protection on a limited basis to live in a controlled isolated community while in Canada up until conditions are safe to return to their country or a minimum of 15 years at which time they can obtain qualified permanent residency status.

As for the Charter Of Rights the provinces and feds can agree to use the not withstanding clause to allow such provisions  so that no humanitarian convict entry is entitled to charter protection on the grounds the safety of the nation is of a higher priority ( this also enables then use of the peace order and good government concept in a new way).

While I am at it, no convicts should be allowed to vote and if outside prison for the remainder of their sentences or as a condition for early release or as an alternative to prison they wear tracking devices that if removed doubles their sentence and forces them to serve it back in prison with no possibility of early release.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Rue

[Rue]

I would suggest a Convention For The treatment of Terrorists which sends them to an international tribunal hearing to determine if they are terrorists. Then they would be detained in an international prison until their sentence is served.

The hearings would take place where the prison is. I would suggest a site where escape would be problematic.

I think all terrorists should be tried and convicted and then detained by a neutral international tribunal process and incarceration system independent of national/state or political bias.

I would also specifically address child terrorists in this law.

Edited November 2, 2018 by Rue

[Rue]

Finally I will deport myself to Tonga. 

Edited November 2, 2018 by Rue

[turningrite]

13 hours ago, Bonam said:

Miscommunication. By "such as?" I didn't mean "such as which issues?" but rather "such as which parties will address this?" Argus understood. The answer, of course, is none. 

I misread your question as I assumed you were challenging the validity of my economic critique of immigration policy. I suppose it was a reflexive response on my part because those who challenge the logic and/or wisdom of Canada's immigration and refugee policies are often presumptively pilloried for their presumed motives while those who promote and/or laud those same policies seldom seem to provide concrete arguments or evidence in support of their positions, preferring instead to uncritically regurgitate the propaganda spewed by politicians, big business, the immigration industry and, often, the corporate-controlled MSM.

My hope going into next year's federal election is that Maxime Bernier's party will gain sufficient traction to force the traditional mainline parties to respond to and debate immigration issues. Scheer's CPC appears to be at least somewhat serous about reforming the refugee system but to date hasn't as far as I'm aware said much about regular immigration levels or issues arising from the flow of sponsored relatives. Scheer has said that if elected a CPC government would end birth tourism, which is a positive sign.

It's bizarre that when half of Canadians indicate a belief that immigration levels are too high Trudeau's party has just announced its intention to significantly increase these levels and the other mainline parties largely appear to be silent on the issue. I believe the tri-party mainline cartel in Ottawa is doing a disservice to Canadians by ignoring broad public concern on this matter and the situation is only likely to improve if Bernier is able to change things.

Edited November 2, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

The loyalty and love of Canada among the 'investor class' immigrants seems underwhelming.

Only 52.6 per cent of the 52,507 investor migrant households that moved to Canada between 1986 and the May 2016 census still had their original breadwinner, or “principal applicant”, living in Canada, according to a previous South China Morning Post analysis of the data.

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/united-states-canada/article/2174587/former-chinese-banker-sues-canada-halt-tax-probe

Some rich foreigners seeking Canadian residency under a special Quebec program for wealthy investors couldn't point to the province on a map, while others submitted fake documents or disguised their assets — yet many of them were still accepted for immigration, former civil servants say. In the early 2000s, the Quebec government hired an outside firm to help vet applications. It was found that more than 65 per cent of them contained forged documentation.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/quebec-immigrant-investor-program-civil-servants-1.4830231

[Rue]

The immigration classes do need to be revisited and in particular the investor class yes Argus.  I myself want to scrap the refugee process and instead re-focus the money on humanitarian support in refugee camps and bring refugees in sponsored by charities but not the government.

I also think we have to be realistic in better matching immigration to those with transferable skills to Canada.

 

[-TSS-]

Immigration into a country like Canada is totally artificial and it wouldn't happen at all if it were not considered desireable by the people who govern Canada.

Namely, Canada has no natural immigration which is about people from neighbouring countries immigrating. Canada has only one neighbour and the urge to immigrate from there to Canada is not that great.

That certain neighbour not only has a long border with a country which has an average living-standards of 1/10 but that certain neighbour is the most wanted country in the world to immigrate into from all over the world.

