Fringe right wing sensibilities, like not agreeing with CRT, not wanting to flood immigrants into the country faster than any other country in the world, etc etc etc
But you are promoting the PPC, and their policy is to shut off immigration completely. And when challenged on this, you say "Oh we just want to reduce immigration ande defend against CRT". It's the classic motte and bailey argument.
and their policy is to shut off immigration completely
Even if it is, why are we obligated to take in immigrants? Try immigrating to China. Try to get citizenship or a work visa there. YOU CAN'T. So why are WE obligated to take them in and let them buy up our land while Canadians sleep in parks?
Fringe right wing sensibilities, like not agreeing with CRT, not wanting to flood immigrants into the country faster than any other country in the world, etc etc etc
Are you familiar with the Motte-and-bailey fallacy? Because you're doing it right now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
You motte is "not agreeing with CRT" and "wanting to slow down immigration". Your bailey is "Ending immigration completely".
One of those positions is fairly moderate and could be popular with voters.
The other is extremely radical and will get you nowhere.
I wasn’t familiar; and while it is interesting it doesn’t apply since I’ve never once advocated for ending immigration.
I neither expect PPC to win or that my sensibilities are far right wing, so I’d say your meme is a straw man.
But you are promoting the PPC, and their policy is to shut off immigration completely. And when challenged on this, you say "Oh we just want to reduce immigration ande defend against CRT". It's the classic motte and bailey argument.
Even if it is, why are we obligated to take in immigrants? Try immigrating to China. Try to get citizenship or a work visa there. YOU CAN'T. So why are WE obligated to take them in and let them buy up our land while Canadians sleep in parks?