Monday, August 12, 2024

Theater of the Absurd, Harris/Walz Edition


The strategy of the “Harris-Walz” campaign depends on people being dazzled by their theater of the absurd.  Both candidates claim now to believe things they have spent the last decades attacking.


H. L. Mencken apparently never quite said that “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” He said lots of similar things, however, and I like to think he would have been proud of being the sort of chap to whom people attributed such astringent mots.

He would also, I feel sure, regard the theater surrounding the Kamala Harris-Tim Walz campaign as a test case of the proposition.

Last week in this space, I pointed out the irony of the Sudden Harris Ascendancy Syndrome.  Here she was, one of the least popular figures on the American scene—someone, moreover, whom everyone, no matter their political coloration, regarded primarily as political life insurance for Joe Biden—and yet, Wham!, the very moment Biden resigns, her media reconstruction begins in earnest.

I almost wrote “media rehabilitation,” but that would not have been quite right. We say that someone is rehabilitated when he has fallen from a previous state of health, competence, or popularity.

Kamala Harris has never been competent or popular.  So what the media has done to or with her these last couple of weeks is more of an outright fabrication project. In part, as I wrote last week, it is a product of “magical thinking,” the belief, or at least the hope or pretense, that by saying something is so, you magically make it so.

The primary aim of this bit of theatrical slight-of-hand is positive.  It is to make people believe, for as long as they inhabit this theater of the absurd (the show runs, by the way, until November 5) that the person answering to the name “Kamala Harris” is not against fracking, though her doppelgänger, who existed until July 21 when Joe Biden dropped out of the race, was adamantly against fracking.

Similarly, Kamala 2.0 does not believe in open borders. But the original version, who was Biden’s “Border Czar,” did nothing to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants and spoke openly about a “path to citizenship” for them all eventually and Medicare and other benefits for them now.

Pick the issue: if it’s contentious, you will find that Kamala has had a sudden metanoia in the last couple of weeks. She is like the wolf who, addressing a flock of sheep, assures them that as soon as he is elected, he will become a vegetarian.

They are trying the same thing with Tim Walz, but what is uphill work for Kamala Harris is Mt. Everest for Walz.  He really did order that tampons be put into boys’ bathrooms in Minnesota schools. He allowed eight babies to be murdered after botched abortions left them alive. He sat back and watched Minneapolis burn when the St. George Floyd riots erupted in 2020. Just a day or two ago, NBC reported that Walz now says he “misspoke” in 2018 when describing his military experience.  But he did not “misspeak.”  He lied.

Walz is one of the many Democrats who seem to think that George Orwell’s 1984 was a how-to manual, not a sober warning about the dangers of totalitarianism.  Remember the COVID insanity? Walz was one of the worst governors during that made-up emergency.  Not only did he mandate vaccines, but he also set up a “snitch line” and encouraged Minnesotans to report their neighbors should they dare to venture outside without a mask.  Nevertheless, the media has been playing a clip over and over of Walz saying he wants people to “mind their own business.” As if.

The Democrats’ old friend, what the Freudians call “projection,” is evident everywhere in this entertainment. It boils down to accusing your opponents of the very things you are doing or are.  So, the memo went out that J. D. was henceforth to be described as “weird,” when in fact he radiates normality, competence, and healthy self-confidence.  Walz?  Despite the theatrical producers’ best effort, the fact that the man is one sick puppy cannot be obscured.

The strategy of the Biden-Harris—er, make that the “Harris-Walz” campaign depends on people being dazzled by their theater of the absurd.  Both candidates claim now to believe things they have spent the last decades attacking.  But their supposed conversion is not the result of any heavenly illumination.  It’s not like Saul falling to the ground on the road to Damascus. Rather, it is an abracadabra sort of conversion, i.e., no conversion at all, merely subterfuge.  It’s an elaborate show we are being treated to, replete with fake polls showing Harris-Walz ahead in some swing states.

Already, the façade is cracking as more and more devastating videos come to light about both candidates. The ridicule machine of Trump and his allies is only getting cranked up. More, much more, will be coming to an internet search near you.

As I say, this show is scheduled to run at least until November 5, maybe longer, depending on how much election fraud the Democrats are allowed to indulge in. But there will be occasional intermissions during which the deciding question will be pressed upon all of us theatergoers. Is this campaign about mood and emotion—is it, I mean, essentially a female campaign?  Or is it a matter of competing policies, of things like peace, prosperity, individual liberty, and economic competitiveness?