 

[turningrite]

The Trudeau government in the lead-up to next year's election is reportedly embarking on a propaganda campaign, presumably funded by taxpayers, to promote its immigration policies. And, even more disturbingly, it's reportedly backing a UN effort to declare immigration a human right (wow!), thus undermining national borders. I think we should all be concerned about these efforts by a government that's increasingly radical.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/11/30/federal-government-launches-campaign-to-boost-support-for-immigration.html

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/malcolm-the-un-migration-compact-spells-radical-change-for-canada

 

Edited December 4, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

Anyone else starting to envy Quebec for its good government? Not only do they have their books in order so they have a surplus they're starting to address problems their people have been complaining about. First the pushback against burquas and now a cut to immigration.

Quebec is moving forward with its plan to cut the number of immigrants by more than 20 per cent next year, despite concerns raised by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

The Coalition Avenir Québec government tabled details of its policy on Tuesday, confirming it will go ahead with a campaign promise to reduce the number of immigrants to 40,000 in 2019, down from more than 50,000 this year. Immigration Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette said the government wants to make sure those who are coming will be better integrated into the workforce. 

"What we want is to use our resources so that every person that chooses Quebec has a chance at success," he said in the National Assembly.
At a news conference, Jolin-Barrette didn't offer details about how the government will ensure more immigrants find jobs.
He also said a French language and values test, a contentious proposal put forward during the campaign, is still in the works. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-immigration-legault-trudeau-1.4931929

Edited December 5, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

18 hours ago, Argus said:

Anyone else starting to envy Quebec for its good government? Not only do they have their books in order so they have a surplus they're starting to address problems their people have been complaining about. First the pushback against burquas and now a cut to immigration.

Quebec is moving forward with its plan to cut the number of immigrants by more than 20 per cent next year, despite concerns raised by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

 

Quebec's plan is prudent. Who does Justin Trudeau speak for anyway? I heard him on the TV news mimicking the corporate line, prattling on about labour shortages. Where, exactly, are these shortages and why is the government not simply targeting specific shortages? My guess is that big business wants the government to continue to permit it to utilize the immigration and foreign worker programs to practice wage suppression. The Trudeau government also appears intent on catering to other special interests including the too-powerful immigration industry and ethno-cultural lobbies. Increasing the number of sponsored seniors, or sponsored relatives in general, seems unlikely to help the economy.

I have educated friends who live in the GTA who can't find ongoing work. Too bad they're over 50, I guess. Mr. Trudeau and his cronies apparently think they should be put out to pasture. The federal government should create a national job bank where employers are obligated to post all positions they say they can't fill before they can bring in workers from outside of Canada. And let's monitor the cases where Canadian applicants are rejected. A friend told me that he was informed by an agency that some companies simply interview Canadian candidates on a pro forma basis in order to satisfy the requirement that they demonstrate a lack of suitable and available domestic candidates, which if true seems to amount to gaming the system. The employment environment for job seekers has become so arcane and fractured since the federal government effectively abandoned the field that it's almost impossible for workers to identify available opportunities. Let's fix that and let's see if a transparent and objectively monitored marketplace proves whether actual shortages exist.  

In the meantime, kudos to Quebec. It's putting its own workers and people first. Were Canada as a whole to adopt this approach, immigration intake numbers would fall to 180 to 200 thousand a year, which seems far more realistic than one million over three years, which is Trudeau's target.

Edited December 5, 2018 by turningrite

[turningrite]

A new Ipsos poll done for Global News (link below) indicates increasing public concern about Canada's immigration program. Although it appears the polling didn't specifically gauge whether Canadians feel immigration levels are too high, it did ask respondents whether they feel Canada is too welcoming to immigrants, and 54% percent indicate to one extent or another that they believe we are, in contrast to 20% who believe we are not. The coverage noted that attitudes about immigration appear to be increasingly negative.

