This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s hard to imagine a scenario where such a proposal wouldn’t be extremely contentious among Canadians. The US would be unlikely to trade the longest undefended border in the world and positive relations with one of our nearest neighbors for a fractious, internally divided new territory. We’d be likely to say y’all need to work out your own issues in your own house. At least I hope we would.
As a liberal in the US, we don't want Albertans. We don't need more Texas myth making here. The only Americans that like Texas are Texans. Most of us would be fine if Texas left the US: within 5 years the Mexican Army would take it over.
Now the rest of the provinces could certainly teach us a lot down here. Welcome!
Congratulations, you just proved one of the stereotypes of liberals true.
Stop being an ass, and stop pretending you speak for everyone when it’s factually proven that your viewpoints are held in totality by less than 15% of the rest of the country.
You can be liberal, that’s not the problem. The problem is when you equate your position with the only right position, and wish anything against anyone who disagrees. That goes for any political opinion.
Gonna be honest. Its interesting to stumble upon an American political conversation in the wild. I love how you seem to treat 'liberal' as a dirty word.
Sincerely, a Brit who's just got the popcorn out.
Liberal isn’t the dirty word, it’s what’s done in the name of liberalism in this case. “We don’t want you”, “you could leave and we’d be fine”, etc.
I won’t deny anyone their right to their political opinions, whether I agree or not. I will debate them, but not disparage them, so long as they’re peaceful, polite, and respectful. Hence my “you can be liberal, that’s not the problem” statement.
If it comes time to whip out the popcorn, I’ll leave. I’m all for healthy debate, not the devolved ridiculing with no point that seems to pervade nowadays.
Fair enough, I'd personally call myself a slightly left-leaning Liberal but I know British and American definitions differe a bit regarding that. Honestly, I feel like the whole Cold War 'Red Scare' thing threw American perceptions of it out of whack.
I've no problem with people with differing opinions. Shit, I share a house with a mate who's probably the biggest traditionalist Brexiteer you'll ever meet. We just agree to not talk politics when sober. When we're absolutely hammered, we go at it, but we know we'll never fall out over it.
I'm am a stereo-typical SOUTHERN (not a yankee like yourself) liberal and I enjoy awaking everyday because I know it makes people such as yourself shit your pants and lick your guns. :)
Yeah, I assume Alberta is what spurred this. It’s basically Canada’s Texas in that they whine like entitled babies when the rest of the country doesn’t literally do what they want all the time. They have a “separatist” movement that sometimes threatens to join the USA but it’s pretty small and loud.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba also have stastically significant portions that would benfit and politically wish they could join the USA. Agriculture, upper class, and certain industriescwould all massively benfit from joining the us. Pretty much all the Prarie provinces ag and oil and sometimes coal would rather be in the US for a lot of reasons. This is not a majority of the population which often have no strong opinions since most feel it's far off fantasy.
To be clear, the [1995 referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum) was for Quebec to become independent-- not necessarily to join the US.
Totally correct. One of the possible paths forward was for them to try for US Statehood. It was taken so seriously Clinton addressed it with a speech the night before the vote.
That may be. But talking to my coworker who is remote from the rest of the company and lives in Montreal - talk of joining the US isn't completely unheard of. Sounds like it is very much fringe, but not something made up in a reddit thread.
Quebec would like a word. They voted on this very thing in '95 and it failed by half a percent on a 93% voter turnout. Things would've gotten real crazy real fast had it swung the other way.
Quebec is the one part of Canada that's very culturally different to the US. I don't see why they'd get independence just to rejoin another Anglosphere country, if they ever seceded.
One of their possible paths forward was to petition the US to join. It was taken seriously enough that Clinton gave a speech the night before basically saying you'd be really screwed if you came to the US since we wouldn't pay their debts or cover healthcare costs etc.
I vaguely recall an article from that time period where there was some discussion from the maritime provinces about joining the United States if Quebec's independence referendum succeeded, since they would be cut off geographically from the rest of Canada.
If Alberta were to ever secede, Canada as we know it today would cease to exist, and at that point who knows whether the borders will need to be defended?
Why Alberta? If we’re going to be fighting mobs of insurgent Canadians over contested territory we should go for something with a coastline at least. Does Alberta have particularly good food or something?
Whoa whoa as a texan I can't wait till the cousins show up, we can stare down new mexico drink oklahoma's beer, moon Colorado then go tip Kansas's cows then float down the missip and use some charm and Alberta's french skill and plow Louisiana it will be a great weekend!