I am betting that, when the Chardonnay is gone and paper masks no longer fit, every robust voter will decide that he wants to live in the real world of common sense, not the hot-house world of woke theatrics and socialist nostrums. In other words, I predict that Mencken’s diminishing wager about the American public will, at least in this one instance, turn out to be dead wrong.



X22, And we Know, and more- August 12

 




Stop Fussing And Unleash The Full Power Of Persuasion


The fact that Tim Walz is an admitted blue falcon stolen valor scumbag is not a gratuitous tangent nor some bespoke, boutique line of attack that we need to move on from ASAP. No, it’s important and we need to keep it up. We need to keep all of it up, all the attacks, even the ones that we are supposed to be better than. Why? Because persuasion isn’t just about policy. This isn’t a forensics club where we compare facts and figures. If it were, we would’ve won long ago. Our enemies are not running a debating society election, and we shouldn’t be either. This is about persuasion. And persuasion is not some nerd at a whiteboard educating informed citizens. It’s war. Oh, facts and policy are part of it, but persuasion is, at its core, about emotion. We need to frow up, accept that reality and act on it.

I do persuasion for a living, standing up in front of juries and asking them to either give my client money or not take my client’s money. A trial is a venue similar to an election because you are seeking to convince random citizens who tend to be pretty earnest about the process. They take jury duty seriously, believing it is their civic duty. And many voters do, too, except you sadly can’t voir dire the electorate and dismiss the complete idiots. But enough about the Democrat base.

The reality is that both jurors and voters choose the side they feel should win. It’s not so simple as who they like better, though that’s helpful. They will give you the result they feel best about. Jurors and voters both want to feel that they’ve done the right thing. 

What we want to do here is make them feel that by voting for Trump, they have done the right thing. 

There are two ways to persuade. You can either persuade people to support something or to oppose something. We patriotic Republicans are trying to persuade citizens not to vote for the damn communist Democrats. This is a negative campaign. We are mostly trying to get them to vote against Harris; attempting to convince people to vote for Trump is really a supporting effort.

Why? The electorate is largely baked in. We’ve already got all the people who are going to like Donald Trump. Those people are ready to crawl over a San Francisco sidewalk to vote for him in November. And there are a bunch of people who are going to crawl over broken Chardonnay glasses and their cats’ litter boxes to vote for that skanky Dem half-wit and her duty-dodging tampon aficionado partner. We have to focus on the persuadables. We have to convince them to vote for Donald Trump or against Kamala Harris. 

It will mostly mean convincing people to vote against her. The fact is that Donald Trump has been in the public eye as a politician for about a decade now. Everyone has an opinion about Trump already. Yeah, there is some room to move because he was pretty damn good overall, and that people want to return to prosperity, security, and freedom, but if you don’t have a positive view of Donald Trump by now, you’re probably not going to ever have a positive view of Donald Trump. What we need to do is be able to persuade you to accept him because you don’t like the alternative. So, our key persuasion objective is making people not like Kamala Harris, and she is eminently not likable, so we’ve got that going for us. Which is nice.

Our main persuasion effort has to be to convince people that Scat Francisco party gal Kamala Harris and her war zero running mate Chubbie Murphy are terrible people in who will ruin the country if we elect them. Now, our task is simplified by the fact that this is true. They are both communist scumbags who hate Jews and Christians, fetishize bizarre gender weirdos, want to kill babies, and think the only proper use of “assault weapons” is by government thugs to intimidate patriots. 

We have to persuade people to want to vote against these mutants. Bowtie Republicans think we should do it by talking only about policy. We can explain how the Dem idiots’ border policy is pretty much sucking the entire Third World into the United States and how pretty soon we’re going to look like Europe, which itself looks a lot like Mogadishu. Minneapolis is already there. That’s powerful imagery. Other powerful imagery comes from Kamala’s and Dodgy McThereIWas’s home cities. I can imagine an ad with footage of the Boschian tableau of junkies, hobos, and perverts that is The-City-By-The-Bay beneath the superimposed mug of that cackling cretin while the old Scott McKenzie chestnut “(If You’re Going To) San Francisco” plays.

