Why Do So Many More Canadians Move To America Than Americans Move To Canada? (high crime, neighborhood)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- Canadians as a whole are a lot less religious. Most striking is a 2018 poll which indicated that 53% of Americans considered religion to be very important in their lives compared to only 27% of Canadians. See map here:https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/...mitment-01-00/
.
Because of Quebec and French Canadians who were once devout Catholics and have abandoned the religion in droves.
The U.S also takes in tens of millions of undeducated practicing Latin American Catholics.
Formerly devoutly Catholic places have become very anti-religion, whilst in very protestant place like the U.S. where church stayed out of the state, they have fewer reason to declare they are not religious.
There wasn't as much to be mad about.
Here where I live we were segregated into Catholic and Protestant schools.
By the way, the idea that many Canadians live close to the border because they are emotionally dependent on Americans is absurd. Waterways and railroad lines plus climate helped determine where people originally settled and where subsequent infrastructure was built.
Didn't even remotely suggest emotional dependency. You pulled that out of thin air. Economic dependency? absolutely and to a degree, for Americans too.
Didn't even remotely suggest emotional dependency. You pulled that out of thin air. Economic dependency? absolutely and to a degree, for Americans too.
What do you think about the USMCA?
I live in Manitoba with North Dakota and Minnesota right below. I’m struggling trying to imagine what economic dependency my province has with either state that requires population closeness.
I don’t see much change between NATFA and NAFTA 2.0.
I guess most folks did not see "Meet the Robinsons." North Montana is what Canada is known as, in their future.
No "Meet the Robinsons" here. I'm guessing it's a comedy show. I thought you were talking about the real Montana which is going to secede from USA to become a province of Canada.
.
No "Meet the Robinsons" here. I'm guessing it's a comedy show.
I dimly recalled it as a movie, but had to Google it for more details. From Wikipedia:
Quote:
Meet the Robinsons is a 2007 American computer-animated science fiction comedy film produced by Walt Disney Animation Studios and released by Walt Disney Pictures on March 30, 2007.
Reviews were mixed, and the movie made money upon release, but not much more than its budget. So, not a flop, but not one to remember either.
I don’t see much change between NATFA and NAFTA 2.0.
Irene makes a good point, although you might not get it, Dave. I'll clarify: the treaty is not referred to as the "USMCA" in Canada. It is referred to as "CUSMA," or more commonly and politely, as Irene did, as "NAFTA 2.0."
Why? Because we in Canada believe the name was changed by Mr. Trump and his staff in order to put the United States first. "United States Mexico Canada Agreement"? No nation was put first in the name of the "North American Free Trade Act"; all three parties were equal under that name. "USMCA" seem to rank the participating nations in order of importance, and under such, Canadians saw themselves as relegated to third-tier status. Thus "CUSMA" by some today in Canada, and I am sure that you can figure that one out, and why some Canadians call it by that name.
Most ordinary Canadians seem to prefer a multilateral agreement named "NAFTA 2.0," where all participating nations are afforded equal respect under the treaty's name, while acknowledging the treaty's updating. If the US wants to call the updated treaty the USMCA, that's fine; but be aware that Canada and Mexico--equal partners, after all--may not agree with that appellation, and choose their own names for it; CUSMA being a prime example.
Irene makes a good point, although you might not get it, Dave. I'll clarify: the treaty is not referred to as the "USMCA" in Canada. It is referred to as "CUSMA," or more commonly and politely, as Irene did, as "NAFTA 2.0."
You’re right of course, Chevy. I was trying to make a point with the name substitution. Probably too subtle for Dave, the American, though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
