The debate moderator rebutted the pet-eating immigrants claim, but that didn’t faze Trump, who said he’d seen the carnivorous behaviour talked about on TV.

By Sheila Copps
First published in The Hill Times on September 16, 2024.

OTTAWA—I ate dawg to celebrate the debate-thrashing administered to former president Donald Trump by future president Kamala Harris.

My dawg wasn’t real. It was a hot dog confection created by the team at Tavern on the Falls on Sussex Drive in the nation’s capital.

Called da dawg, it includes corned beef and sauerkraut atop the large steamy that the restaurant is known for.

This dawg choice was perfectly timed because everyone was talking about Trump’s bizarre debate claim that dogs and cats were being eaten by immigrants who should not have been let into the United States. Trump literally screamed that illegal immigrants were eating people’s pets in Ohio.

ABC’s debate co-moderator David Muir immediately rebutted the claim saying that Springfield city manager Bryan Heck had already laid waste to that false accusation. That didn’t faze Trump. He said he had even seen the carnivorous behaviour being discussed on television.

Trump was referring to a discredited internet claim that Haitian immigrants were kidnapping people’s pets to cook them for dinner.

That internet nugget had been peddled by his running mate J.D. Vance who was reported to have clarified the pet-eating rumours might have been false.

Trump’s shouts about eating dogs prompted Harris to laugh out loud, which spiked Trump’s temperature even further.

Even when the debate’s subject matter was supposed to be delving into other issues like economic policy, Trump focused his pitch almost exclusively on Democratic immigration policies that he claims have let millions of criminals into the country.

He went on to say that the crime rate around the world is going down because Harris and U.S. President Joe Biden have created border policies that are letting all foreign lawbreakers to move to the United States. He said that was causing a spike in American crime.

When Muir pointed out that the American crime rate had gone down, Trump ignored that fact and simply pointed to his own experience, declaring he had taken a bullet in the head because of Harris’ policies.

Trump was referring to the assassination attempt on July 13 where his ear was allegedly grazed by a bullet that killed a rally supporter but he was saved because he moved his head at the last minute.

His ear appeared fully intact on debate night. Sporting a new haircut, the side of his head was visible. No tear or scarring is visible on the lobe.

Trump trumpeted his near-death experience, but didn’t seem too out of sorts until Harris mentioned how many people were leaving his rallies from boredom.

The former president kept his lips pursed throughout that line of attack, and went on to waste valuable airtime explaining how his crowds were bigger than hers, and how much he was loved by the people while she was hated, even by President Biden.

Harris was deftly able to bait her opponent on a number of issues, but also managed to engage in economic issues in support of small business and housing.

She repeated her positive claim that she would be running an “opportunity economy” while in government, expanding the child tax credit, and lowering prices for food and prescription drugs.

She also peppered Trump with questions about his inconsistent position on abortion. He recently said he would oppose a Florida referendum banning abortions after six weeks into a pregnancy, and then reversed his position the following day.

For her part, Harris agreed to reinstate a national policy to take the abortion decision out of the hands of government and give it back to the women whose bodies are affected.

She went on to accuse Trump of currying favour with dictators who could easily seduce him with flattery and favours.

Trump helped make her point by telling his audience that he has the support of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban who is known as an autocratic strongman cosying up to the Russians.

Trump also dodged questions about whether he supported Ukrainians in their fight for survival following a Russian invasion of their sovereign territory.

When asked repeatedly whether he supported Ukraine, the former president simply ignored the question, and repeated that he would have the issue solved before the presidential swearing-in if he were elected president.

All the post-debate punditry seemed to say that Trump was badly beaten by a better-prepared, calmer Harris who was more presidential in demeanour.

The former president was more into personal attacks than in convincing Americans he was fit to govern.

If he is defeated, Trump’s political effigy should read “Let them eat dog.”

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.

By SHEILA COPPS

First published on Monday, August 28, 2017 in The Hill Times.

