Selective immigration tends to become unselective. First, the host population is lulled into thinking that immigration poses no real issues. So they see criticism of immigration as unjustified, and they say nothing when immigration is gradually increased and made less and less selective.
Second, selected immigrants will sponsor others in their family, who then sponsor others, and so on. The result is another regression to the mean. Immigrants become more and more typical of their home countries. Over the past ten years in particular, Canadians have begun to realize they had been previously exposed to a biased sample.
What will happen now? It depends on which Canada you're talking about. English Canadians have long had a culture of deference to authority. They may have doubts about the direction their country has taken, but they will stifle those doubts. That is how we have been conditioned, especially those who are old enough to occupy senior positions of authority.
French Canadians are a different story. They are a lot less deferential, especially toward Ottawa, and have been less influenced by the Woke culture that has seeped across our southern border. Quebec will hold its next election in 2026, and the Parti Quebecois is leading in the polls, largely because of its vocal opposition to mass immigration. An independence referendum will be held, and the majority will vote to leave Canada.
At that point, Canada will collapse like a house of cards. Nothing is left to hold the country together. Canadian nationalism has been in decline since the 1980s, and the last ten years have seen it take a rough beating, especially with the destruction of historical monuments, the erasure of Canadian identity, and Trudeau's declaration that Canada is now a post-national society.
It's sad to see this happen, and it couldn't happen to a nicer people ... but unfortunately that is part of the problem.
When post WWII English Canadians expressed any opinion about themselves, it was generally this smug lecture about the UN Blue Helmets and the underground railroad and being a force for Good and Politeness and sort of like the US except without the icky parts like slavery and guns nuts and bible thumpers and being a moral superpower really.
This changed around 2015 when on a dime Canada turned into a genocidal colonial state every bit as racist as the US simply more hypocritical about being so. It was amazing how quickly this gelled and became the dominant view in the media and political system. The canadian identity became to be woker than thou.
But thanks to Trump and his MAGA friends, we just witnessed a new instant turnaround. The moment Trump spoke about the 51st state and governor Trudeau, the Maple Leaf stopped being this despicable symbol of white supremacy and MAGAtard truckers and was seen being righteously waved everywhere. Barely less amazing is that the Liberal Party that was showing every sign of getting wiped off the map has seized an opportunity for a rally-around-the flag, is now ascendent and there is a real risk we will get more of the Trudeau years madness, ever so slightly watered down. Gee whiz, thanks MAGA!
English Canadians lost their ideological roots in the early 1960s, with the realization that the British Empire no longer existed. A similar déracinement occurred In French Canada about the same time, with the collapse of the Catholic church.
In both cases, there was an interesting period of self-questioning, artistic creativity, and new ways of seeing the world. Eventually, English Canada settled into a new Canadian nationalism (with all hints of British colonialism removed), and French Canada into a new Québécois nationalism (with all hints of Catholicism removed).
These were new and untested constructs, and they proved to be much less enduring than what they replaced. From the 1980s onward, nationalism fell into decline, but more so in English Canada. In French Canada, the older nationalism had never been fully replaced, and attempts were made to fix the flaws of the new one. But English Canada simply went all the way to post-nationalism. We like to blame Justin Trudeau for turning Canada into a post-national state, but Canada was already post-national when he took office.
The current wave of Canadian patriotism is little more than people saying: "We're not Americans! We're not Maga!" It's a hollow construct, and I don't see it lasting more than two years. Where were these super patriots when statues of Sir John A. Macdonald were being defaced and torn down?
As for the Liberals getting back into power, I see little difference — other than rhetoric — between them and the Conservatives. Before we can have a political revolution, we must have an intellectual one.
"These were new and untested constructs, and they proved to be much less enduring than what they replaced."
I absolutely agree. The Québécois dropped catholicism for shiny new social democratic nationalism, and I am very afraid this may be the death of them. Goodbye, revenge of the cradles. Hello, revenge of the coffins.
Peter Frost, I have been making this argument all over Substack.
I have been met with indifference or hostility: no appetite for a referendum in Quebec is the typical answer.
But I say, Paul St. Pierre Plomomdon is charismatic and he has an easy pitch to sell, specifically - interprovincial immigration will swamp the Québécois out. This time they are going to vote Oui and Canada as a country is done.
This authors argument about the threat that is Canada describes three different ways in which the United States could initiate change in Canada, including Quebec or Alberta separatism. It’s very sad to say, but I think my country needs to be dissolved. This does not make me happy but it will be for the best and ultimately my opinions be damned, we destroyed ourselves.
I hear you. It hurts when the people are relatives or longtime acquaintances. I sometimes feel like an extraterrestrial who can merely observe what happens and offer comments.
In the 1980s, I would hang out with other students and talk politics. I was the only one who thought that the Eastern bloc would collapse like a house of cards. The counter-arguments seemed convincing:
- Solidarnosc had been beaten. There were no longer any dissident movements of importance
- The methods of control and surveillance were becoming more sophisticated.
- The existing system was being improved. The authorities were aware of the system's shortcomings and were taking steps to rectify them.
It's the same with Canada. People will say that separatism is dead, that the worst excesses of wokeness have stopped, and that Canadians have a strong sense of national identity. None of that is even remotely true, but there are social penalties for pointing that out.
Yes, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon is pretty impressive.
Yet see my reply to Peter Frost regarding French Canada at to why a "oui' vote is a very long shot.
Québécois are an apathetic lot. Their history taught them that if they make a bold move, they will get clobbered (see rebellion of 1837). If they keep a low profile they will be fine.
That strategy worked when their population naturally doubled every generation. It's suicide if it gets cut by a third, and immigrants flood in.
Well said. I wonder if that apathy will be reversed this time. PSP is a good salesman and it’s pretty obvious that it’s now or never for the Québécois.
You are correct that woke ideology encountered a lot more resistance in Quebec. For a nation that in living memory was second class and exploited, being told by assorted angry anglo leftoids and resentful immigrants that they are imperialist white supremacist was met with disbelief.
