A Likeability Problem: Immigration

Our examination of “likeability” and its impact on conservative strategies has touched on crime, drugs, homelessness, housing, and inflation.  It now falls on us to discuss what may very well be the third rail of Canadian politics, immigration.

Housing and inflation present difficult problems.  Historically high levels of immigration worsen both.  It would seem to be a simple matter of reducing the number of people the government lets into the country.  

However, it has been made difficult by pro-immigration advocates who have tied resistance to mass immigration with racism and white supremacy.  This doesn’t mean that solutions cannot be put forward, only that they must be done carefully.

---

Want some new merch while supporting free speech? Check out our store!

Wrong Speak T-Shirt

---

There are many reasons to support Immigration.  It can help address labor shortages, balance the expenses of an aging population with economic growth, and there is a humanitarian argument as well.  Immigration, however, is not an end unto itself, but rather a tool to assist society.  

The government must not set immigration levels in a vacuum but instead prioritize the needs of Canadian citizens over those of people desiring to move here.  The question that Conservatives must ask is “are the Liberals prioritizing Canadians or are they using immigration as another tool to show how ‘nice’ they are?”

Immigration is popular with Canadians as shown by this poll conducted in March of 2023: 

However, this may soon change as economists begin to sound the alarm.  A research report warns that a surging population could negatively impact housing, inflation, and health care. The fact that the Liberals have stated that they have no plans to change immigration levels may open the door for Conservatives to use immigration as an election issue.  

Convincing voters that immigration is keeping inflation high should be straightforward.  Rising population leads to rising demand and, in the absence of an equivalent increase in supply, inflation increases.  This simple economic truism is supported by economists at several banks who see immigration forcing the Bank of Canada to continue increasing interest rates.  While Canada’s Central Bank does not necessarily agree with this assessment, it “now expects inflation to reach its 2% target by the middle of 2025, instead of the end of next year as predicted in April.”

Conservatives should also have little difficulty highlighting the negative impact of immigration on the housing market.   Canada’s population growth has already been shown to exceed homebuilding greatly:

Given the country’s relatively anemic fertility rate, it is a simple matter to point out that the majority of the country’s population growth is due to immigration:

In the absence of an effective home-building program, bringing more people into an environment where housing already can’t keep up means a worsening housing situation.

Canada is a country of immigrants, but we are not the only ones who can make this claim. Contrasting our population growth since the Liberals came to power with that of the US may provide some much-needed perspective:

Finally, Conservatives must highlight how mass immigration is affecting the immigrants themselves.

The answer to this question should be obvious.  If Canada isn’t building enough houses for people who are already here, where will the 1.45 million the government is planning on bringing into the country over the next 3 years live?  The strain on Canada’s infrastructure is already showing.  

The federal government and municipal government of Toronto recently engaged in an exercise of finger-pointing regarding who should have to pay to house refugees who were being forced to live in the street.  The impact on immigrants has reached the point where Mayor Olivia Chow has requested that residents consider housing them in their spare rooms.  A “solution” which is concerning on many levels.  

This phenomenon is occurring in the US and England as well, where well-intentioned pro-immigration stances are running up against an infrastructure that can’t cope with the planned influx.  A desire to be “nice” has its limits and it would appear we have reached it.  Yet, the Liberals are not concerned.  

Their desire to focus on “likeability” has  Canada’s Immigration Minister Marc Miller arguing that not only is immigration not a problem, but “Canada’s housing crisis ‘absolutely cannot’ be solved without the aid of new immigrants who bring their skills here.”  There may be a grain of truth to this statement; it is possible that Canada needs more people with the skills required to build new homes, but 500,000 per year?  

A more targeted approach to immigration would likely be a better approach.  Conservatives can turn immigration into a winning issue by determining what skills Canada needs and using the right immigrants to fill the gaps while significantly lowering immigration levels until the housing crisis is solved.

Conclusion

With an election possibly around the corner and a US one ramping up, conservatives must quickly determine on what fronts they wish to fight.  “Likeability,” while an ever-present topic, is unlikely to be a winnable battle, at least not on the policy level.  That doesn’t mean that politicians will stop trying.  

Pierre Poilievre has recently received a makeover and President Biden has cultivated a reputation as the genial grandfather (that has taken a hit recently for one obvious reason).  The need to polish one’s image is a regrettable though necessary requirement for success in modern politics.  Image is not everything, but it’s not nothing either and if conservatives are to win they must understand that a new haircut and contact lenses will only go so far.  They must understand that closing the likeability gap is a sideshow and in the long-term unwinnable. 

 Instead, conservatives must focus on ideas and practical solutions.  They must start presenting ideas that are stronger than the ideas presented by the parties on the left.  This should not be difficult given the seeming absence of any workable solutions from the left.  However, better ideas are only useful if conservatives can persuade the public that being “nice” is not a solution.  They must convince people that “nice” will not solve the drug problem or the violent crime problem or the homelessness problem. 

They must make it clear that “nice” caused the current inflation problem and is exacerbating it by keeping taxes high and holding immigration levels at historic highs during a housing crisis.  The public must be convinced that “niceness” in politics is founded on selfishness, that it is a mirage that liberates us from responsibility by allowing us to appear virtuous without demanding that we accomplish anything.  

It is the philosophy of good intentions, of the naïve, of children.  “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”  It is time for conservatives to convince the public that they are adults and must behave like it.  Being nice is not the solution to every problem and it frequently makes matters worse. 

If conservatives wish to win elections and begin to address society’s problems, they must convince people that they are the party of effective ideas, the party of grownups, and that it is time that the country put away childish things.