While the TV news item addressing the polling results suggested that Bernier's views about immigration policy could have a real impact on the upcoming federal election, the written piece on the Global website seems to replicate the kind of pablum we often see in MSM coverage, attributing hardening attitudes to xenophobia, racism and growing right-wing anti-immigration sentiment elsewhere in the West. The written piece also repeats the often argued although highly speculative economic rationale for not decreasing immigration levels. The polling results, however, clearly appear to indicate a link between negative economic impacts of large-scale immigration as perceived by ordinary Canadians, including on employment opportunities, with declining public support for the program. It seems our mainstream politicians and their media acolytes, who apparently continue to strongly support the elite consensus on immigration policy, are increasingly out-of-touch with the views and lived experiences of ordinary Canadians. It will be interesting to see whether our political class can continue to keep the immigration policy genie in the bottle as the year progresses.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4794797/canada-negative-immigration-economy-ipsos/

Edited January 6, 2019 by turningrite

[Dougie93]

Meh, I don't expect  immigration to be a big issue, Canada basically dodged the worst effects of the 2008 meltdown, so there isn't the same sort of economic anxiety here as there was for Trump going in.

I would submit, this is just going to be a referendum on the carbon tax with Ontario deciding for the whole country, those of us who live in the rest of Upper Canada vs the Climate Barbie dingbats in Toronto.

Edited January 6, 2019 by Dougie93

[Argus]

10 hours ago, turningrite said:

A new Ipsos poll done for Global News (link below) indicates increasing public concern about Canada's immigration program. Although it appears the polling didn't specifically gauge whether Canadians feel immigration levels are too high, it did ask respondents whether they feel Canada is too welcoming to immigrants, and 54% percent indicate to one extent or another that they believe we are, in contrast to 20% who believe we are not. The coverage noted that attitudes about immigration appear to be increasingly negative.

While the TV news item addressing the polling results suggested that Bernier's views about immigration policy could have a real impact on the upcoming federal election, the written piece on the Global website seems to replicate the kind of pablum we often see in MSM coverage, attributing hardening attitudes to xenophobia, racism and growing right-wing anti-immigration sentiment elsewhere in the West. The written piece also repeats the often argued although highly speculative economic rationale for not decreasing immigration levels. The polling results, however, clearly appear to indicate a link between negative economic impacts of large-scale immigration as perceived by ordinary Canadians, including on employment opportunities, with declining public support for the program. It seems our mainstream politicians and their media acolytes, who apparently continue to strongly support the elite consensus on immigration policy, are increasingly out-of-touch with the views and lived experiences of ordinary Canadians. It will be interesting to see whether our political class can continue to keep the immigration policy genie in the bottle as the year progresses.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4794797/canada-negative-immigration-economy-ipsos/

As you read this, you can see how the progressive media people try to spin it, immediately suggesting that if Canada has NO immigration (which no politician has proposed) this would be bad for us, and waning people against anti immigration views and how dangerous they are. What's almost as interesting is the parts of the report Global chose not to mention. Like for example, 34% of Canadians feel we should completely end immigration.

44% of respondents say there are too many immigrants in Canada

55% want tighter borders and fewer immigrants

57% saying they put too much of a strain on public services.

44% say most refugees are really just economic migrants

59% feel the government is hiding the true cost of immigration

and this one is I think very important

48% feel immigration is making Canada change in ways they don't like.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-01/immigration_slides.pdf

 

[turningrite]

10 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Meh, I don't expect  immigration to be a big issue, Canada basically dodged the worst effects of the 2008 meltdown, so there isn't the same sort of economic anxiety here as there was for Trump going in.

 

I'm sure the mainstream parties and the MSM will try to keep a lid on any kind of election related immigration debate. The question will be whether they can succeed in this. Bernier's party will be the wild card here as Bernier has made it clear he wants to raise immigration issues, which could force the other parties to respond. As a commentator noted on yesterday's Global News coverage of the Ipsos poll, contrary to the elitist argument that's generally put forward on the matter by the mainstream parties there is actually no broad public consensus in Canada on immigration. In fact polling suggests a growing divergence between the elite consensus and public opinion. I believe immigration policy is an issue that warrants intense public debate.

Edited January 6, 2019 by turningrite

[OftenWrong]

Just now, Argus said:

As you read this, you can see how the progressive media people try to spin it, immediately suggesting that if Canada has NO immigration (which no politician has proposed) this would be bad for us, and waning people against anti immigration views and how dangerous they are.

Just saw the same thing on the CBC TV news cycle this morning. They are mouthing off these same ideas on their opinion panels. The way it was worded/ portrayed was that there was not even a question that right's views on immigration are racist. That was never challenged. Instead they only discussed the dilemma this presents for the right among immigrant voters. You can see the insidious public opinion shaping these panels provide taking place, right there.

