We already have an eTA, roughly equivalent to the US ESTA, which is advanced travel authorization for people coming from visa exempt countries. Other than Americans, pretty much everyone else needs a visa.
It’s not just requiring a visa, it’s also a question of how hard it is to get a visa.
For one, the migrants are not from the lowest economic strata. But they cannot secure tourist or student visas to the US, often due to lower education or English proficiency.
Second, Canada on the northern border has become a more accessible entry point for Indians, with a visitor visa processing time of 76 days (compared to up to a year for a US visa in India).
So we’ll be expected to change our standards to match theirs, and drag our feet long enough to discourage as many as possible from actually coming here.
Trump enjoys talking tough, but will apply excessive tariffs to some Canadian stuff for a while. The actual amount of problematic people and paraphernalia is probably peanuts compared to Southern borders. I personally have no problem with Canada realistically addressing this issue, such as it is, nor spending more on our military so we can exercise sovereignty in the Arctic. But it will be used as an excuse for politicking, which is a bigger problem. How much improvement is enough?
One of Trump’s cabinet has a wife who works for TC Energy. I thought most big Canadian energy companies were basically owned by Houston bigwigs (although I could certainly be misunderstanding this). So for many reasons energy will likely be treated more gingerly than softwood. In terms of actual economic sense, you might be surprised to learn some economists disagree with Trump. But Trump cares about base perceptions, not professors.
No, I’m not.
Oh come on now. Of course you are!
I also think Canada should try to stay united with Mexico. Being divided will not greatly strengthen our negotiating options.
I saw someone elsewhere talking about the difference in our reactions. Trudeau is trying quiet diplomacy, while Mexico’s new President is being more in-his-face about it. I’m hoping that was some kind of actual plan, because a one-two punch might work wonders.
“Nice economy you’ve got up there. Be a shame if something happened to it.” This is how he is going to “negotiate” with the whole world.
The Dino and Luigi School. 
It’s what he did last time. He knows Canada would be crushed economically if he pulled out of NAFTA, so we’ll always sit down at the negotiating table any time he makes noises about cancelling it. And it really won’t matter who is in power at the time, no Canadian politician would just stand by and let NAFTA fail.
His weakness is that, outside the basic bullying, he sucks at negotiation. He has no mind for details, and figuring out trade-offs. So we can buy him off by figuring out what silly little concession he’s looking for, while slipping in a few choice bits of our own. Like we did last time. We gave him a trivial little bit of extra access to our dairy industry, and in exchange, expanded our access to the much, much larger auto industry.
Wonder what the (imaginary, of course!) over/under is for how soon all those moronic tools for truckers might start up their moronic blockades again.
And what will their complaints be? “Why are Trudeau’s Tariffs making it harder for us to export things? And why are the border crossing so much more of a pain? It Trudeau trying to trap us in Canada?!?”
More good sense from Coyne on why Canada should remain calm and focus.
Paywall. Can you copy the whole article?
Couldn’t view; got a “You must be a Globe and Mail subscriber” when I clicked on it.
ETA: ninja’ed.
Or at least its salient points - the whole kaboodle is a copyright violation, here.
A bit late for that. NAFTA was replaced by USMCA four years ago.
We just call it NAFTA. The tweaks (sorry, the phenomenal bestest-possible changes that The Donald made to it) weren’t enough to register in the Canadian public discourse.
It’s a shame that we are now being bullied by that asshole Trump into doing things that should have been done a long time ago. Borders, foreign interference, and NATO spending.
Perhaps because he doesn’t know how to negotiate. He’s never had to sit down and give and take in order to arrive at a deal that benefits both sides. His idea of negotiation always boils down to an “I win, you lose” situation.
At least when NAFTA was renegotiated, the Americans were experienced negotiators who knew that give and take was going to be necessary, and as a result, NAFTA turned out to be acceptable to all parties. Trump may not have been happy at how the American team worked (and he probably wasn’t, because not much changed in the updated agreement), but he claimed victory anyway.
If pressed, we’ll call it NAFTA 2.0. “USMCA” puts the US first in the agreement name, which isn’t going to fly here in Canada. At least “NAFTA” treats all parties fairly. It puts North America first, and better reflects who the agreement governs: all countries in North America.