Other policy topics include crime in the street as well as perverts in our schools and our girls’ locker rooms. Gas is $1 million a gallon. If I drank milk, I’d probably know how much it is, but I’ve heard rumors it’s a lot. Kamala wants to embargo arms to Israel and send pallets of cash to Iran. The Chinese are looking at Taiwan like a thirsty Walz eyes a sexy stallion – got your back, JD; your new rules, Timmy!

The bottom line is that there are a lot of great policy issues to hit these two morons on, but policy alone is not enough. Policy alone doesn’t persuade. Policy is just one component in a total effort to paint a picture of Kamala/Walz as the incompetent danger to America that they are.

That total effort includes hitting her for hiding even from her own regime media. What is she afraid of? Drowning in a journalist tongue bath? There’s also the inauthenticity meme that Trump raised by pointing out that Kamala Harris can’t decide whether she’s an Indian or black or whatever. And yes, there is Tim Walz’s disgraceful stolen valor, something particularly effective with the millions of battleground state vets who actually showed up at real battlegrounds. What’s particularly great about slamming AWOL Walz is how Kamala Harris has no idea how dangerous this is to her campaign because she doesn’t actually know any vets and only listens to MSNBCNN. We’ll just let it be a surprise.

A whole bunch of other things can contribute to painting a picture of this dynamic duo of failure. We should exploit them all. We are trying to make people who don’t know them very well dislike them so they vote for Trump or don’t vote at all. This is a negative campaign. It must encompass everything negative about the targets, not just the things that don’t make our fussier friends on the right uncomfortable.

The good news is that we’re lucky enough to have perhaps the best political marketer since Ronald Reagan as our standard bearer. Trump has a natural understanding of what persuades people, at least what persuades normal people as opposed to people inside the Beltway. There’s no one better at it, and if he wants to hit a political opponent on something, you might want to think twice before you announce that it’s a terrible idea and that he should be discussing marginal tax rate policy. 

Sure, Trump can still go off on personal tangents like that ridiculous segue bashing Brian Kemp. I and many others, including the bowtie conservatives, thought this feuding was self-indulgent and counterproductive. But look at the big picture. When was the last exhausting own goal we saw from Trump? We saw them every day in 2016 and 2020 when he still had Twitter. That’s all we were talking about. But this time, we haven’t had one of these unnecessary imbroglios in a while. Now, soon he’s going to do an interview with Elon Musk, and he may announce he’s coming back to Twitter, which I think would be pulling on a pair of Bad Idea Jeans. When Trump is talking about his pet peeves in public rather than in the mega ghetto of Truth Social, he is not laser-focused on persuading persuadables about the perniciousness of the pinko progressive pair.

This is all about persuasion. We need to do it. But persuasion can be rough. This fight is not for the weak or faint of heart. The regime media is doing everything it can to make sure the undecideds’ impression of Kamala Harris is that she’s brat. What we need do is make sure the undecideds’ impression of Kamala Harris is that she’s bad.



Are Jack Smith and Merrick Garland Outsmarting Trump — or Playing Into His Hands?

 The government’s request for delay in the January 6 case could be savvy lawyering or a boon to the 45th president’s fortunes.

Special Counsel Jack Smith’s request for a three week delay in the January 6 case secured could amount to a new lease on life for the troubled prosecution — or an admission that the pursuit of President Trump is at an impasse.

Judge Tanya Chutkan granted that request after Trump signaled that he did not object to the petition for extra time to digest the Supreme Court’s ruling that official presidential acts are presumptively immune. A subset of those enjoy “absolute” immunity, and unofficial acts are not immune. 

Mr. Smith, in requesting a delay, cited the need for “consultation with other Justice Department components.” That suggests that the decision was not his alone and telegraphs the involvement of Attorney General Garland. It was Mr. Garland who appointed Mr. Smith, two days after Trump signaled his candidacy to regain the White House. Judge Aileen Cannon in South Florida ruled that the appointment of Mr. Smith was unconstitutional and dismissed the charges.

Mr. Garland’s caustic criticism of that ruling threw into sharp relief — and on national television — his involvement in the cases against Trump, notwithstanding the chief prosecutor’s description of Mr. Smith’s “independent” sphere of action. Now it appears that Messrs. Smith and Garland have concluded that more time is advantageous as they prepare for the “mini trial” that will determine which evidence is protected and which is fair game. 