The PQ had set the lowest target for immigration numbers in the previous election, and was rewarded with a whopping 3 seats in the NA. François Legault of the CAQ who did have a few words of caution about immigration got majority government, 90 seats... and went on to push immigration to new heights regardless. The PQ is indeed set to win a majority government according to polls and proposes a new referendum. But I think this is suicidal and they will get cold feet. They don't want to go to the slaughterhouse. The math is brutal. In 95, the NO side managed a win by the thinnest of margins. But that was with 1995 demographics. Since then, the proportion of French Canadians in Quebec has fallen significantly (it's not the proportion of WASPs in English Canada, but still), and in spite of decades of appealing to non-French Canadians, they still poll at single digits in that quickly growing demographics. So you get something like a solid block of 25% NO voters. In addition, there is a proportion of woke Québécois for whom Quebec nationalism is xenophobia and white supremacy. And there is a new constituency of libertarians who view Quebec and French as a burden and they wish Trump would annex them. Short of a sudden consensus that this is the last chance before the slow death of the French-Canadian Nation (which I think it is) or an apparition by Saint-John the Baptist, they'd be lucky to top 40%.
The only way I see it happening is if somehow Alberta secedes, or becomes the 51st state. In that case, yes, Canada could collapse, I can see Saskatchewan following, Quebec deciding to make a break for it... That is still a pretty outlandish scenario.
If the referendum is framed in terms of demographic survival, a majority of Quebeckers will vote YES, including a significant number of anglophones. I have personally met many anglophones who moved to Quebec because of the "quality of life."
In the last referendum, in 1995, the NO won by a very close margin, only 50.58%. Many young francophones didn't bother to vote because they felt the PQ had betrayed them during the recession of 1982-83 — essentially, the PQ took the side of the unions and seniority rights. As a result, many young workers were fired and replaced with older workers who had seniority.
That happened more than four decades ago and is no longer a factor. The YES vote should prevail in the next referendum, and it will if the Parti Québécois focuses on explaining what will happen if current trends remain unchanged.
As for woke Quebeckers, they will discredit the NO side. So don't worry about them. In fact, they should be encouraged to talk their talk.
I wouldn't wait for Alberta to leave first. That province will leave when the entire structure of Canada begins to collapse.
I'm amazed--I could have written 90% of this (not as well). I have been saying that the US should try to get a customs union and free movement with Canada. Negotiating that would involve, basically, US control over immigration and trade for both countries. Canadians would get access to US labor markets and no barriers to trade in return.
I think you should have acknowledged Trudeau's recent cuts to immigration. They aren't enough to change the picture in the long run, but they will mean zero or negative growth for a couple of years and are already pushing down rents substantially in Canadian cities. This may be enough, if conditions keep improving, to prevent the Conservatives winning a majority at the next election.
I also think you can't gloss over Quebec when it comes to the Canadian Question (so to speak). They have been partially insulated from immigration by being allowed to set their own numbers, and by speaking French rather than English. But they are still poorer than Ontario and the West. You said that even adequate government would make Canada the richest country in the world, but I think that's overstating it, mainly because Quebec exists. Quebec is also much of the reason for Canada's more fragmented national identity, and also much of the reason that the country is poorly governed--they simply don't care if the rest of the country is crumbling if they are getting their federal payments.
The sex ratio among young adults was eye popping. To take in such large numbers of people seemed foolish to me before, but to fail to ensure the balance of genders? I guess this may make anchor babies more difficult.
That one really struck me as well. Especially, considering their expat countries are very patriarchal you’d think we’d be skewing toward more women coming from cultures that are inherently anti-women. To say nothing of the stats around crime resulting from too many young unmarried males.
Canuck here. A fascinating read. You've pegged the issues. Very well done. As a Canadian, for the past fifteen years or so, I've watched in dismay as our country has destroyed itself. Whatever the reason, Canada (and the UK, because they're in the very same boat) has embarked on a program of national suicide because 1) We can't say no to nanny state demands; 2) We have a terrible, terrible understanding of history.
On the first, since the advent of socialized medicine in Saskatchewan in the early 1960s there has been this consistent push for the state to take care of people. I think people saw socialized health care in its heyday, and ever since, as a country, we've said the state can do it better. And now look at us: nationalized phamacare, daycare, breakfast programs, pensions, the CBC, employment insurance, national Indigenous services, national passenger rail service, and of course, our oh-so-broken health care system.
Whatever the reason, it's in the DNA of a majority of Canadians to offer support that people can manage on their own. The result, we have a country of people who aren't prepared to the hard work of doing hard work to pay for their own things. As a result, fewer businesses are created, and people are generally less productive. You see this in your data re: capital investment in business. It's almost like Canadians have given up on trying to compete.
On the second, because of our geography, the presence of the US, and because we as a country did a lot of winning from, say, 1947 through to the mid-80s, we've done an admirable job of convincing ourselves that the notion of western civilization rule of law is universal, when in fact, it's nothing of the sort. The rule of law has existed internationally because the US Navy and the rest of the US military made it this way. But Canada, the arrogant, self-righteous pricks we are, came to believe that people play by the rules because man inherently wants to play by the rules. Bullshit. Man is vicious and is held in check by people who are prepared to kill. History has repeated this lesson time and time again, yet Canada, tucked away in our isolated and protected part of the world, has entirely forgotten this lesson.
For what it's worth, it's my hope that the Conservative Party of Canada will resolve some of the issues you've flagged, though I wouldn't be surprised if enough Canadians bucked the medicine that needs to be taken.
If Canadians seize on their TDS and vote in the Liberals again, I think some of the scenarios you've outlined are in play. Specifically, I could see Alberta separating from Canada and seeking to join the US. I wouldn't blame them. Quebec could most certainly separate. With the support of France, they would enter into some kind of agreement with the Rest of Canada and the US. Within five years of this happening, one by one, the rest of Canada's provinces, with the exception of BC, would seek to have some kind of formal relationship with the US. By then, Canada's biggest province, Ontario, will be in utter economic shambles.
To summarize my own take on the future: If the CPC wins, Canada can be saved. This becomes much more certain if they win back-to-back mandates (I'm skeptical, but that's what is needed). If the Liberals form the next government, my best guess is the country will start to disintegrate within 3 to 5 years and will cease altogether within 10.
I'm a proud Canadian who believes in Canada. I hope enough Canadians are with me.
You suggest offering statehood to Alberta, but it seems better to offer it to both Alberta and Saskatchewan simultaneously. Also many Newfoundlanders were upset that joining the U.S.A. was not an option in the 1948 referendum.
I'm one of the few pro-American people I know. Naval Academy football fan, read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, understand American government, Trump fan, etc. It's said that our national sport is Lacrosse but it's hating America and it's minor league affiliate "self important preening". It's almost an indoctrination of Canadians that "America bad, Canada good" and "Americans are so dumb." This is the largest barrier to Americanization of Canada that exists because it would deprive Canadians of so much self-importance.
