Canada to lift visa requirements for Mexico

The Government of Canada has made it a top priority to re-establish and strengthen our relationship with one of our most important partners, Mexico. To this end, Prime Minister Trudeau today announced Canada’s intention to lift the visa requirement for Mexican visitors to Canada beginning December 1, 2016. Lifting the visa requirement will deepen ties between Canada and Mexico and will increase the flow of travellers, ideas, and businesses between both countries.

Here is the link, via (if I recall correctly) Adam Ozimek in my Twitter feed.

Comments

This might be a smart move by Canada, since only wealthier Mexicans can afford to travel by airplane. Nice filter.

Tickets from Mexico to Canada (Tijuana to Toronto ) cost $600-$800 which are less than the smugglers fees which cost about 2-3 thousand dollars.

The U.S. could allow visa-free bus travel from Mexico to Canadian destinations and make it even cheaper.

I think occasional Mariel-style transportation of American convicts to the Canadian side of the border would be condign punishment for PM Zoolander. Or maybe arrest his mother the next time she crosses the border. She's bound to have some white powder in her purse.

Or build an overpass:

http://www.theonion.com/article/us-protests-mexi-canadian-overpass-104

How about we just send planeloads of useless right wing pensioners to Antarctica every other week?

"How about we just send planeloads of useless right wing pensioners to Antarctica every other week?"

Art Deco gets a window seat.

I swear fealty to the Pope, even though he's not particularly Christian:

http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-hides-the-cross.htm

But hey, that's why I'm a cuckservative!

I get the impression the ones using the smugglers aren't Mexican, but Guatemalan and Honduran.

Yes, cheap flights from MEX to YTO but you are comparing manzanas to naranjas (<--also happens to be the Greek word for a certain bitter, inedible, orange). What I'm talking about, and the article link talks about, are tourists. What you're talking about is illegal aliens who wish to work indefinitely.

@ ray,

as everyone knows no one has ever entered a country legally, then refused to leave

Do Mexicans pay a Rio Grande coyote more or less than they do for a one way coach ticket to Toronto?

Oops. Someone already made this astute observation above.

A lot of Mexicans who have come into the US illegally have come by plane with fake or someone else's documents. These are people I know personally. Their families or towns will often get together thousands of dollars to pay for the flight and the documents. I don't see why this would be different for Canada.

It'd be nice to have decent Mexican food when I visit, for once.

"These are people I know personally." Careful now. The Donald will probably enforce misprision.

Oh no! We'll need two walls!

Why would anyone ever voluntarily leave Canada?

Their gay, communist Prime Minister? And did ya hear about all the refugees?

Winter? There better be very good job prospects which is unlikely with the enlightened hereditary Prime Minister with cool hair.

I hear the serfs didn't even get to vote before they crowned him. Ha. Dynastic = fantastic.

As Toronto's own version of Donald Trump, Rob Ford (RIP), said: Justin Trudeau is a fag!

If Trump repeals NAFTA all the jobs that got sucked from Canada to the US to fill the void sucking them from the US to Mexico will return.

This could be an effective immigration filter for the smarter Mexicans. If they can afford a plane trip to Canada, they're welcome to walk across the border to the US.

Having lived in Arizona, it did seem that South American immigrants were a cut above the Mexicans, due said filter.

Not sure what you mean. Like sneak across the border, the same way they do from Mexico to the US?

Yes, only without all the trigger happy guys in jeeps, the heat, or the dehydration.

Yeah, minus the flight, the crossing over part would be easier. But they'd have to do it in the relative wilderness and where, once they made it to a town, a Mexican would really stand out.

They will not stand out in those towns five years from now.

People in towns along the Canadian border tend to be less racist, so they probably wouldn't bother them.

But why would they do that when they could just stay in Canada?

Maybe they don't like the climate.

Minnesota's climate is hardly any better.

Doesn't require a plane. I am going to sell hot air balloons to anyone wanting to go over the wall, but if they want to go all the way to Canada it is fine by me. They can go by boat to Canada and then walk across, and don't get my started on how many Mexican's I can fit on an airship.

Well, this is not that surprising. I wonder how long will it last. Currently Canada has around 1.2% of latinos (compared to close to 18% in the US). I wonder what would happen if that percentage increased to say, 10% in the next 10 years.

@FYI - currently Canada's population is about 20% foreign born compared to US at 13%

Sure, but don't forget this: ... "most of the top source countries for the TFWP are wealthy, advanced economies. The United States, United Kingdom, France and Australia are amongst the top five source countries for foreign workers in Canada, while Germany and Ireland are also in the top ten."
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/foreign-workers-in-canada-lets-separate-the-facts-from-the-myths/article19256920/

However, it might be that Canada being so huge and so underpopulated has a larger threshold for immigration. It kind of surprised me actually that latinos are such a small minority there.

