NORAD and Project 2025: Consequences?

[dewline]

I am thinking that there will be consequences if that nightmare gets put into operation in the USA, and that they won't be good for Canada in any way. Not seeing any informed commentaries on the subject yet, though.

Comments

[arlie]

I haven't had the intestinal fortitude to read it, though I understand it's both huge and self-contradictory in places.

Slightly tongue in cheek consequences:

- increased housing shortages and costs, as expat Canadians repatriate themselves. Any suggestions for a good place for a retired software engineer to resettle?
- increased immigration; increased claims for refugee status. Maybe even a bit of a brain drain from the south.
- lots of overstayed tourist visas, as with the draft dodgers in my childhood
- more renegotiation of treaties to make them even more favorable to the USA. Just like Trump's previous term.
- "medical tourism" from the US
- ongoing risk of formal or informal US takeover, as their territory becomes less and less habitable due to climate change
- homegrown lunatics wanting the same policies in Canada, or even confused that they don'y already apply in Canada
- bad economic effects of stupid policies won't be limited to the US alone.

[malada]

One of those immigrants might be me.

I'd also expect an invasion of Canada to seize the shale/tar sand oil fields.

[arlie]

I feel reasonably certain that with appropriate diplomatic bullying, a deal will be done that grants the US access to the products without the bother of managing a conquered territory. They already have a sweetheart deal for Canadian water, that I'm pretty sure it would be diplomatically impossible for the relevant people to fail to renew, however much the water is needed by Canadians.

[spiralsheep]

"- homegrown lunatics wanting the same policies in Canada, or even confused that they don't already apply in Canada"

This but in the UK and I've been encountering "confused that they don't already apply" about US laws since fools found the interwebz.

[arlie]

It's especially "fun" when the fool in question is running/standing for office.

I recall a sadly funny interview some years ago of a Canadian politician, somewhere in the prairie provinces (Alberta?), possibly the leader of her (conservative, but maybe regional) party, who plainly didn't understand that the Second Amendment was American. I strongly suspected that the CBC interviewer was making her look bad on purpose, in spite of his performance of neutral friendliness.

[spiralsheep]

Can't prevent people telling the truth about themselves, and if that makes them look bad... well.... ;-)

Good luck with your southern neighbours (and Alaska, especially Alaska).

[extraarcha]

I can think of no good reason to read the drek of Pee-2025. It's had lots of parts cited and not one of them suggest needing to know more. If i look into a cesspit, i don't need to jump in to 'evaluate' it. Why read Pee-2025?
Ok, some people have compulsions, sorta along the lines of being fans of "horror" movies?
I'm just not one of them.
The GQP is telling us who they are. Believe them! (the rest of that quote is "the first time" and they've been telling us since well before the 1950s.)