That choice has elicited criticism from those partisan to Mr. Smith’s efforts that the government is playing into its defendant’s hands. The liberal lion Laurence Tribe declared that he finds “it hard not to see the slow hand of AG Garland here. He desperately needs a sense of urgency that his leadership has lacked from very early on. He has integrity and analytical intelligence but lacks the needed fire.”

This line of criticism echoes one reportedly voiced by President Biden himself. The Times reports that Mr. Biden “said privately that he wanted Mr. Garland to act less like a ponderous judge and more like a prosecutor.” Trump argues that such insinuations are the mark of a political prosecution and one that is unlawfully “selective and vindictive.” Judge Chutkan, though, last week rejected the former president’s efforts to dismiss the case on those grounds as dependent on “unsupported assertions.” 

An erstwhile deputy to Special Counsel Robert Mueller, Andrew Weissman, likewise pulls no punches, noting, also on X, that “This motion reeks of tension between Jack Smith (wanting to move fast) and AG Garland (who is very careful and cautious).  At the expense of delaying or avoiding entirely a factual hearing.” It has been Trump, who, across his four criminal trials, has pushed for delay. Mr. Smith has sought to push the pace.

The role reversal suggests that the government’s calculus has shifted, and that the impetus to rush  — Mr. Smith once applied to the Supreme Court for consideration so expedited he allowed it was “extraordinary”  — has abated. If Vice President Harris wins the White House, the special counsel will have at least four more years to secure a “guilty” verdict. If Trump wins, the federal cases will likely come to a close after he takes the oath of office. 

There is also the possibility that the government will use the three additional weeks granted them by Judge Chutkan to “slim down” its indictment to focus solely on those acts that courts — and the Supreme Court — are likely to view as unofficial, and therefore vulnerable to prosecution. Such a renovated indictment could have a path through the appellate gauntlet, even as it would be forced to eschew reference to episodes like Trump’s colloquies with Vice President Pence and Department of Justice officials.

Even if Messrs. Garland and Smith do not emerge from this three week hiatus with an altered indictment, there could still be a political payoff to pushing the start of the “mini trial” close to November’s elections. Witnesses will be called and evidence will be presented that could cast him in an unflattering light. What happens at Judge Chutkan’s courtroom could affect what transpires at the ballot box on November 5, Trump’s contention from the beginning.  

https://www.nysun.com/article/are-jack-smith-and-merrick-garland-outsmarting-trump-or-playing-into-his-hands


🎭 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓


Welcome to 

The 𝐖𝟑𝐏 𝓓𝓐𝓘𝓛𝓨 𝓗𝓾𝓶𝓸𝓻, 𝓜𝓾𝓼𝓲𝓬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, 𝓞𝓟𝓔𝓝 𝓣𝓗𝓡𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


YouTube CEO, Google Exec and Tip of Spear COVID Info Pusher, Susan Wojcicki Dead at 56


Be thankful that God has allowed you to see what is unfolding.  Others that remain asleep are not as lucky as you.  Ask yourself in prayer, why you. Why now?  Then, think about this daily.  Affirm your spirit and allow this sense of fortunate knowledge to elevate your faith and confidence in a loving and purposeful God.  You have the gift of discernment. Ultimately, you have been chosen.  Be thankful.

POLITICO – Susan Wojcicki, the former YouTube chief executive officer and longtime Google executive, has died, her husband said. She was 56.

“My beloved wife of 26 years and mother to our five children left us today after 2 years of living with non-small cell lung cancer,” Dennis Troper said in a social media post late Friday. (read more)

Susan Wojcicki, 56, was killed by rapid onset of lung cancer after being fully vaccinated and boosted. It was during her tenure that Google blocked any information about COVID-19, vaccinations or the virus origin that ran counter to the expressed opinions of those who run Google.

Susan Wojcicki, wife of Dennis Troper, was a leading fellow traveler in the leftist control system.  The modern system of digital control exists in large measure because of Susan Wojcicki and the small group of people around her life.  She’s dead at 56, which is coincidentally the exact same age as Steve Jobs when he died.


Earlier this year, Susan Wojcicki’s 19-year-old son, Marco Troper, killed himself using a drug overdose.

Susan Wojcicki’s sister, Anne Wojcicki, co-founded the genetic testing company 23andMe which benefits from the COVID-19 testing database.