The service industry (and trucking/transport industry) takeover by Asians generally, Indians specifically, is something both noticed and unappreciated. However, mention it in polite company and you're suddenly a racist even though everybody else sees it. It's a dissonance that's a proud part of Canadianism, too. The fact that your order is never right, or made poorly if it is, is just something that's an "Aw, shucks, I can't go without my Timmy's!" moment.
You mention that annexation would require war but you seem to think that said war would last more than 36 hours. Once you got past token resistance to Idaho or Montana National Guardsmen (who can stop in at my house for coffee whenever on their way north), a platoon of Green Berets or 82nd Airbornes dropped into Ottawa or the surrounding area would end this immediately. Canadians talk a big game but this army isn't cut out to defend Saskatoon let alone an entire nation. Getting their asses handed to them would end it hurriedly.
I’m glad that the dangers of integrating all of Canada into the United States were explained. I’ve written before that a full unification between Canada and the United States probably won’t be possible or practical for decades, or at least not until Canada becomes more right wing, which could happen if younger generations continue to become more right-wing than previous generations.
Trump should offer statehood to Alberta immediately. It’s a win-win. It’s either huge leverage against Federal Canada, or leaves a weakened Canada that’s easier to dictate to. US Territory status for the northwest and supporting independence for the easternmost provinces are viable escalation steps. And would support the plans to get Greenland.
Interesting article. I am highly skeptical that Alberta would join the United States, nor do I think I personally would like them to join the United States. However, I do think that Alberta would vote to become its own country and the United States should signal backing for such a move. Alberta could also claim sovereignty over parts of the Northwestern territories (although this could become very messy and it would be better to just push for independence within their current borders).
I'm Albertan. For the time being I would prefer independence to statehood. I see rampant corruption, as well as a slde toward socialism in America. Certainly not as bad as Canada but it is or at least was on the same path. I'm hopeful but not confident that America can correct course. I suspect that President Trump is just an anomaly and the next administrative will put America back on the road to becoming an globalist Orwellian hellhole.
"Unfortunately, this status quo has been jeopardized by recent changes to Canadian immigration policy, which are on track to wreck a century-long partnership."
That same stupid immigration policy is prevalent in the United States, be it legal or illegal.
But immigrants to the U.S. mostly become Americans (with some exceptions like Ilan Omar and her Somalians). Immigrants to Canada remain Indian as we encourage multiculturalism instead of expecting assimilation into a Canadian identity which today is little more than anti-Americanism.
The United States has plenty of problems with assimilation, especially with Mexicans: For example, Mexicans carrying Mexican flags while protesting against the round-up of illegal aliens.
The United States used to demand assimilation, but not so much anymore.
Thanks. Mass immigration makes it difficult to demand assimilation. In places like Brampton, Ontario and, I guess, Dearborn, Michigan, they are the dominant culture. Everything assimilates into *them*. Especially when they have no interest in assimilation with us.
Yikes. Starts of with reasonable data, but veers rapidly into speculative, implausible insanity. Here’s the thing:
1. Trudeau has already massively rolled back immigration from it’s peak
2. The next prime minister, probably Poilevre, is very likely going to roll it back even further. We are returning to the status quo without any American intervention needed.
3. The suggestions made about how to influence Canadian foreign policy are laughable.
Sorry but the previous Harper levels are no longer good enough. It needs to be negative at this point for the US to trust Canada as a neighbor. If you really think Poilevre, or any Canadian politician has the balls to do this then I have a bridge to sell you.
Dude, nobody in America except you is afraid that if Canada has its immigration levels too high it means war. You are so far out on the fringe you fell off.
Peaceful relations between the US and Canada are predicated on Canada being a trustworthy neighbor. When that wasn't the case, like in the early 1800s, it led to war. Nothing has changed, except that the US is astronomically more powerful now than it was then.
Harjit Singh was the defence minister, not the foreign minister.
While it is strictly true that Canadian National in the only railway that runs from ocean to ocean — Canadian Pacific goes west only from Montreal —it is not correct to say it is blocked “regularly” by activists. During late winter 2020 Mohawk activists blockaded CN’s Line in eastern Ontario for several weeks and there were a number of copycat obstructions and derailments elsewhere in Canada but “repeatedly” is simply not true.
Both CN and CP are now part of wholly owned networks that reach salt water by going down the Mississippi from Winnipeg, bypassing eastern Canada entirely if necessary or if Gulf of America ports are more efficient. Both railways are heavily oriented toward the Pacific, shipping rocks and trees out and bringing manufactured goods in.
I'm canadian and I think life in Canada is great. The problems listed seem like standard problems any country can suffer after a streak of bad governance.
Fuck that putinist dream of annexation. That's the kind of thinking that could lead to the Third World War.
The OP and commenters are basing their feelings on poilievre (ie Koch) talking points. Charts cannot say correlation is causation. Trump is the epitome of this thinking and is getting a chance to show these commenters the alternative to democracy. Ie burn down our social structures and rules because things look bad. They never say, "we should vote for a different agenda" because they are a fringe so they escalate. They're convinced that people who don't look like us are the cause of their personal grievances, just like we thought the Irish and Polish were at one time. I'm ready to fight for law and order.
Life is better here in Quebec, thanks to there remaining a semblance of social cohesion and national solidarity. This is being actively destroyed by canadian immigration policies. Now we get muslim Concordia students chanting death to the Jews in our streets, Haitians screaming about systemic racism, and Pakistani delivery guys aggressive about not speaking any French.
But I assume you are speaking about equalization payments? Yeah, those are mandated by the canadian constitution that we rejected but that the rest of Canada imposed on us. Why do you hate the canadian constitution so much?
Could you say more about equalization payments, for a friendly outsider?
I gather that the national government subsidizes Quebec? How big is that subsidy compared to the government of Quebec, and how much of a burden is it on the national government?
Quebec provinces, like US states, vary greatly in population and economic opportunities. Population-wise, Ontario and Quebec are the big dogs, with BC and Alberta behind, and the rest at or below 1 million inhabitants. Economically speaking, Alberta, per capita, is ahead of the others, with Ontario and BC clearly richer provinces, with Quebec sort of middle of the pack and the Atlantic area being clearly have-not provinces.
