More Americans are searching online about moving to Canada. But will they?
montreal.ctvnews.ca
montreal.ctvnews.ca
Americans on either side of the aisle think that Canada is full of super-leftists (and there is no shortage). But were Canada a part of the US in 2016, Trump would have won AB, SK, and quite possibly enough of the GTA (the parts that loved Rob Ford, and as "Ford Country" has repeatedly won the province for Doug Ford) to win ON, the province most resembling MI/WI/PA, the three states that Trump unexpectedly won the election with.
At the end of the day, Canada is a smaller, colder, poorer, more expensive version of the US.
PS - The article repeats the myth that the Canada immigration site crashed in 2016 because of a flood of Americans visiting it. There was a technical upgrade that day
The US has a number of factors that give Trump's faction a substantial leg up. He has never won the popular vote. There is a very good chance that he will win this November the same way.
Republicans have one a grand total of 1 popular vote this century, and yet have won half of the elections. More than half, until recently, and likely to be more than half again.
The US Supreme Court has also been captured for coming decades by Trump's party. Those are lifetime appointments -- and their decisions guide who will replace them.
Culturally, Americans are not radically different from Canadians. Perhaps a tinge to the left. But American politics is very tipped to the right.
American left-wingers may not in fact find Canada any better for them. As you say, it's certainly not a left-winger utopia. But the US has become extremely ugly, and it's hard to choke down that ugliness when you know the power structures are tipped against you, and show every sign of becoming monotonically more so.
Trump is, according to polls, well on his way to winning the national popular vote this time. But that's irrelevant because the national popular vote is irrelevant in the US ... and in Canada. The US electoral college is in essence a parliament elected by the various states for the single purpose of electing the president. In any parliamentary system with a first-past-the-post system (the UK, Canada, and India, for example), it's similarly possible for a party to win the most votes across the country but not win the election because another party won more seats. This has happened in Britain four times, the last in February 1974. In Canada this happened in 1896, 1957, 1979, 2019, and 2021.
The Liberals have formed a government three consecutive times under Justin Trudeau despite, in the last two elections (2019 and 2021), the Conservatives winning the national popular vote and, further, the Liberals not winning a majority of ridings in the last election. In 1979, the Conservatives formed a government despite receiving 4.2% fewer votes than the Liberals, a size discrepancy between the popular vote and the actual outcome that has never occurred in the US. In 1896 the Liberals formed a government despite receiving 6.8% (!) fewer votes than the Conservatives!
>The US Supreme Court has also been captured for coming decades by Trump's party. Those are lifetime appointments -- and their decisions guide who will replace them.
Trudeau, like any Canadian prime minister, has complete control over naming new supreme court members (other than one third being from Quebec). There is no appointments clause or equivalent in Canada or other Westminster countries.
>But the US has become extremely ugly, and it's hard to choke down that ugliness when you know the power structures are tipped against you, and show every sign of becoming monotonically more so.
Sorry to again shatter your illusions, but the Canadian prime minister is probably the single most-powerful head of government in the developed world. Not in terms of military might, but in terms of what he can do within his political system, with the above being one small example.
Comes up everytime...
I only know one person who obtained dual citizenship and they did it through family lines.
And besides, it's not like Canada is just going to let anybody immigrate. It's a pipe dream, something to make you feel better when you know your guy is going to lose and you despair for the future.
Among other things, it will help reduce the housing crisis.
I know several people who have seriously researched moving to Canada. Most did not. Some did. Why do we treat this question differently than people who research any other thing that is a major life change? Americans are also likely researching quitting their jobs, going to grad school, and the cost of having children. I would suspect that "number of people who do a hard, complicated thing" is less correlated with "number of people who do an online search for a thing" and moreso with "how hard or life impacting is that thing."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/22/move-to-canada...
That barrier is simply this: emigration as a retired person is much more difficult than for a person in their active working years. If you are active in any of a variety of occupations, nations are much more likely to give you residence. Every nation has a list of occupations they'd like to have more bodies working in; and the strongest recommendation is to have an local employer willing to hire you. Retired people are seen as potential burdens on all social services and generally have to meet higher requirements.
That said, if you are young or in mid-life, think about it. If you are even modestly wealthy, look first at nations offering a "golden visa"[1], a residence permit given in return for your investment in local real-estate or business.
And for pete's sake look beyond Canada and New Zealand. The best prospect I found for a US emigrée was Uruguay! If you have any Spanish, give it a careful look[2,3].
[1] https://visaguide.world/golden-visa/