@FYI - The US foreign born population is about 25% Asian, 25% Mexican, 25% other South American and 25% European/other. Canada is about 35% South Asian/Middle East 15% East Asian, 25% European and 25% other (mostly a mix of African and Caribbean). Almost all of the immigrants live in one of Canada's four big metro areas.

Also, too, the US has a lot of empty space. Have you visited the Midwest?

Canada only has one big metro area.

@Jan not according to the statistical bureau of Canada, you can take it up with them

Canada only has one big metro area.

No, Canada has 3 1st tier metropolitan settlements and 5 2d tier settlements. Any of these cities is of a size to host a research university and university medical complex as a matter of routine.

Guess "big" is relative.

Art, you know research universities and medical complexes can be found in the middle of nowhere in the US. Ever been to Iowa City (pop <75000)? It's a meaningless distinction.

Montreal and Toronto both top 1 million in population, with Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary, and Edmonton all added to the list if we scope out to metro area.

To say Canada has just one big metro area is either ignorant or asinine.

Midwest? Even California has a lot of empty space. That's what impressed me most when I flew from San Jose to LA -- vast areas with a few roads and nothing else.

Well, I am not sure about these percentages, it doesn't quite match some numbers I saw out there (Wikipedia mentions 1.2% of foreign born Canadians are latino).

Regarding over/under populated, maybe the important factor is that Canada has less over populated cities than the US. We do have large open areas in the Midwest, Dakotas, etc., but immigrants tend to go to the larger cities which are in turn much larger than even the largest Canadian cities...

My impression is Canadian cities are a little more sprawl-friendly. The Canadian love of Walmart is a bit of a national embarrassment.

Canadian cities are actually much more urban than American cities. Yes, they do have (sometimes vast) suburbs but the central core is much more dense than typical US cities outside of New York. One side effect of that is that as much as Canadians complain about housing prices, suburban cost of living is quite cheap in Canada.

Define "urban." You often see people in Toronto talk about city living when they live in tract houses that would be called suburban anywhere else. Same thing in Vancouver. Montreal feels more like a city.

Art, you know research universities and medical complexes can be found in the middle of nowhere in the US. Ever been to Iowa City (

If they're state plants (or private institutions which began as land grants). Private research universities are in their locations strongly biased toward larger cities. Only about 3% of the enrollment of such institutions can be found in non-metropolitan towns and perhaps 15% in conurbations with fewer than 600,000 people. University medical complexes can appear in smaller cities (e.g. Durham, NC), but they only reliably appear in urban settlements north of 600,000.

Guess “big” is relative.

You're in the business of claiming that greater Vancouver and greater Montreal (both of which have populations in excess of 2 million) are not large cities. You can claim that, but you're talking to your navel and no one else.

@ThatBillO'Reilly, 1 million people is hardly the cutoff for a "major" metro area these days. Canada is mostly unpopulated forests and prairies. And that's just the hospitable areas.

Define “urban.” You often see people in Toronto talk about city living when they live in tract houses that would be called suburban anywhere else.

Urban is defined the traditional way: size, density, and heterogeneity. 'Suburban' refers to dense settlements outside old central city bountaries. A century ago, a suburban settlement was transitional - occurring in the gap between the land development and municipal annexation. The latter-day usage wouldn't make much sense prior to the decline of municipal annexation beginning around 1924 (in New York and New Jersey).

You can refer to a particular type of land use as 'suburban' (e.g. strict segregation of commercial and residential use and mall development). However, the settlement is still urban in character, but not old city or core city in character.

@Lord and Art, to be fair, Toronto was not always that "urban". Its borders were greatly expanded in 1998, when it absorbed six surrounding municipalities. If you go to Toronto today, a large share of the "suburban" parts of the city are in these locales. (Side note: this is also how Rob Ford, who is basically from the 'burbs, got to be mayor of Toronto). Montreal, for example, is not really like this--it's more urban.

First sentence should say "suburban."

@ArtDeco, I was just explaining to you why having a big medical center and research center is an inappropriate measure of whether some place is a major metro area.

And I'm explaining to you why you're wrong.

They're not underpopulated. Most of the land is waste or boreal forest. The climate is horrible, so few people live there. See:

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-550/vignettes/img/map-2006-pop-density-canada-sz01-en.gif

Less than 5% of the population live in the black zone. Because only aboriginals, eccentrics and mining company employees would ever want to.