So yes Quebec receives equalization payments. Per capita not as much as the Atlantic provinces or Manitoba. Last I heard, around 13B CAD$. Many people seem to think that 'Alberta is paying Quebec' but the Albertan government is not paying the EQ money, and there is no specific EQ tax that pays for it. It comes from general fed government revenues, around 20% of which comes from Qc.
However, I think we have to take into account that the canadian government runs a deficit, i.e. it spends money it hasn't earned. The federal deficit for 2023 appears to be 52.3B$. If we use a rough figure of 20% of that deficit being "for" Quebec (10.5B), this reduces the real transfer to about 2.8 B$ from the rest of Canada to Quebec. Quebec had a GDP of 429B$ in 2023, so that transfer would amount to about 0.7% of GDP.
So yes there is some money flowing to Qc, but the idea as per Susan MacMilla, that Quebec is living large on the sweat and tears of the rest of the country is a myth.
Vincent, this is not a matter of a few years of bad governance. The change in the population demographic is drastic and irreversible. Brampton, Ontario went from 70% white to 20% white in 25 years. The 2026 census will probably show white Canadians being very barely a majority west of Quebec. Quebec is late to the party, but the trend is unmistakable here too, and glaring if you happen to live in the Montreal area.
But if Quebec becomes 20% Pakistani, 20% Sikh and 20% Indian, like Brampton is, Quebec will be no more, regardless of your protests of not caring about the demographics of Quebec. No building of housing will be able to change this.
Canada (originally meaning French) shrunk to French Canada, shrunk to Quebec, currently shrinking to non-Montreal Quebec, and in a not-distant future, to remote bayous.
Is there anything about demographic changes, or cultural changes, which does concern you at all? Is assimilation working, or is a non-assimilation multi-culturalism working well?
While I don't care about anything as superficial as skin color, I do have some concerns about having a society which works together well (of any skin color). I think that non-assimilation multi-cultural democracy does not have a lot of a historical track record, to discern whether it's an idealistic but naive concept leading to fragmentation and tribalism, or leads to a vibrant and prosperous nation with a solid identity. It's an experiment in real time, and I think we need to pay attention without ideological blinders (in ANY direction), to see how well it's working. Of course, if it doesn't work, it will probably be too late to fix before there is an undeniable signal to that effect.
I don't have an opinion as to whether the integration of immigrants into canadian society at large is going well or not. In Quebec, they have an englishifying effect, which many of us don't like. The biggest problem is numbers : so many came in that it raised housing/rent prices which is pretty bad. That could be solved with more construction though.
That last part is mainly what I was referring to when I talked about a streak of bad governance in my original comment.
In this scenario, militarily, Canada would collapse in a few days. And afterwards... Look around you. What proportion of people around you would be willing to die to keep Canada canadian? Do you see a lot of people willing to go Mujahiddin, or Vietcong? Having the will and the knowledge to blow things up and to kill american soldiers? Knowing they would be putting not only themselves, but their family at risk?
Outside Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, whites are a dwindling group, in the low 50%. You think Indians, Chinese, Haitians, Guatemalans, Syrians, Philippinos, Nigerians, Bengalis would be risking death to keep Canada canadian?
Canada has a large territory, but realistically, 75% of Canadians live in large cities. Cubicle-dwellers and Tim Horton enjoyers do not hardy Resistance troops make .
The United States didn’t try to conquer Afghanistan or Vietnam. In both cases they were trying to support a friendly government—call it a puppet if you like—against an insurgency that terrorized the population into supporting it and had powerful outside friends supporting it financially and militarily. None of those things would apply to a military annexation of Canada. Canada doesn’t have any foreign friends that would come to its defence except maybe China but that would be a friend who’s worth than an enemy. The sensible thing would be to refuse China’s help, embrace America, and help the Americans track down and root out any Canadian fanatics who styled themselves as La Resistance.
Some oppression might be necessary at first but the FLQ is long gone and Canadians are pretty soft now, not going to stand against modern weapons. Besides, most of aren’t interested in shooting Americans. Fortunately.
Canada is not separated from the US by an ocean. Canada is not covered in harsh mountains or dense jungles. Most importantly Canada is not full of grizzled Mujahideen willing to die for Allah or Viet-Cong fighting a 1000 year war for independence, it's full of Indians and Chinese looking for easy street. The second things get tough those "Canadians" will leave. As it stands 40% of recent migrants to Canada already want to leave because of the current economy, and that's before tariffs, trade embargoes or the threat of a military draft. Can you guess the country they want to leave for?
Whatever America tried to do in Vietnam and Afghanistan, it was a failure. Also, more illegals come from the USA to Canada than the reverse.
"In 2023, the last year for which we have statistics at the moment, more people crossed illegally from the United States into Canada than in the opposite direction. With Canada experiencing a labor shortage and increasing economic opportunities, it is likely that the number of individuals moving north in 2025, both legally and illegally, will continue to surpass those moving south."
Selective immigration tends to become unselective. First, the host population is lulled into thinking that immigration poses no real issues. So they see criticism of immigration as unjustified, and they say nothing when immigration is gradually increased and made less and less selective.
Second, selected immigrants will sponsor others in their family, who then sponsor others, and so on. The result is another regression to the mean. Immigrants become more and more typical of their home countries. Over the past ten years in particular, Canadians have begun to realize they had been previously exposed to a biased sample.
What will happen now? It depends on which Canada you're talking about. English Canadians have long had a culture of deference to authority. They may have doubts about the direction their country has taken, but they will stifle those doubts. That is how we have been conditioned, especially those who are old enough to occupy senior positions of authority.
French Canadians are a different story. They are a lot less deferential, especially toward Ottawa, and have been less influenced by the Woke culture that has seeped across our southern border. Quebec will hold its next election in 2026, and the Parti Quebecois is leading in the polls, largely because of its vocal opposition to mass immigration. An independence referendum will be held, and the majority will vote to leave Canada.
At that point, Canada will collapse like a house of cards. Nothing is left to hold the country together. Canadian nationalism has been in decline since the 1980s, and the last ten years have seen it take a rough beating, especially with the destruction of historical monuments, the erasure of Canadian identity, and Trudeau's declaration that Canada is now a post-national society.
It's sad to see this happen, and it couldn't happen to a nicer people ... but unfortunately that is part of the problem.
Regarding English Canada...
When post WWII English Canadians expressed any opinion about themselves, it was generally this smug lecture about the UN Blue Helmets and the underground railroad and being a force for Good and Politeness and sort of like the US except without the icky parts like slavery and guns nuts and bible thumpers and being a moral superpower really.
