Fears often trump facts in debate on immigration
When Quebecers say they are against immigration, what do they mean?
Are they against their tax dollars supporting social programs for newcomers, be they statesponsored refugees or migrants streaming across borders?
Are they against foreign labour supposedly coming here to “steal” their jobs?
Are they against diversity, as in the tolerance for different cultural and religious practices of minority groups, which they see as a threat to their own customs, values and familiar way of life?
Or are they against the people themselves, of various races and creeds, who come from distant corners of the globe?
Are these views based on facts or feelings? Are they being formed as a result of personal experience or are they being shaped by the political discourse in Quebec?
These are questions that spring to mind when examining the results of a recent Léger poll that asked more than 1,000 Quebecers from across the province whether they think immigration should be increased, maintained, lowered or halted altogether. The issue was part of a broader survey of voter intentions and priorities for the LCN network leading up to the October election.
The data reveal that Quebec is deeply divided on the matter — along language lines, depending on whether they live in cosmopolitan Montreal or more remote regions, and according to what generation they belong to. Perhaps not surprisingly, younger Quebecers and Montrealers have more favourable attitudes toward immigration than older folks, while those who live in regions with more homogeneous populations are less likely to be supportive.
Feelings may also be driving opinions more than facts. Quebec is, after all, experiencing a labour shortage caused by one of the world’s most rapidly aging populations and the low birthrate typical of Western countries. Fast-food restaurants in the regions have had to close up shop for lack of employees to staff the drive-thru window. Meanwhile, contrary to the stereotype of the immigrant on welfare, the latest figures from Statistics Canada demonstrate that a larger proportion of newcomers are employed than native-born Quebecers.
The poll data may reflect global sociological and political phenomena related to diversity. Research by Eric Kauffman at the London School of Economics has demonstrated that those who live in multicultural environments — big cities — are more likely to see it as a positive. This is referred to as contact theory. The corollary is also true: those who have little or no experience with people of other cultures tend to be most fearful. But most interesting — and perhaps most unsettling — is that those who live on the periphery of diverse areas, who see multiculturalism but don’t actually interact with people of different backgrounds, are also likely to be skeptical. This is known as the “halo effect.” In other words, you’re more or less likely to approve of immigration if you live in Hérouxville or even Hudson than in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Helpful as it is to understand the sociological roots of antiimmigrant sentiment, the political context cannot be ignored. Just as it’s impossible to know what motivated the responses of those answering the Léger poll questions on immigration, it’s impossible not to see their answers as knotted up in the broader social debate taking place about diversity, minority rights and inclusion.
For a decade now, Quebec has been roiling over so-called reasonable accommodation that has left it divided. Some political parties, most notably the Parti Québécois and the Coalition Avenir Québec, have used identity issues to drive wedges even deeper, while the Quebec Liberals have tried to paint themselves as the party of tolerance (despite their hypocrisy in legislating against the face veils worn by a tiny proportion of Muslim women).
Debating the appropriate levels of immigration to meet workforce demands and ensure the availability of public services to help them succeed is reasonable, as is questioning who foots the bill for an unexpected surge in asylum seekers because of the Trump effect south of the border. It’s when politicians use these debates to draw a line between “us and them,” feed suspicion of “the other” and deliberately undermine social cohesion that things start to get unseemly.
Policy ideas like subjecting immigrants to some ill-defined values test, as the CAQ wants to do, is more about pandering to prejudice than it is any meaningful effort to promote integration. Vowing to crush the dreams of a Montreal college student who wants to be the first police officer in Quebec to wear the hijab, as the PQ and the CAQ are vowing, is just cruel.
It’s also playing with fire. The strain of this kind of dog-whistle politicking on the social fabric is bad enough. But the effects on a feeble mind can be even more catastrophic. We need look no further than the tragic testimony at the Quebec City courthouse during the last two weeks for evidence.
The sentencing hearing for Alexandre Bissonnette, who pleaded guilty to killing six and wounding many more when he opened fire on a mosque in 2017, has heard that the 28-year-old shooter was paranoid about terrorists killing his family and saw immigrants, especially Muslims, as a threat. According to what he told police upon his arrest, he supported U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempt to limit travellers from majority Muslim countries and the trigger for his rampage was Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s tweet, as this ban was being imposed south of the border, offering to welcome immigrants.
Clearly, this is the nadir of antiimmigrant sentiment acted upon by one hate-fuelled extremist. And hopefully it is an aberration. But it shouldn’t prevent us from asking questions about how his mind was poisoned.
And it shouldn’t stop us from wondering whether there’s more to the poll results than concern about Quebec’s ability to handle the number of immigrants arriving each year.