First and foremost, I must note that I am a fairly big fan of Scott Walker. I currently live in the cheese state, and we have a mutual hatred for union thugs. He may not be my choice for President, but I’ve been a longstanding fan of the fearless Governor. That said, I must take note of his most recent comments and offer them up for debate.

It’s not just the southern border: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says it’s “legitimate” to discuss building a wall separating the United States from Canada, as well.

Really? We need a wall between us and our maple syrup sipping, vowel abusing, moose adoring neighbors to the North?

“Some people have asked us about that in New Hampshire,” Walker said. “They raised some very legitimate concerns, including some law enforcement folks that brought that up to me at one of our town hall meetings about a week and a half ago. So that is a legitimate issue for us to look at.”

This news is sure to upset a few Canadians, which they’ll apologize for later. I tease. On a serious note, many are still convinced that some of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States through the Canadian border, a rumor that has been dispelled time after time. The 9/11 Commission reported stated back in 2004 that all of the terrorists arrived in the U.S. from outside of North America, and they all had U.S. Government issued documentation. Most understand this by now, but some people try to drag such rumors back out again; talking to you, John McCain and Hillary Clinton.

The 5,525 mile border we share with Canada is now coming into question yet again, for various reasons.

Terrorist attacks have been plotted in Canada — including the so-called “Millennium plot,” a foiled 2000 plan in which an Algerian national planned to cross into the United States from Canada and bomb the Los Angeles International Airport.

Thankfully the plot was foiled. Is this enough of a reason to build a wall? I mean, I’ve been under the assumption for a quite a while now that if you enter Canada a bad person, someone will eventually take you to Tim Hortons, where you’ll enjoy a Pumpkin Spice muffin, sip on liquid gold, and leave with thoughts of fluffy bunnies and rainbows… And that’s after you’re arrested by mounted police in adorable red outfits. Sure, you might have to deal with outrageously awkward French accents, but in general, they’re not that bad, Scott. I mean, what is the Canadian threat level even at these days?

Yes, I just made a stereotypical joke about Canadians and plaid patterned flannel, and I regret nothing. One of my best friends is a Canadian, so I can do that. I think. Anyway, apparently Canada isn’t too keen on the idea, not sure why anyone expected them to like it in the first place, but alas, they’ve been asked.

Canada’s defense minister weighed in when asked about Walker’s remarks Sunday, although he said he hadn’t yet heard them. In response, Jason Kenney said Canada would protect what he called the largest bilateral trading relationship in economic history and outlined security steps already taken.

“Of course we would vigorously oppose any thickening of the border,” he told an Ottawa news conference.

I’m going to chalk this up to Walker being surprised by a question out of left field since he quickly said his piece and moved on.

Walker didn’t dwell on the issue. He quickly steered the conversation to the Middle East, rebuilding the military, and national security. The exchange about Canada never even made it to air, and was edited out of the interview highlights that ran on “Meet The Press” and was simply posted on NBC’s website.

Someone in the editing room had the same response as me: Canada? Really, Chuck?

Some think the questions are an attempt to poke holes in the conservative argument concerning the Southern border, and I tend to agree. In a “what makes Mexico more dangerous than Canada” attempt to bring race or class relations into the discussion. Which from my point of view is rather comical, yet not unexpected from the left.

A textbook example was a piece in Politico magazine last fall headlined, “Fear Canada: The real terrorist threat next door.” Its first 18 paragraphs were about Mexico. Before it even mentioned the word ”Canada,” it sought to demolish a Republican talking-point about ISIL terrorists supposedly sneaking across the Rio Grande.

Even Jorge Ramos tried to use such tactics with Sean Hannity.

“You’re going to do it at the border with Mexico, but how about the 5,000 miles between the U.S. and Canada?”

While Hannity didn’t give a great answer, I must note: When’s the last time you heard about Canadian cartels? Are there even Canadian cartels? If there are, what do they do all day? I imagine a Canadian cartel being fairly pleasant, to be quite honest. I would imagine that the best response to such loaded questions concerning the Canadian border would be to chuckle and say, “next question please.”

Yet some are actually taking the question seriously. So why exactly does this topic matter now that it’s out?

That kind of chatter — as idle as it might be — can make Canadians jittery given that more than one-third of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product involves trade with the U.S., and that the tightened border after the 9-11 attacks caused a ripple-effect that still hasn’t completely subsided.

Guys. It’s Canada. While we could try and eliminate every threat around, amp up security, and lower our risks, etc., the enemy will always find a way to attack. Yes, they could even do so through Canada. However, I can think of one maybe three forty plus issues that should be of greater concern than Canada. Beef up security if you must, but a wall? Really? I think journalists, including Chuck Todd, are taking cheap shots.

So, tell us what you think! Are our neighbors to the North a risk worthy of being thrown into the election discussions, or is this just a political game that aims to corner candidates?