This changed around 2015 when on a dime Canada turned into a genocidal colonial state every bit as racist as the US simply more hypocritical about being so. It was amazing how quickly this gelled and became the dominant view in the media and political system. The canadian identity became to be woker than thou.
But thanks to Trump and his MAGA friends, we just witnessed a new instant turnaround. The moment Trump spoke about the 51st state and governor Trudeau, the Maple Leaf stopped being this despicable symbol of white supremacy and MAGAtard truckers and was seen being righteously waved everywhere. Barely less amazing is that the Liberal Party that was showing every sign of getting wiped off the map has seized an opportunity for a rally-around-the flag, is now ascendent and there is a real risk we will get more of the Trudeau years madness, ever so slightly watered down. Gee whiz, thanks MAGA!
English Canadians lost their ideological roots in the early 1960s, with the realization that the British Empire no longer existed. A similar déracinement occurred In French Canada about the same time, with the collapse of the Catholic church.
In both cases, there was an interesting period of self-questioning, artistic creativity, and new ways of seeing the world. Eventually, English Canada settled into a new Canadian nationalism (with all hints of British colonialism removed), and French Canada into a new Québécois nationalism (with all hints of Catholicism removed).
These were new and untested constructs, and they proved to be much less enduring than what they replaced. From the 1980s onward, nationalism fell into decline, but more so in English Canada. In French Canada, the older nationalism had never been fully replaced, and attempts were made to fix the flaws of the new one. But English Canada simply went all the way to post-nationalism. We like to blame Justin Trudeau for turning Canada into a post-national state, but Canada was already post-national when he took office.
The current wave of Canadian patriotism is little more than people saying: "We're not Americans! We're not Maga!" It's a hollow construct, and I don't see it lasting more than two years. Where were these super patriots when statues of Sir John A. Macdonald were being defaced and torn down?
As for the Liberals getting back into power, I see little difference — other than rhetoric — between them and the Conservatives. Before we can have a political revolution, we must have an intellectual one.
"These were new and untested constructs, and they proved to be much less enduring than what they replaced."
I absolutely agree. The Québécois dropped catholicism for shiny new social democratic nationalism, and I am very afraid this may be the death of them. Goodbye, revenge of the cradles. Hello, revenge of the coffins.
Peter Frost, I have been making this argument all over Substack.
I have been met with indifference or hostility: no appetite for a referendum in Quebec is the typical answer.
But I say, Paul St. Pierre Plomomdon is charismatic and he has an easy pitch to sell, specifically - interprovincial immigration will swamp the Québécois out. This time they are going to vote Oui and Canada as a country is done.
This authors argument about the threat that is Canada describes three different ways in which the United States could initiate change in Canada, including Quebec or Alberta separatism. It’s very sad to say, but I think my country needs to be dissolved. This does not make me happy but it will be for the best and ultimately my opinions be damned, we destroyed ourselves.
"I have been met with indifference or hostility"
I hear you. It hurts when the people are relatives or longtime acquaintances. I sometimes feel like an extraterrestrial who can merely observe what happens and offer comments.
In the 1980s, I would hang out with other students and talk politics. I was the only one who thought that the Eastern bloc would collapse like a house of cards. The counter-arguments seemed convincing:
- Solidarnosc had been beaten. There were no longer any dissident movements of importance
- The methods of control and surveillance were becoming more sophisticated.
- The existing system was being improved. The authorities were aware of the system's shortcomings and were taking steps to rectify them.
It's the same with Canada. People will say that separatism is dead, that the worst excesses of wokeness have stopped, and that Canadians have a strong sense of national identity. None of that is even remotely true, but there are social penalties for pointing that out.
Yes, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon is pretty impressive.
Yet see my reply to Peter Frost regarding French Canada at to why a "oui' vote is a very long shot.
Québécois are an apathetic lot. Their history taught them that if they make a bold move, they will get clobbered (see rebellion of 1837). If they keep a low profile they will be fine.
That strategy worked when their population naturally doubled every generation. It's suicide if it gets cut by a third, and immigrants flood in.
Well said. I wonder if that apathy will be reversed this time. PSP is a good salesman and it’s pretty obvious that it’s now or never for the Québécois.
Regarding French Canada...
You are correct that woke ideology encountered a lot more resistance in Quebec. For a nation that in living memory was second class and exploited, being told by assorted angry anglo leftoids and resentful immigrants that they are imperialist white supremacist was met with disbelief.
The PQ had set the lowest target for immigration numbers in the previous election, and was rewarded with a whopping 3 seats in the NA. François Legault of the CAQ who did have a few words of caution about immigration got majority government, 90 seats... and went on to push immigration to new heights regardless. The PQ is indeed set to win a majority government according to polls and proposes a new referendum. But I think this is suicidal and they will get cold feet. They don't want to go to the slaughterhouse. The math is brutal. In 95, the NO side managed a win by the thinnest of margins. But that was with 1995 demographics. Since then, the proportion of French Canadians in Quebec has fallen significantly (it's not the proportion of WASPs in English Canada, but still), and in spite of decades of appealing to non-French Canadians, they still poll at single digits in that quickly growing demographics. So you get something like a solid block of 25% NO voters. In addition, there is a proportion of woke Québécois for whom Quebec nationalism is xenophobia and white supremacy. And there is a new constituency of libertarians who view Quebec and French as a burden and they wish Trump would annex them. Short of a sudden consensus that this is the last chance before the slow death of the French-Canadian Nation (which I think it is) or an apparition by Saint-John the Baptist, they'd be lucky to top 40%.
The only way I see it happening is if somehow Alberta secedes, or becomes the 51st state. In that case, yes, Canada could collapse, I can see Saskatchewan following, Quebec deciding to make a break for it... That is still a pretty outlandish scenario.
The Québécois nation is doomed.
If the referendum is framed in terms of demographic survival, a majority of Quebeckers will vote YES, including a significant number of anglophones. I have personally met many anglophones who moved to Quebec because of the "quality of life."
In the last referendum, in 1995, the NO won by a very close margin, only 50.58%. Many young francophones didn't bother to vote because they felt the PQ had betrayed them during the recession of 1982-83 — essentially, the PQ took the side of the unions and seniority rights. As a result, many young workers were fired and replaced with older workers who had seniority.