[turningrite]

51 minutes ago, Argus said:

As you read this, you can see how the progressive media people try to spin it, immediately suggesting that if Canada has NO immigration (which no politician has proposed) this would be bad for us, and waning people against anti immigration views and how dangerous they are. What's almost as interesting is the parts of the report Global chose not to mention. Like for example, 34% of Canadians feel we should completely end immigration.

44% of respondents say there are too many immigrants in Canada

55% want tighter borders and fewer immigrants

57% saying they put too much of a strain on public services.

44% say most refugees are really just economic migrants

59% feel the government is hiding the true cost of immigration

and this one is I think very important

48% feel immigration is making Canada change in ways they don't like.

https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-01/immigration_slides.pdf

 

Thanks for the detailed polling questions link. In looking at the responses, I tend to eliminate the neutral ("neither agree nor disagree"") responses in order the ascertain the true state of public opinion. When one does this, the situation becomes even more stark, indicating that of those who have opinions on these matters (i.e. those for whom immigration issues could impact their voting intentions), 82% believe the government is hiding the true costs of immigration, 79% believe immigration has placed too much strain on public services, 73% believe Canada is too welcoming to immigrants, 66% believe there are too many immigrants in Canada, 57% believe immigrants make it more difficult for Canadians to get jobs, and 68% believe that those who have spoken out against immigration are treated unfairly by politicians and the media.

I completely agree with you that the elitist spin, which often challenges criticism of immigration with techniques like reverting to economic modelling based on zero immigration, amounts to manipulation. I believe this is a tactic known in rhetorical logic as 'reductio ad absurdum' and is intended to undermine rational criticism and debate. It's similar in approach to the "progressive" argument that those who vote for a leader like Trump favour fascism when in reality many Americans voted for Trump in 2016 because he openly addressed their legitimate concerns, which other politicians had long ignored. In my opinion, Trump's emergence is a sign of the growing disconnect between ordinary Americans and the traditional political elites just as the emergence of anti-immigrantion sentiment is a sign of a growing disconnect between our political, economic and media elites and ordinary citizens. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. I believe our leaders and our elites are responsible for the growing public negativity toward immigration.

Edited January 6, 2019 by turningrite

[Argus]

This is a relevant opinion on what the elites so casually miss when they decide to change the world as they have, with heavy immigration and globalization.

It has become commonplace for news reports to refer to almost any civic unrest, or even unusual patterns of voting, as evidence of ‘resurgent nationalism’ — implicitly suggesting a visceral hatred of foreigners and a desire to set the clock back to the glory days of racial homogeneity and casual homophobia. We should be wary of accepting this media trope: for one thing it may arouse far more fear than is warranted.

But apart from the needless fear it generates, it is also slightly dubious to suggest that it is the gilets jaunes or the Five Star Movement or the supporters of Brexit or even Donald Trump who are acting intemperately. It is perfectly possible to argue that these movements are a sensible, overdue reaction against governments that have imposed economic globalization on the world at a pace that is entirely inconsistent with the human lifespan and the speed at which we can adapt to change. The free movement of people, the euro, large-scale immigration, the dissolution of the nation state — for that matter the admission of China to the WTO… all were imposed on the world by ideologically motivated elites with little public consultation. Regardless of whether you think they are good or bad, there is a perfectly sensible secondary question to be asked about whether they were too much too soon. Remember, such decisions are usually made by economists, who do not really understand either time or scale. Nor does conventional economics take into account the importance of identity.

https://spectator.us/identity-important-wealth/

---

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

This is a relevant opinion on what the elites so casually miss when they decide to change the world as they have, with heavy immigration and globalization.

It has become commonplace for news reports to refer to almost any civic unrest, or even unusual patterns of voting, as evidence of ‘resurgent nationalism’ — implicitly suggesting a visceral hatred of foreigners and a desire to set the clock back to the glory days of racial homogeneity and casual homophobia. We should be wary of accepting this media trope: for one thing it may arouse far more fear than is warranted.

