I don't even understand what "lop-sided" means here.
Would you say that Canada's oil and softwood businesses are lop-sided because we produce and export a lot of it? Or that the groceries' market is lop-sided because we don't produce a lot of it and therefore have to import?
Canada is an importer of people (not only from India) because it can't produce a lot of people. It is not different from groceries.
Variety isn't a bad idea in and of itself. But you're making the mistake of assuming all the people who live inside a particular nation's boundaries are the same.
Not being racist is really a pretty modern idea that didn’t become popular anywhere until the last 50 years. For most of human history it was conventional wisdom that (whatever I am) is the obviously superior form of human. Statistically this is probably still what most living people think.
I mean of course whatever you are is the master race. Isn’t it obvious?
>It is not different from groceries.
Do you appreciate that, in the wider historical context, this position is an exceptionally radical one? You seem to not understand how there could even exist a difference of opinion on this, but I'm confident that this outlook of humans as being completely fungible, transactional economic units would appear unthinkable to anyone throughout 99% of human history. Just the suggestion that a nation's population should be restocked by swapping it out with another nation's population would be tantamount to treason any time prior to the revolution of the 1960s.
So does every country that can't grow it's population indefinitely need to import a ton of people? What is the endgame there?
And I thought trade in people as some kind of fungible economic token was out of vogue.