Enlightening.

And I thought you actually knew what you were talking about.

Feels like the first time I realized most journalists really have no idea what they were writing about.

Mostly true, although there are some areas in Canada that are still sparsely populated that aren't THAT bad. There's some black on the map that is further south than some red.

Yeah, whatever. These days rich westerners basically live indoors. It's 70 degrees and dry all the time.

That's what makes Edmonton habitable, and Atlanta habitable, and DC habitable, and Seattle habitable...

Palo Alto has the only decent climate on the whole damn continent.

Except that you'd die of thirst during the 8 months of the year it doesn't rain, at all. Luckily rich westerners have pipes, and Hetch Hetchy.

I have been to California's litoral and the climate seemed great, it reminded of my birth city. People seemed a little despicable, but climate seemed just right.

That’s what makes Edmonton habitable, and Atlanta habitable, and DC habitable, and Seattle habitable…

No that's not what makes it habitable. DC and its suburbs had 1.2 million people resident in 1950, when air conditioning in residential structures was odd. My grandmother got some window units around about 1955. People lived in her neighborhood before that.

And I thought you actually knew what you were talking about.

Tell me where I'm wrong, snotnose.

Climate control has done a lot to equalize different parts of the country in terms of livability. Whereas most US homes have had decent heating for quite a while now, it's only the last few decades that is has become a given that houses and offices in the warmer climates come equipped with central A/C. I think some of the recent North to South migration reflects that increase in livability. In 1940, living in Houston would have been fairly uncomfortable 3 or more months of the year, but today the heat is not much of an issue, except for those who work outside.

I do think a moderate climate, like Northern California is more attractive in general, because people still enjoy spending time outdoors. But if people do have to choose, preferences are tilted towards hot over cold weather (though I guess I am an outlier, preferring the climate of my native Michigan to current Mid-Atlantic home.)

I suppose I was thinking of technology more broadly than just air conditioning. After all, it's not air conditioning that makes Edmonton livable. Or Seattle for that matter.

Aren't they all Chinese billionaires living in Vancouver? That and Americans who crossed over from Buffalo.

I assume that Canada only wishes that 20% of its population were billionaires. The modal immigrant is an Indian or Pakistani migrant.

Actually the modal immigrant may or may not be either of those two things...

They're obviously tired of the US having all the good Mexican food.

I think Mark Steyn offered 15 years ago that if Canada did not wish to co-operate in maintaining a security perimeter, they would discover that one had been constructed with them on the outside of it. Water and mountains make much of the northern border difficult to cross on the QT and huge slices of Maine consist of pine forests without people. You'd put the new wall along the Minnesota and North Dakota border, with an insult directed at Boy Trudeau on the north face.

I am confused. How is Canada able to have more open immigration without a supra-national NA government to regulate their bananas? I guess we should now stop conflating sovereignty issues with trade and immigration policy.

Canada has a strict immigration policy based upon a point system. They are cherry picking the cream of the crop. And their relatively remote location and cold climate means they have limited illegal immigration.

Canada doesn't share a land border or a body of water that can be crossed on a raft with a much poorer country -- I suspect that is the far more important reason. Canada's major cities are not anymore remote than their American equivalents and Vancouver offers a reasonable climate.

@bc/jwatts
the immigration system donald trump wants is what canada, australia, japan, israel, and new zealand have. but trump is "racist," and those countries are good and pure liberal democracies.

i hate our establishment, and people who won't save their country because a candidate is "rude."

Visa free travel is not really de jure more open migration, as it doesn't really grant the rights to work or settle. Although depending on whether Canada is capable of enforcing its controls it may be more de facto migration.

The lack of a supra-national NA government to regulate bananas you can blame on a lack of guilty ideologues obsessed with Ending All War Forever!, and building homogenising institutions that apparently justify the ends and are thus removed from any type of scrutiny, accountability or justification whatsoever.

(By the way, off topic, if anyone knows, has anyone ever made the case for the US federal government on the basis of otherwise risking devastating war between different North American states?)

Maybe, just maybe, if we're really lucky, this will solve the problem of Canada's unconscionable dearth of good Mexican food. More seriously, this is great news and I hope it happens.

One can only hope the water they serve you has some of that Montezuma revenge in it.

I guess that is the end of Canada's skill-based immigration system.

Canadians tend to be pretty practical. If a lot of low skilled immigrants start coming in to stay, the policy will change.