That happened more than four decades ago and is no longer a factor. The YES vote should prevail in the next referendum, and it will if the Parti Québécois focuses on explaining what will happen if current trends remain unchanged.
As for woke Quebeckers, they will discredit the NO side. So don't worry about them. In fact, they should be encouraged to talk their talk.
I wouldn't wait for Alberta to leave first. That province will leave when the entire structure of Canada begins to collapse.
Social penalties are my specialty, to my wife’s chagrin: extraterrestrial, lol!
I'm amazed--I could have written 90% of this (not as well). I have been saying that the US should try to get a customs union and free movement with Canada. Negotiating that would involve, basically, US control over immigration and trade for both countries. Canadians would get access to US labor markets and no barriers to trade in return.
I think you should have acknowledged Trudeau's recent cuts to immigration. They aren't enough to change the picture in the long run, but they will mean zero or negative growth for a couple of years and are already pushing down rents substantially in Canadian cities. This may be enough, if conditions keep improving, to prevent the Conservatives winning a majority at the next election.
I also think you can't gloss over Quebec when it comes to the Canadian Question (so to speak). They have been partially insulated from immigration by being allowed to set their own numbers, and by speaking French rather than English. But they are still poorer than Ontario and the West. You said that even adequate government would make Canada the richest country in the world, but I think that's overstating it, mainly because Quebec exists. Quebec is also much of the reason for Canada's more fragmented national identity, and also much of the reason that the country is poorly governed--they simply don't care if the rest of the country is crumbling if they are getting their federal payments.
Trudeau's cuts are currently more of a hypothetical than anything else; population growth is still ongoing as before. https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeau-government-already-missing-targets-on-pledge-to-bring-down-immigration
"We don't have an identity, because those darned people we conquered have not disappeared yet"
The sex ratio among young adults was eye popping. To take in such large numbers of people seemed foolish to me before, but to fail to ensure the balance of genders? I guess this may make anchor babies more difficult.
That one really struck me as well. Especially, considering their expat countries are very patriarchal you’d think we’d be skewing toward more women coming from cultures that are inherently anti-women. To say nothing of the stats around crime resulting from too many young unmarried males.
Canuck here. A fascinating read. You've pegged the issues. Very well done. As a Canadian, for the past fifteen years or so, I've watched in dismay as our country has destroyed itself. Whatever the reason, Canada (and the UK, because they're in the very same boat) has embarked on a program of national suicide because 1) We can't say no to nanny state demands; 2) We have a terrible, terrible understanding of history.
On the first, since the advent of socialized medicine in Saskatchewan in the early 1960s there has been this consistent push for the state to take care of people. I think people saw socialized health care in its heyday, and ever since, as a country, we've said the state can do it better. And now look at us: nationalized phamacare, daycare, breakfast programs, pensions, the CBC, employment insurance, national Indigenous services, national passenger rail service, and of course, our oh-so-broken health care system.
Whatever the reason, it's in the DNA of a majority of Canadians to offer support that people can manage on their own. The result, we have a country of people who aren't prepared to the hard work of doing hard work to pay for their own things. As a result, fewer businesses are created, and people are generally less productive. You see this in your data re: capital investment in business. It's almost like Canadians have given up on trying to compete.
On the second, because of our geography, the presence of the US, and because we as a country did a lot of winning from, say, 1947 through to the mid-80s, we've done an admirable job of convincing ourselves that the notion of western civilization rule of law is universal, when in fact, it's nothing of the sort. The rule of law has existed internationally because the US Navy and the rest of the US military made it this way. But Canada, the arrogant, self-righteous pricks we are, came to believe that people play by the rules because man inherently wants to play by the rules. Bullshit. Man is vicious and is held in check by people who are prepared to kill. History has repeated this lesson time and time again, yet Canada, tucked away in our isolated and protected part of the world, has entirely forgotten this lesson.
For what it's worth, it's my hope that the Conservative Party of Canada will resolve some of the issues you've flagged, though I wouldn't be surprised if enough Canadians bucked the medicine that needs to be taken.
If Canadians seize on their TDS and vote in the Liberals again, I think some of the scenarios you've outlined are in play. Specifically, I could see Alberta separating from Canada and seeking to join the US. I wouldn't blame them. Quebec could most certainly separate. With the support of France, they would enter into some kind of agreement with the Rest of Canada and the US. Within five years of this happening, one by one, the rest of Canada's provinces, with the exception of BC, would seek to have some kind of formal relationship with the US. By then, Canada's biggest province, Ontario, will be in utter economic shambles.
To summarize my own take on the future: If the CPC wins, Canada can be saved. This becomes much more certain if they win back-to-back mandates (I'm skeptical, but that's what is needed). If the Liberals form the next government, my best guess is the country will start to disintegrate within 3 to 5 years and will cease altogether within 10.
I'm a proud Canadian who believes in Canada. I hope enough Canadians are with me.
As another Canadian, the most "patriotic" people I know wouldn't vote CPC if you paid them. I am flummoxed...and concerned by this observation
Could you elaborate on that for a friendly yank? What is the beef between "patriotic" Canadians and CPC, and why the quotes?
You suggest offering statehood to Alberta, but it seems better to offer it to both Alberta and Saskatchewan simultaneously. Also many Newfoundlanders were upset that joining the U.S.A. was not an option in the 1948 referendum.
Canadian here.
I'm one of the few pro-American people I know. Naval Academy football fan, read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist Papers, understand American government, Trump fan, etc. It's said that our national sport is Lacrosse but it's hating America and it's minor league affiliate "self important preening". It's almost an indoctrination of Canadians that "America bad, Canada good" and "Americans are so dumb." This is the largest barrier to Americanization of Canada that exists because it would deprive Canadians of so much self-importance.
The service industry (and trucking/transport industry) takeover by Asians generally, Indians specifically, is something both noticed and unappreciated. However, mention it in polite company and you're suddenly a racist even though everybody else sees it. It's a dissonance that's a proud part of Canadianism, too. The fact that your order is never right, or made poorly if it is, is just something that's an "Aw, shucks, I can't go without my Timmy's!" moment.
You mention that annexation would require war but you seem to think that said war would last more than 36 hours. Once you got past token resistance to Idaho or Montana National Guardsmen (who can stop in at my house for coffee whenever on their way north), a platoon of Green Berets or 82nd Airbornes dropped into Ottawa or the surrounding area would end this immediately. Canadians talk a big game but this army isn't cut out to defend Saskatoon let alone an entire nation. Getting their asses handed to them would end it hurriedly.