Susan Wojcicki’s husband is Dennis Troper, an ADL board member and key voice in the Google censorship complex. If you want to identify the key figure behind the demonetization of conservative content online, it would be Dennis Troper.

.

Be thankful that God has allowed you to see what is unfolding.  Others that remain asleep are not as lucky as you.  Ask yourself in prayer, why you. Why now?  Then, think about this daily in your quiet time.  Affirm your spirit and allow this sense of fortunate knowledge to elevate your faith and confidence in a loving and purposeful God.  You have the unique gift of discernment. Ultimately, you have been chosen.

Be thankful. Remember, Romans 13:12

Live a positive, affirming, purposeful and incredible life.

Within every battle, challenge and contest we encounter, always remember to be thankful and continue living your best life.



JD Vance Makes the Sunday Media Circuit


Vice-Presidential nominee JD Vance made the Sunday talk circuit today with appearances on several news programs.  In the interest of convenience and reader time, the three primary interviews are below.  WATCH:







Brian Fallon Copies Trump “No Tax on Tips” Pledge for Kamala to Read from Teleprompter in Nevada


The flaw in every proposal from the left-wing thinking of Brian Fallon, is simply to say, “why hasn’t she done it already?”  Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are currently in office, if they plan to eliminate income taxes on tips then why are they not doing it?

“Vice President Kamala Harris rolled out a promise to stomp out taxes on tips during a campaign stop in Las Vegas Saturday — prompting former President Donald Trump to rip her for “copying” one of his signature proposals.”

It is my promise to everyone here, when I am President, we will continue our fight for working families of America, including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers,” Harris told the crowd.  WATCH:



President Trump responded.


Stolen Valor Walz Strikes Again With Misleading Congressional Challenge Coin


Ward Clark reporting for RedState 

The more one digs into this whole "Tim Walz lies about his military service" issue, the more comes to light that this guy was not in the slightest bit shy about dissembling if he saw any advantage in it. In the latest spate of information, Daily Wire correspondent Bree A. Dail found an image on X (formerly Twitter) of Tim Walz's "Congressional Challenge Coin" from his time in the House of Representatives.

And, yes, he portrays his former rank on the coin as Command Sergeant Major (CSM.)

This just keeps getting better and better. Remember that Walz was only "frocked" as a CSM, meaning he was allowed to wear the rank badges due to his being in a position that required the rank, but he was never actually promoted, as he never completed the training requirements. As one wag pointed out, being "frocked" in a rank is much like claiming one won a footrace because he was in the lead for a couple of laps; no soldier with any sense of honor or respect for the rank would have prevaricated about something like this, much less made it a career-enhancing talking point.

And, yes, Walz "misspoke" about "carrying weapons of war in a war," and what's more, he's been doing it for almost two decades. There is no way this is anything but deliberate.

That "Congressional Challenge Coin" issue has been corroborated by someone who was a Congressional intern.

The drip, drip, drip of the truth coming out is turning into a steady flow; even people from Walz's former Minnesota National Guard unit are coming forward to set the record straight.

But there is still much work to be done exploding this fraud. Even Wikipedia, it seems, has been taken in by the scam. Governor Walz's Wikipedia page, under "Military Service," lists his rank as "Command Sergeant Major," and under "Battles/wars" it lists "War in Afghanistan/Operation Enduring Freedom." That is clearly implying service in Afghanistan, which Walz did not do. Walz, again, took credit for a rank he did not earn and claimed he took part in a war in which he was not even on the same continent as the fighting.

There are many terms the military has for sacks-o-crap like Tim Walz, but almost none of them can be presented here. We all know what they are, regardless. Suffice it to say that Tim Walz, in addition to being an unapologetic commie-lib with totalitarian leanings, is a liar. He claims credit for service he skipped out on. He lied, repeatedly, and for years, about having achieved the ultimate enlisted rank possible in the U.S. Army, he lied, repeatedly and for years, about having served in a war zone, when in fact on his one deployment the greatest risk he ran was indigestion from eating too much spaghetti.

Tim Walz is dishonest. He is dishonorable. And he is therefore fundamentally unsuited to hold the office of Vice President of the United States.



Linking immigration to the housing shortage may be missing the problem, experts say

 

With rising rents and house prices making it increasingly hard to find an affordable place to live, some are pointing the finger at Canada's record-level immigration rates.

Immigration is not the only thing putting a strain on the housing market. High interest rates, increasing building costs and red tape at the municipal level that can slow down or halt home construction are all part of the picture.