No, they will leave. Welfare is ridiculously low, costs like housing are high. There aren't many places where there is lots of work. Alberta was importing Mexican labor, but that has dried up somewhat.

This is about hopefully importing a large immigrant group that is suitably grateful to the Liberal Party of Canada for their meagre existence.

Steve Harper,or whoever it is now, needs to study up on a little thing called voter ID. It's done great in suppressing the immigrant vote here in the States. Also works on poor minorities, if you guys have those and they tend to vote liberal. (Note: I do not recommend applying it to First Nations people--you might get a bit of a backlash. Just send then more booze. Say it's in service of expanding "liberty" or something.)

Your ignorance is showing. Even more than usual.

Canada, like virtually every country that doesn't feature produce on its flag, already requires ID in order to vote. Only American progs realize that their voters are such a sorry lot that asking them to prove their identity will actually keep them form voting (or so they claim- there's no actual evidence for that their voters are actually that pathetic- its just an assumption progressives make.) When election monitors from other western countries come here- and see that- they can't help but laugh.

But that won't stop partybots like you from regurgitating your voter "suppression" foolishness will it?

"Canada, like virtually every country that doesn’t feature produce on its flag, already requires ID in order to vote."

........... /headexplodes

US Republicans would definitely go for this deal!
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/three-things-us-could-learn-canadas-election

"Canada, like virtually every country that doesn’t feature produce on its flag, already requires ID in order to vote."

Yes, and they will literally accept your library card and cable bill as "ID." They will also accept welfare checks and letters from your local soup kitchen as proof of identity and residence.

Canadians tend to be pretty practical

Is that how they ended up with Prime Minister Punchline?

My boarders get theirs at the Taco Bell down the block, which is NE of here.

What about Brazil? We are an important partner, too!

Brazil? Where the nuts come from?

Well, what you call Brazilian nuts, we call nuts from Pará (a Brzilin state), so it's a. The point is, again the Mexicans are betraying us for the sake of , and we always had their best interests in our hearts. In the 19th Century, Brazil's Emperor asked Maximilian to stopmbeing a Napoleon's puppet and go back to Europe, where he belonged to-- he refused and ended up shot like a dog.
Anyway, maybe the notice of visa requirements being lifted for us too is in the mail.

* contained problem.

A Mencken bio would be timely these days. He predicted Trump.

Wasn't Mencken projecting, as he was a racist? Still, I like many of his quotes, especially his 'democracy good and hard' one.

Drug users are probably trying hard to hide from themselves. I would rather not spend my life running from myself. Sorry, but it is just how I feel...

Prediction: Assuming Justin Trudeau stays in power, within five years, they will give foreigners the vote.

The vote? Hell, that fairy Trudeau wants to give them the country. All the good Canadians earned the right to control Canada forever by putting in the hard work to be born there. None, and I mean zero, of the immigrants can say that they did that.

Also, did you know Trudeau doesn't even let native born Canadian citizens vote in elections if they've lived abroad more than five years?

This week, Trudeau also revoked a law from 2012 that made spouses wait two years for permanent residency. The law was a response to high rates of marriage fraud.

And this follows an announcement that immigration policy will shift from an emphasis on skills to one on family members.

So, despite the reference to an economic rationale in the original post, Canada is changing its immigration rules for non-economic and mostly ideological reasons.

Note too that most immigrants go to Ontario, a once economic powerhouse of Canada now a province sinking into a deep malaise and mired in debt twice the size of California's.

Bonus fact: Canada has the largest sub-national debt load in the modern world, by a long way.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ClGmDk0VAAASlcn.jpg:large

Someone once said of George W. Bush that if his father owned the biggest junkyard in town, he'd want to own the biggest junkyard in two towns. It's as if Zoolander is working hard to wreck more things than his father did.

Trudeau's one flirtation with private sector employment was as a part-time drama teacher at a school in Vancouver. I heard from a friend of one of the school's board members that they were considering firing him - shortly before he decided to enter politics and - multiple glossy magazine covers later - become leader of a G7 economy that is disproportionately dependent on resource activities that Trudeau mostly opposes.

It's all quite ridiculous when you think about it.

Yes, but look at table 3.7. The total debt doesn't look nearly as scary.

On Twitter, former Immigration Minister Jason Kenney offers some evidence for why the old policy might have been preferable: a big problem from years ago -- bogus refugee claimants from Mexico -- is now likely to return. https://mobile.twitter.com/jkenney?lang=en

USA could load the Mexican "immigrants" on busses in Mexico, then simply run them straight into Canada. That would take the pressure off USA, and the Canadians could become Mexicans instead of us.

Comments for this post are closed