OTTAWA—Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.

Such is the dilemma facing Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with the increase in ambulatory migrants arriving from the United States in the wake of American removal rumblings.

News reports say that more than 7,500 people have streamed across the Canada-United States border in the past three months. If that continues, it will mean an additional 30,000 potential refugees annually added to the numbers Canada has already accepted from Syria and elsewhere.

But before we start ringing the alarm bells, let’s draw a small comparison with refugee numbers in major European destinations.

According to the International Organization for Migration, 2015 figures reveal about one million migrants arrived on European shores by sea and an additional 34,900 by land. The European border patrol authorities estimate a higher figure of 1.8 million during the same period.

According to a BBC documentary, Germany received the highest number of refugees in that year. Hungary actually had the largest number relative to population, absorbing nearly 1,800 refugees per 100,000 people.

That figure underscores the relative absorption capacity by population, which is likely the best indicator of how easily newcomers will be able to settle in.

The second highest absorption rate was actually Sweden with 1,667 refugees per 100,000 people.

Germany, with the highest rate of refugees in sheer numbers, received 587 people per 100,000. After all the Brexit fuss, the United Kingdom actually only welcomed 60 refugees per 100,000. The average for the whole of Europe was 260 per 100,000.

Compare those numbers to this summer’s Haitian influx, and you can draw your own conclusions.

If arrivals continue at the current pace, the country will receive 30,000 people in a year, in addition to other refugee applicants. That represents an absorption rate of 111 refugees per 100,000 population, less than half of the European average. Compare that with nearly 1,800 for Hungary and you can see that Canada’s commitment is not as robust as we like to think.

Of course, the Haitian influx is in addition to the Syrian refugee commitment and the general processing of immigrants via family reunification and business migration.

But even adding in the 25,000 Syrian refugees the Trudeau government admitted in its first few months in power, the country still ends up at 273 refugees per 100,000, which is less than half of what Germany has received.

Conservative immigration critic Michelle Rempel characterized the influx as a “crisis” and both opposition parties blamed the migration spike on a seven-month-old tweet from the prime minister.

Trudeau’s #WelcometoCanada missive coincided with an American immigration crackdown announced on Twitter by President Donald Trump. Trump’s move was eventually overturned by the courts. Rempel called the Trudeau counter-tweet “irresponsible.”

I doubt many Canadians would agree with that accusation. If anything, Canadians are proud of our reputation as a welcoming place, and Trudeau’s January tweet was a breath of fresh air compared to the wall-building and door-closing going on south of the border.

Trudeau’s message of welcome was heard by the whole world, including investors, international students, and others who were analyzing alternatives to American destinations in the face of the crackdown.

Canada’s robust economic growth is probably due, in part, to that viral tweet.

Rempel is careful to claim she does not oppose asylum claims but is speaking out because of the prime minister’s “spectacular failure” in managing the process.

Conservatives must tread lightly on their accusations, because by overstating their criticisms, they run the risk of being accused of mirroring the anti-immigrant stance embraced by the American right.

The sputtering of alt-right demonstrations across Canada last week will likely encourage the Tories to shy away from appearing to oppose immigration. As the Parti Québécois government discovered when it tried to win an election on whipping up division through a Quebec Values Charter, political extremism comes at a price.

Most Quebecers, and Canadians, are proud of our reputation as a welcoming country that can accommodate newcomers and turn immigration into an economic asset.

The government needs to stay the course, and proactively manage the processing of refugees, including accelerating the pace of work permits.

All that to say that the current summer crisis, largely manufactured by a slow domestic news cycle, is not a crisis at all but a trend which good planning and border processes should be able to easily handle.

Opposition parties may try to pin this on the prime minister but they should be wary of success.

An accusation of welcoming the world is one that Trudeau would savour.

Sheila Copps is a former Jean Chrétien-era cabinet minister and a former deputy prime minister. Follow her on Twitter at @Sheila_Copps.