Please come liberate us.
A fair analysis of Canada.
I’m glad that the dangers of integrating all of Canada into the United States were explained. I’ve written before that a full unification between Canada and the United States probably won’t be possible or practical for decades, or at least not until Canada becomes more right wing, which could happen if younger generations continue to become more right-wing than previous generations.
Keep up the good work! We referenced this post in the latest issue of Canadian Shareable News https://canadianshareablenews.substack.com/p/csnews-weeks-4647-february-1017-2025
Trump should offer statehood to Alberta immediately. It’s a win-win. It’s either huge leverage against Federal Canada, or leaves a weakened Canada that’s easier to dictate to. US Territory status for the northwest and supporting independence for the easternmost provinces are viable escalation steps. And would support the plans to get Greenland.
Interesting article. I am highly skeptical that Alberta would join the United States, nor do I think I personally would like them to join the United States. However, I do think that Alberta would vote to become its own country and the United States should signal backing for such a move. Alberta could also claim sovereignty over parts of the Northwestern territories (although this could become very messy and it would be better to just push for independence within their current borders).
I'm Albertan. For the time being I would prefer independence to statehood. I see rampant corruption, as well as a slde toward socialism in America. Certainly not as bad as Canada but it is or at least was on the same path. I'm hopeful but not confident that America can correct course. I suspect that President Trump is just an anomaly and the next administrative will put America back on the road to becoming an globalist Orwellian hellhole.
I came up with a somewhat similar analysis; I think Alberta should be the 51st state with Saskatchewan as the 52nd.
https://milesmcstylez.substack.com/p/canada-should-not-be-the-51st-state
"Unfortunately, this status quo has been jeopardized by recent changes to Canadian immigration policy, which are on track to wreck a century-long partnership."
That same stupid immigration policy is prevalent in the United States, be it legal or illegal.
But immigrants to the U.S. mostly become Americans (with some exceptions like Ilan Omar and her Somalians). Immigrants to Canada remain Indian as we encourage multiculturalism instead of expecting assimilation into a Canadian identity which today is little more than anti-Americanism.
The United States has plenty of problems with assimilation, especially with Mexicans: For example, Mexicans carrying Mexican flags while protesting against the round-up of illegal aliens.
The United States used to demand assimilation, but not so much anymore.
Thanks. Mass immigration makes it difficult to demand assimilation. In places like Brampton, Ontario and, I guess, Dearborn, Michigan, they are the dominant culture. Everything assimilates into *them*. Especially when they have no interest in assimilation with us.
Yeah, it is absurd to ask immigrants to assimilate to a dominant culture that doesn't exist.
Yikes. Starts of with reasonable data, but veers rapidly into speculative, implausible insanity. Here’s the thing:
1. Trudeau has already massively rolled back immigration from it’s peak
2. The next prime minister, probably Poilevre, is very likely going to roll it back even further. We are returning to the status quo without any American intervention needed.
3. The suggestions made about how to influence Canadian foreign policy are laughable.
Sorry but the previous Harper levels are no longer good enough. It needs to be negative at this point for the US to trust Canada as a neighbor. If you really think Poilevre, or any Canadian politician has the balls to do this then I have a bridge to sell you.
Dude, nobody in America except you is afraid that if Canada has its immigration levels too high it means war. You are so far out on the fringe you fell off.
Trump has made it very clear that transmigration via Canada js unacceptable.
Peaceful relations between the US and Canada are predicated on Canada being a trustworthy neighbor. When that wasn't the case, like in the early 1800s, it led to war. Nothing has changed, except that the US is astronomically more powerful now than it was then.
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/trudeau-government-already-missing-targets-on-pledge-to-bring-down-immigration
It’s been four months. Every Canadian party wants to lower immigration. It is happening, probably sooner than later but happening either way.
Harjit Singh was the defence minister, not the foreign minister.
While it is strictly true that Canadian National in the only railway that runs from ocean to ocean — Canadian Pacific goes west only from Montreal —it is not correct to say it is blocked “regularly” by activists. During late winter 2020 Mohawk activists blockaded CN’s Line in eastern Ontario for several weeks and there were a number of copycat obstructions and derailments elsewhere in Canada but “repeatedly” is simply not true.
Both CN and CP are now part of wholly owned networks that reach salt water by going down the Mississippi from Winnipeg, bypassing eastern Canada entirely if necessary or if Gulf of America ports are more efficient. Both railways are heavily oriented toward the Pacific, shipping rocks and trees out and bringing manufactured goods in.
I'm canadian and I think life in Canada is great. The problems listed seem like standard problems any country can suffer after a streak of bad governance.
Fuck that putinist dream of annexation. That's the kind of thinking that could lead to the Third World War.
Your life may be great, but your experience is not representative of most Canadians.
You have a French name. Does that mean you live in Quebec? Life is good, there, yes, thanks to the rest of us.
Comments like these sure know how to make me side with the separatists.
The OP and commenters are basing their feelings on poilievre (ie Koch) talking points. Charts cannot say correlation is causation. Trump is the epitome of this thinking and is getting a chance to show these commenters the alternative to democracy. Ie burn down our social structures and rules because things look bad. They never say, "we should vote for a different agenda" because they are a fringe so they escalate. They're convinced that people who don't look like us are the cause of their personal grievances, just like we thought the Irish and Polish were at one time. I'm ready to fight for law and order.
Don’t let the door hit your couche-tard on your way out,
Life is better here in Quebec, thanks to there remaining a semblance of social cohesion and national solidarity. This is being actively destroyed by canadian immigration policies. Now we get muslim Concordia students chanting death to the Jews in our streets, Haitians screaming about systemic racism, and Pakistani delivery guys aggressive about not speaking any French.
But I assume you are speaking about equalization payments? Yeah, those are mandated by the canadian constitution that we rejected but that the rest of Canada imposed on us. Why do you hate the canadian constitution so much?
Could you say more about equalization payments, for a friendly outsider?
I gather that the national government subsidizes Quebec? How big is that subsidy compared to the government of Quebec, and how much of a burden is it on the national government?
Quebec provinces, like US states, vary greatly in population and economic opportunities. Population-wise, Ontario and Quebec are the big dogs, with BC and Alberta behind, and the rest at or below 1 million inhabitants. Economically speaking, Alberta, per capita, is ahead of the others, with Ontario and BC clearly richer provinces, with Quebec sort of middle of the pack and the Atlantic area being clearly have-not provinces.