But apart from the needless fear it generates, it is also slightly dubious to suggest that it is the gilets jaunes or the Five Star Movement or the supporters of Brexit or even Donald Trump who are acting intemperately. It is perfectly possible to argue that these movements are a sensible, overdue reaction against governments that have imposed economic globalization on the world at a pace that is entirely inconsistent with the human lifespan and the speed at which we can adapt to change. The free movement of people, the euro, large-scale immigration, the dissolution of the nation state — for that matter the admission of China to the WTO… all were imposed on the world by ideologically motivated elites with little public consultation. Regardless of whether you think they are good or bad, there is a perfectly sensible secondary question to be asked about whether they were too much too soon. Remember, such decisions are usually made by economists, who do not really understand either time or scale. Nor does conventional economics take into account the importance of identity.

https://spectator.us/identity-important-wealth/

---

True enough, but none the less, it is inciting a Fascist vs Bolshevist dialectic with legs, it's like Poland, they were clicking along merrily towards classical liberalism,  and then all of a sudden, bam, they have veered off the deep end into cuckoo cray cray naow.

[turningrite]

33 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

You can see the insidious public opinion shaping these panels provide taking place, right there.

Re: "...insidious public opinion shaping." I think the more accurate description of the MSM approach is media manipulation. Noam Chomsky has long noted that the political and economic elites employ the media, which they largely control, to direct and shape public opinion and debate. In the much more diverse multi-media environment created by the internet this is becoming more difficult. Thus, I believe, we're witnessing the growing calls for various forms of censorship, including the suppression of free speech. We wouldn't want voters thinking for themselves, would we? As a student of history, I wonder if we're on the cusp of a new Reformation, with elite (i.e. corporate) control over public discourse and opinion being challenged by an increasingly skeptical public?  A new technology, the printing press, destroyed Catholic hegemony in Western Europe in the Reformation. Will another technology, the internet, equally undermine elite hegemony in the modern era?

[Argus]

Another opinion piece which asks the pointed question of just why the hell migrants - excuse me 'refugees' will go through one country after another before making their claim here . Or in this case why so many of the migrants are so desperate to get to the UK when they're already quite safe in France.

Pitching your tent for weeks on end in the cold and mud, with no power or plumbing. Running in a pack after accelerating lorries and clutching frantically at the back door handles. Risking not only your own life but even the lives of your children by crowding into unseaworthy dinghies, in which to drift precariously across the busiest shipping lane in the world… All this full-tilt determination to flee intolerable circumstances and get into the comparative Valhalla of the UK makes perfect sense — if the place you’re so desperate to leave behind is war-torn Syria or famine-ravaged Yemen. But the country on whose coast these yearning, immiserated would-be UK immigrants are camped, and have historically camped for 20 years, is France.

 

Excuse me. What’s wrong with France? Some Iranians the Border Force scooped from the Channel over the holidays may have been Christians in flight from religious persecution, but last time I checked, France, at least nominally, was Catholic.

https://spectator.us/flee-france/

[Argus]

Immigration is a concern around the world, and not just in the West. In fact, a recent PEW survey showed hostility towards immigrants is higher in developing countries than it is in western countries. Which kind of belies the leftist meme that all opposition to immigration is based on nasty, racist white people not wanting more 'brown people' in their countries.

The percentage of people wanting fewer or no more immigrants coming to their country was higher in South Africa (65 percent), Argentina (61 percent), Kenya (60 percent), Nigeria (50 percent), India (45 percent), and Mexico (44 percent) than it was in Australia (38 percent), the U.K. (37 percent) or the U.S. (29 percent). In all 27 countries surveyed, less than a third of respondents said their country should let in more immigrants. A 2017 Ipsos MORI survey on global “nativist” trends painted a similar picture. When asked if they thought their country would be “stronger” if it “stopped immigration” altogether, more Turks (61 percent) and Indians (45 percent) answered in the affirmative than Brits (31 percent), Australians (30 percent), Germans (37 percent) or South Africans (37 percent). On the question of whether they felt like “strangers in their own country”—another indicator of hostility towards immigration—more Turks (57 percent), South Africans (54 percent), Brazilians (46 percent) and Indians (39 percent) answered yes than Germans (38 percent), Brits (36 percent) or Australians (36 percent). Finally, when asked whether employers should “prioritize” hiring locals over immigrants, 74 percent of Turks, 64 percent of Peruvians, 62 percent of Indians and 60 percent of South Africans agreed, compared to 58 percent of Americans, 48 percent of Brits and 17 percent of Swedes.

https://quillette.com/2019/01/01/anxiety-about-immigration-is-a-global-issue/