I remain convinced that 1) first-gen immigrants dislike crime and want to decamp to the suburbs at least as much as the next guys and 2) Jason Kenney was good at campaigning in Asian communities in 2011. Everything else from immigration is a big shrug, except that the book implied that taking in immigrants from x country would improve people to people ties with that country. You have to leave it implied, because once you say it out loud, you realize that that's stupid since so many immigrants leave for political reasons. Whether India or Canada has the bigger gripe with the Nijjar situation, whether it's worth it for some reason of principle, being so open to accepting thousands of people that India thinks are criminal seditionists has clearly been a big problem for Canada.
I read Harper's book, Right Here Right Now when it came out. It really made an impression on me at the time, since it was well-written and he seemed very even-keeled at a time when people were going bananas, and he had a semi-big moment of Republicans discovering him once Trudeau came in. It's aged pretty poorly in terms of just how contingent a lot of its ideas were, immigration very much included, that he was selling as like The Way of doing conservative politics and policy.
The book was also weird to this conservative American reader(and conservative Americans were explicitly his central audience!), since a huge part of the central theme was that right of center parties had to get their act together by emphasizing social conservatism and moderating on economic conservatism. Most of the big issues of American social conservatism even at the time(guns, abortion, LGBT issues, marijuana, immigration, role of religion in public life) were just things that Harper wouldn't pass a basic smell test on.
He kept talking about values of faith, family and freedom a lot more than discrete policies he pursued in an annoying sort of bread sandwich. His continuing a still unbroken tradition of pretending that he 'modernized and strengthened the military unlike _______(predecessor)' instead of letting it rust is in the same vein.
Of course by American standards few CPC members would pass muster, which I think is why it makes ideological sense for PP not to tie Canada's situation to things down here, as much as it makes political sense for him not to screw around like Smith did by bringing Tucker Carlson up.
It seems like the primary stressor that immigrants cause in Canada is that they make housing expensive.
But I truly don't understand how Canada (one of the emptiest countries on earth, even excluding the Yukon) cannot seem add more housing. What's going on there?
It’s a fair question but it’s also fair to ask whether it’s realistic to expect the government to dramatically increase the supply of something rather than just cut the demand for it. One seems vastly easier from a public policy perspective.
As one of those who were part of that notorious 2022 permanent residency tsunami, I believe the current level of immigration is unsustainable and actively harmful to Canadian society. Poilievre needs to bring down annual PRs to something like 100K if not lower, crack down on illegal immigration, and also punish phoney colleges that are a front for "student" visa holders who are students in name only.
It'll certainly be interesting if we end up having an election with all three major party platforms at odds with popular sentiment on what might be the 2nd most pressing issue. (1st being housing, which is related)
Stereotypically, it seems like immigration-skepticism would be the Conservatives' mantle to take up, but my gut feeling is that it's not Poilievre's true position, and they might not need to play that card at all.
I remain convinced that 1) first-gen immigrants dislike crime and want to decamp to the suburbs at least as much as the next guys and 2) Jason Kenney was good at campaigning in Asian communities in 2011. Everything else from immigration is a big shrug, except that the book implied that taking in immigrants from x country would improve people to people ties with that country. You have to leave it implied, because once you say it out loud, you realize that that's stupid since so many immigrants leave for political reasons. Whether India or Canada has the bigger gripe with the Nijjar situation, whether it's worth it for some reason of principle, being so open to accepting thousands of people that India thinks are criminal seditionists has clearly been a big problem for Canada.
I read Harper's book, Right Here Right Now when it came out. It really made an impression on me at the time, since it was well-written and he seemed very even-keeled at a time when people were going bananas, and he had a semi-big moment of Republicans discovering him once Trudeau came in. It's aged pretty poorly in terms of just how contingent a lot of its ideas were, immigration very much included, that he was selling as like The Way of doing conservative politics and policy.
The book was also weird to this conservative American reader(and conservative Americans were explicitly his central audience!), since a huge part of the central theme was that right of center parties had to get their act together by emphasizing social conservatism and moderating on economic conservatism. Most of the big issues of American social conservatism even at the time(guns, abortion, LGBT issues, marijuana, immigration, role of religion in public life) were just things that Harper wouldn't pass a basic smell test on.
He kept talking about values of faith, family and freedom a lot more than discrete policies he pursued in an annoying sort of bread sandwich. His continuing a still unbroken tradition of pretending that he 'modernized and strengthened the military unlike _______(predecessor)' instead of letting it rust is in the same vein.
Of course by American standards few CPC members would pass muster, which I think is why it makes ideological sense for PP not to tie Canada's situation to things down here, as much as it makes political sense for him not to screw around like Smith did by bringing Tucker Carlson up.
I wish will be as bearish towards immigration as his opponents accuse him of being.
It seems like the primary stressor that immigrants cause in Canada is that they make housing expensive.
But I truly don't understand how Canada (one of the emptiest countries on earth, even excluding the Yukon) cannot seem add more housing. What's going on there?
It’s a fair question but it’s also fair to ask whether it’s realistic to expect the government to dramatically increase the supply of something rather than just cut the demand for it. One seems vastly easier from a public policy perspective.
I agree, and think it's worth actually looking at some numbers here.
Looking at:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/198040/total-number-of-canadian-housing-starts-since-1995/
Canada had peak Annual "New housing starts in Canada" in 1976!
So yeesh, whatever happens on immigration, you might want to look at that.
you should see the crime map of Mississauga and Brampton.
It's more than housing, that's just the economic elephant in the room
As one of those who were part of that notorious 2022 permanent residency tsunami, I believe the current level of immigration is unsustainable and actively harmful to Canadian society. Poilievre needs to bring down annual PRs to something like 100K if not lower, crack down on illegal immigration, and also punish phoney colleges that are a front for "student" visa holders who are students in name only.
It'll certainly be interesting if we end up having an election with all three major party platforms at odds with popular sentiment on what might be the 2nd most pressing issue. (1st being housing, which is related)
Stereotypically, it seems like immigration-skepticism would be the Conservatives' mantle to take up, but my gut feeling is that it's not Poilievre's true position, and they might not need to play that card at all.