So yes Quebec receives equalization payments. Per capita not as much as the Atlantic provinces or Manitoba. Last I heard, around 13B CAD$. Many people seem to think that 'Alberta is paying Quebec' but the Albertan government is not paying the EQ money, and there is no specific EQ tax that pays for it. It comes from general fed government revenues, around 20% of which comes from Qc.
We should really be talking about the the entire federal revenue coming from Qc and money spent in Quebec by the fed gvt. Now I am no accountant or government finances specialist, but if I rely on this https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=3610045001&pickMembers%5B0%5D=1.6&pickMembers%5B1%5D=2.1&cubeTimeFrame.startYear=2023&cubeTimeFrame.endYear=2023&referencePeriods=20230101%2C20230101, it seems that in 2023 the fed gvt took in 271B$ from Quebec and spent 284B. Which would mean there was a net transfer of 13.3B$ to Qc from the rest of the country.
However, I think we have to take into account that the canadian government runs a deficit, i.e. it spends money it hasn't earned. The federal deficit for 2023 appears to be 52.3B$. If we use a rough figure of 20% of that deficit being "for" Quebec (10.5B), this reduces the real transfer to about 2.8 B$ from the rest of Canada to Quebec. Quebec had a GDP of 429B$ in 2023, so that transfer would amount to about 0.7% of GDP.
So yes there is some money flowing to Qc, but the idea as per Susan MacMilla, that Quebec is living large on the sweat and tears of the rest of the country is a myth.
Thanks, great answer.
If you are not an accountant, I'll guess that you are in STEM.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equalization_payments_in_Canada
Vincent, this is not a matter of a few years of bad governance. The change in the population demographic is drastic and irreversible. Brampton, Ontario went from 70% white to 20% white in 25 years. The 2026 census will probably show white Canadians being very barely a majority west of Quebec. Quebec is late to the party, but the trend is unmistakable here too, and glaring if you happen to live in the Montreal area.
I don't care about the share of the population that is white or not.
That's very virtuous of you Vincent.
But if Quebec becomes 20% Pakistani, 20% Sikh and 20% Indian, like Brampton is, Quebec will be no more, regardless of your protests of not caring about the demographics of Quebec. No building of housing will be able to change this.
Canada (originally meaning French) shrunk to French Canada, shrunk to Quebec, currently shrinking to non-Montreal Quebec, and in a not-distant future, to remote bayous.
Cool. I don't care about skin color either.
Is there anything about demographic changes, or cultural changes, which does concern you at all? Is assimilation working, or is a non-assimilation multi-culturalism working well?
While I don't care about anything as superficial as skin color, I do have some concerns about having a society which works together well (of any skin color). I think that non-assimilation multi-cultural democracy does not have a lot of a historical track record, to discern whether it's an idealistic but naive concept leading to fragmentation and tribalism, or leads to a vibrant and prosperous nation with a solid identity. It's an experiment in real time, and I think we need to pay attention without ideological blinders (in ANY direction), to see how well it's working. Of course, if it doesn't work, it will probably be too late to fix before there is an undeniable signal to that effect.
I'm wishing Canada success, but I'm watching.
I don't have an opinion as to whether the integration of immigrants into canadian society at large is going well or not. In Quebec, they have an englishifying effect, which many of us don't like. The biggest problem is numbers : so many came in that it raised housing/rent prices which is pretty bad. That could be solved with more construction though.
That last part is mainly what I was referring to when I talked about a streak of bad governance in my original comment.
You realize the US could end Canada within a single day? It would be less of a footnote than the US invasion of Grenada.
Yeah, just like they did in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Winning a war of agression without popular support against a huge defending territory is harder than you think. Canada is way bigger than Ukraine.
Vincent, you are deluded.
In this scenario, militarily, Canada would collapse in a few days. And afterwards... Look around you. What proportion of people around you would be willing to die to keep Canada canadian? Do you see a lot of people willing to go Mujahiddin, or Vietcong? Having the will and the knowledge to blow things up and to kill american soldiers? Knowing they would be putting not only themselves, but their family at risk?
Outside Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, whites are a dwindling group, in the low 50%. You think Indians, Chinese, Haitians, Guatemalans, Syrians, Philippinos, Nigerians, Bengalis would be risking death to keep Canada canadian?
Canada has a large territory, but realistically, 75% of Canadians live in large cities. Cubicle-dwellers and Tim Horton enjoyers do not hardy Resistance troops make .
The United States didn’t try to conquer Afghanistan or Vietnam. In both cases they were trying to support a friendly government—call it a puppet if you like—against an insurgency that terrorized the population into supporting it and had powerful outside friends supporting it financially and militarily. None of those things would apply to a military annexation of Canada. Canada doesn’t have any foreign friends that would come to its defence except maybe China but that would be a friend who’s worth than an enemy. The sensible thing would be to refuse China’s help, embrace America, and help the Americans track down and root out any Canadian fanatics who styled themselves as La Resistance.
Some oppression might be necessary at first but the FLQ is long gone and Canadians are pretty soft now, not going to stand against modern weapons. Besides, most of aren’t interested in shooting Americans. Fortunately.
Canada is not separated from the US by an ocean. Canada is not covered in harsh mountains or dense jungles. Most importantly Canada is not full of grizzled Mujahideen willing to die for Allah or Viet-Cong fighting a 1000 year war for independence, it's full of Indians and Chinese looking for easy street. The second things get tough those "Canadians" will leave. As it stands 40% of recent migrants to Canada already want to leave because of the current economy, and that's before tariffs, trade embargoes or the threat of a military draft. Can you guess the country they want to leave for?
https://x.com/FistedFoucault/status/1863743031972622462
Whatever America tried to do in Vietnam and Afghanistan, it was a failure. Also, more illegals come from the USA to Canada than the reverse.
"In 2023, the last year for which we have statistics at the moment, more people crossed illegally from the United States into Canada than in the opposite direction. With Canada experiencing a labor shortage and increasing economic opportunities, it is likely that the number of individuals moving north in 2025, both legally and illegally, will continue to surpass those moving south."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2025/01/31/tariff-on-canada-not-justified-by-us-immigration-and-drug-claims/
Vietnam was escalated by Democrats (Kennedy and Johnson) while Fagstanistan was Obama’s toy. Democrats start, and lose wars.
The US has never won a counter insurgency war.