Ask A Genius 1315: Trump’s Rhetoric, U.S. Emigration to Canada, and Shifting Male Voting Blocs
Author(s): Rick Rosner and Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Publication (Outlet/Website): Ask A Genius
Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/03/25
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: This is the off-the-cuff, funny-but-offensive stuff Trump says. He said he wouldn’t deport Prince Harry because “he’s got enough problems with his wife.” What do you think of that? He makes comments like this all the time.
Rick Rosner: It has little impact other than bad soft-power usage. Trump has no decorum. Every other president has treated their words as if they matter, trying to preserve a sense of authority. On the other hand, Trump knows he can say whatever he wants and won’t lose his base. It’s been years since he’s tried to moderate his statements or behaviour to expand his base.
That’s not entirely true, however. He’ll throw out nonsense, “no tax on tips,” to get attention. But he never considers that he might gain broader support by simply not being an asshole. He doesn’t even try to avoid being an asshole. His base loves that. They see his unfiltered speech as honesty because he says whatever he feels without thinking about its impact or truthfulness. They consider that a kind of truthfulness, even though, ironically, it’s the opposite of truth. In his first four years as president, he told 30,000 public lies or misstatements. But anyway, that’s how he is. I don’t have anything particularly original to add to that.
Jacobsen: How many Americans do you think are living illegally in Canada? That’s a good question. You have to break it into categories. There’s probably a large group of people who have dual citizenship and then moved over.
Rosner: So it’s not technically illegal. It’s hard for a regular American to get Canadian citizenship, however. Your passport is probably mine—good for three months in the country.
But people can still come over and stay. Thousands of draft dodgers came during the Vietnam War, but until recently, there hasn’t been much reason for Americans to leave the U.S. Now, though, you probably have people moving to Canada for various reasons—whether they’re on the run from something or they want a better life. The U.S. and Canada share a language, and if someone speaks English and gets a job, they might be able to blend in. Some might need fake IDs, but others could be retired with some money and live quietly.
How it works with healthcare, though. You do have to sign up for Canada’s free healthcare system, which requires valid Canadian documentation. If they don’t have sufficient ID and try to access medical care, that could be one way for people to get caught.
But I think that as America gets scarier, more people might try living in Canada. Also, Canada only has 40 million people, while America has eight and a half times that number. That ratio used to be more than nine times, but Canada has grown faster proportionally than the U.S.
In terms of people getting into trouble and wanting to flee the country—even if only half of one percent of Americans decided to leave, that would still be 1.7 million. If they fled to Canada, that would amount to four percent of your population.
Jacobsen: A Latin humanist pointed out to me that, in an article analyzing Trump’s electoral victory, a significant tipping-point factor was the influence of African American male pastors—Baptists, Methodists—along with conservative Muslim groups and Orthodox Jews.
So, in feminist terms, religious patriarchy played a significant role in the previous election. In non-feminist terms, conservative male theologies emphasizing male headship were key factors—not necessarily in absolute numbers, but as tipping-point voting blocs that shifted toward Trump. They saw something in him that they believed would support their values and interests.
That’s a complicated situation. But obviously, part of the issue is that women—proportionally speaking—are doing much better than men in terms of education, income, homeownership, and other measures. These conservative religious spaces provide young and older men a sense of place and purpose. That can contribute to a reactionary social and political climate. A surprising number of young men moved toward Trump in the last election.
These shifts are all connected to a broader sense of belonging. Many young men report feeling isolated, having fewer friends, and struggling with social connections. That’s probably part of it. The article was interesting and succinct in pointing out some of these factors because there had been lingering questions about why the shift occurred.
For instance, left-wing cultural assumptions would predict that white Christian men would lean toward Trump more than Democrats. That part isn’t surprising. But what was counterintuitive—at least from an identity politics perspective—was that many minority men shifted toward Trump even more than white men did. That breaks down the typical identity-politics framework and suggests that different social and economic factors were at play in these communities.
Jacobsen: I’ve been looking into Americans living abroad, which is an entirely different topic.
Rosner: So, estimating the number of Americans living abroad is tricky. Estimates range from 2.2 million to 6.8 million. I assume that includes many people living illegally. But what I’m saying is that if America starts collapsing politically or becomes significantly more dangerous—either due to political instability or increased violence—there could be a majorinflux of Americans coming to Canada and trying to stay.
And then maybe people sneak back into America when things get better. I don’t know how that works, but I know that in Canada and other Commonwealth countries, you’re typically allowed to stay for only six months without violating immigration laws. I assume that’s the case for many other countries as well.
However, what does the U.S. think if an American stays out of the country for more than six months? If you try returning to the U.S. after overstaying your legal time in Canada, do you get in trouble at the border? How strict are they about that?
Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.
In-Sight Publishing 