But to tackle the pressure being created by immigration, some are now openly discussing forging a public policy link between how many people Canada takes in each year and the state of the country's housing stock.

"It's very simple math. If you have more families coming than you have housing for them, it's going to inflate housing prices," Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre told an audience in Winnipeg recently.

Poilievre has offered few details on how a government led by him would handle immigration, but he did say it would take three factors into consideration.

"We have to bring the [immigration] numbers in line with the number of houses that are built," he said. "The growth in immigration should not exceed the amount of housing stock we add, the number of doctors we add and the available jobs." 

  • This week Cross Country Checkup wants to know: Has the housing shortage changed your view on Canada's immigration strategy? Fill out the details on this form and send us your stories.

CBC News has asked the Conservative leader for more details of his plan to tie immigration to housing, but has yet to receive a response.

The Liberals also have acknowledged that the number of people coming into the country is making the housing crisis worse.

But experts and economists say that targeting immigration broadly won't bring the cost of housing down. What's required, they say, is a more nuanced approach.

Canada's immigration picture has changed dramatically in recent years.

In the fall of 2022, the Liberal government announced its plan to increase the annual permanent resident target from 405,000 in 2021 to 465,000 in 2022, before stabilizing at 500,000 in 2024 — almost double the 260,411 permanent residents who arrived in 2014.

Statistics Canada reported a total population increase of 1,158,705 permanent and non-permanent residents as of July 1, 2023, a 2.9 per cent increase over July 1, 2022 and the highest population growth rate recorded for a 12-month period since 1957.

The agency said 98 per cent of that increase was due to immigration, while the remainder was due to natural increase — the difference between births and deaths.

Statistics Canada said that by the end of 2023, there were 2,511,437 non-permanent residents in the country — a class that includes international students and temporary foreign workers — compared to 1,305,206 in the fall of 2021.

Houses vs. households

Many housing experts say tying the official immigration target — even at the 500,000 per year level  — to the number of houses built each year won't make housing more affordable.

David Hulchanski, a professor of housing and community development at the University of Toronto's Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, said new arrivals are free to live where they want — which may not be where housing is available.

"Are we going to require all immigrants to stay in place?" he asked.

Hulchanski said it's also important to distinguish between households and homes because "the 40 million people in Canada don't live in 40 million houses."

Canadian households, he said, have an average of about 2.45 people. In Germany it's just 2.14 people per household, while in Ireland it's 2.73 people per household.

By that measure, he said, 500,000 immigrants would need about 204,000 homes in Canada, 233,000 homes in Germany and just 183,000 in Ireland.

Houses under construction
CMHC said housing starts were down seven per cent over 2022 in population centres of 10,000 or more, with only 223,513 new starts in 2023 compared to 240,590 in 2022. (Colin Butler/CBC News)

CMHC figures released this week show housing starts are down seven per cent since 2022. Hulchanski said that still amounted to 223,513 new starts last year, enough to accommodate incoming permanent residents.

Other pressures are driving down the number of housing starts: high interest rates making home ownership less affordable, the increased cost of building materials due to inflation and supply chain disruptions lingering from the COVID-19 pandemic, and zoning laws at the municipal level that make it harder to build homes.

Hulchanski said it's important to remember that "homes are not households" and tying immigration to the availability of housing assumes all immigrants are the same, with the same housing needs.

People immigrating to Canada through the family reunification stream are, he said, more likely to live with family members than to seek separate housing. Some immigrants come as complete families and will live together, he said, while others may be wealthy and able to afford housing at inflated prices.

"The challenge with actually having a policy that links the number of immigrants to houses is that households don't equal immigrants," he said. "There's a big disparity there."

Immigrants vs. international students

Still, Hulchanski and other housing experts see a clear link between non-permanent immigration and housing availability.

The massive recent spike in non-permanent residents, they say, has had a substantial impact on housing affordability. 

In 2011, for example, the number of international students in the country was just shy of 240,000. Late last year, Immigration Minister Marc Miller said Canada was on track to host as many as 900,000 international students in 2023. 

"We exponentially increased demand [for housing]," said Stephen Pomeroy, a professor and housing expert at McMaster University.

"Temporary foreign workers and students don't come to buy homes. They rent. So we've had a massive demand impact on the rental part of the housing system."