The Canadian Press
Alexander Panetta
HOLTVILLE, Calif.—In this election year, in this place, in the rare event someone mentions Canada, it’s liable to be as a joke.
John Hernandez offers an example of the genre.
He greets a visitor to the southern tip of California and, upon learning he’s Canadian, Hernandez cracks a quip about the border—not the one nearby that everyone’s talking about in the presidential election, but the other one way up north.
“You gonna build a wall there, too?” the retired state employee says upon encountering a Canadian reporter outside a cemetery in Holtville, Calif., a few kilometres from Mexico.
“No? Canada’s not gonna have to build a wall and pay for it yourselves?”
He’s being sarcastic.
Hernandez knows the answer to both questions is “no.” Like many here, he’s noticed that only one of America’s neighbours has become an issue in this election—and it’s not the one closest to the North Pole.
“People know the disparity,” he said. “Mexicans are treated differently.”
This tale of two disparately-discussed neighbours has experienced its dramatic climax with Donald Trump flying into Mexico City on a public-relations mission yesterday, followed by an evening speech where he doubled-down on his hardline approach of deporting millions, building a wall, and forcing Mexico to pay for it.
Trump delivered a one-hour, 15-minute speech about border security without mentioning Canada.
It’s the story of the U.S. election campaign. Even when Trump raises an issue that seriously affects Canada, the northern neighbour’s an incidental bystander.
Like his threat to cancel a trade deal in the country that buys 76 percent of Canada’s exports.
In a major trade speech where he announced a renegotiation-or-cancellation policy on NAFTA, Trump referred to Mexican factories taking jobs; his campaign issued a statement railing against Mexico’s allegedly unfair trade practices.
But the northern amigo? Not a word about it—negative or otherwise.
The dynamic played out at the Republican convention. The opening night’s speeches featured anecdotes about Americans being killed by illegal immigrants from the south.
In hallway interviews, delegates gushed about the northern neighbour.
They confessed they hadn’t thought about it much during the election. Of the half-dozen or so people interviewed there, none even were aware the U.S. had a trade deal with Canada that predated NAFTA.
All agreed with bringing back the old Canada-U.S. accord if NAFTA got spiked.
One Republican deadpanned that he worried about the northern border. In the next split-second, he made clear he was joking.
“No, we’re not really worried about the Canadians,” said Jeff Hommedahl, an alternate delegate from Minnesota.
“Canadians are such nice people anyway. They’re kind of like Minnesotans.”
Loren Spivack, meanwhile, said the purpose of border walls is stopping illegal migration.
“The idea of a wall with Canada is kind of ridiculous,” noted Spivack, who displayed conservative-themed comic books outside the Republican convention.
“The border’s 3,000 miles long—and there’s not much of an illegal immigration problem with Canada.”
Closer to the Rio Grande, some people see a double-standard.
Enrique Morones is an advocate for southern migrants who drops water bottles in the desert to help them survive.
It’s true migration is a far bigger issue in the south but, he says, terrorism also is a concern in the north.
He’s calling racism on it.
“Why does Canada not have a wall? We don’t want them to have a wall,” Monrones said.
“But why not? Because they have the same background [as the U.S.]: Anglo-Protestant.
“If the people in Canada were brown or black, you bet there’d be a wall,” added Morones, who leads the California-based group Border Angels.
“But it’s like a cousin—the first cousin of the United States,” he continued.
“You’re the same people. You’re white. That’s why there’s no wall. . . .
“It’s a double-standard.”
