I get that, and it's definitely not unique to Quebec. How much of the "over there" factor has to do with how immigrants from some regions of the world historically assimilate, or fail to, into Quebec (or elsewhere), though?

I had this conversation with a friend recently, and took the "xenophobic" position for the sake of argument. If the net result of immigration from various regions of the world is increasing ethnic diversity that assimilates into the culture and fabric of their new country (shared values, cultural norms, primary language, etc.) then I see it as a benefit, or at least neutral, in terms of immigration policy. Conversely, if the net result is increasing divergence and balkanized populations within the country, regardless of their ethnicity or origin, I don't see how that advances a nation's goal or cultural identity. I think a representative government should act on that interest, within reason and legal framework, if it indeed reflects the will of the people it represents.

I made the point that only in the West do we stress the importance of cultural diversity as a primary goal, though it applies only to Western nations (you'll rarely if ever hear those same people advocating for Westernizing or diversifying other cultures, which is curious), though it's somewhat tangential to the question.

Quebec, from this outsider's view, is fiercely protective of its identity, and so it doesn't surprise me that they would push back hard against populations that pose a threat to their historical cultural identity. That doesn't strike me as irrational fear of outsiders (i.e. xenophobia) but rather a deliberate effort to protect it from cultural balkanization.

---

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W