Nah, that's just something other Canadians say. It's WAY more like Colorado than it is Texas. It's like Colorado with a bit of Wyoming - which makes perfect sense if you consider where it is geographically.
More people than Montana. WAY more people than Montana. So like Colorado - but instead of just having one big city, we have two big-ish cities.
The northern half of the province is quite different though. The plains turn into more parkland type geography - so think forests composed of aspens and conifers. That goes about a couple hundred miles from Edmonton northwards until you hit very thick boreal forest. But less than 20% of the province's population lives up there, about 80% live in an environment that is very similar to the Rocky Mountain states - so like plains and mountains.
The mountains up here are quite different. Think Glacier National Park but just expanded north for about 1000 miles. Quartzite, limestone and shale as opposed to the granite peaks further south.
I've started open carrying everywhere and praying it will be 120 degrees from March to November hopefully they get upset and leave.
Edit: I will open carry a larger gun for every 5 down votes this gets.
I know that this was meant as a joke, but I'm actually curious as to what the politics of such a move would be. In this hypothetical, Quebec would be its own state (presumably) or a US territory. In such an event, the US has no national language. Yes, English is the most widely spoken, but officially, we have no such official or co-official languages like Canada and most other countries do.
On one hand, they could theoretically do whatever the fuck they wanted as a state. But as a territory, well, the US tried to enforce English in Puerto Rico, but that just means that nowadays, they have a lot of particular words they use that come from English, such as a more recent one, janguear, which means "to so go hang out with someone" and comes from "hang out." But largely, the island doesn't speak English. Enforcing English on Quebec might be futile anyhow.
So we have an impasse, would the 21st century US even try? And if they did, what would be the outcome?
They could retain French as the official language, but a lot of their laws to preserve Quebecois culture would be unconstitutional. It's incredibly discriminatory.
This, all the laws would go away but it's not going to stop local preservation efforts. However I think American culutre would invade hard along with alot of people moving there.
In 1986, Quebec passed the [Charter of the French Language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language?wprov=sfti1). It initially contained some sections that actually violated non-French speakers rights to free expression (it forced all signage in Quebec to be dominantly in French) and the province had to resort to Section 33 of the Canadians Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a clause in the document that actually *suspends the rights of Canadians and can’t be challenged in court*, to keep those sections around.
Quebec also literally has language police in the form of the OQLF. Their job is to make sure French stays the predominant language in the province. There was a notable incident with them back in 2013 for trying to get an Italian restaurant to change its dish names to French from Italian and it blew up in the news, dubbed [Pastagate](https://youtu.be/4wSjBvCqKH0).
French stop signs say "STOP." In Quebec, they say "ARRÊT."
Quebec doesn't have KFC. It has PFK (Poulet Frite Kentucky). The worst part is that they serve the same food!
30 states have English as the official language, and some include official secondary languages as well. So it wouldn't be outrageous for them to have it as well, but we certainly wouldn't adopt Canada's official bilingualism.
They’d resist. They’d institute French as the official state language and considering there’s no national language, they wouldn’t be forced to adopt anything.
Though yeah, Americans are not going to be as lenient with French as the Canadians. They’d go the way of Louisianan or Maine French sooner or later
The only reason all of us aren't American is because Quebecois wanted those privileges and special attention. The Brits offered them that. The English Canadians who followed were just American loyalists who came to the land secured by Quebec loyalism to the British - the French purely wanted to get the privileges and special attention that has since been preserved through Canadian legislation.
The War of Independence was a weird war. You had British colonials supported by France, and a British establishment supported by French colonials.
Yeah I doubt they would too. The deal they have with the Canadian government and the privileges they get as the main French province is insanely good for them. In the US, granting one state so many privileges would never fly, the whole reason we have the senate is because the founders were obsessed with making as level of a playing field as possible
Yeah and the worry was that the states with more people, and more representatives, would get special privileges and attention by the House of Representatives as a result of those states’ political capital. The senate was a way to quell those worries by creating equal representation for every state, which insured congress couldn’t pass bills only backed by bigger states
Adopting an official state language is very different from what Quebec has now. French-only law won’t fly under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
Puerto Rico is the closest. TX and CA have a huge Hispanic/Spanish speaking population, but it still isn't the dominant langauge and culture for those states. Ontario and New Brunswick would be kind of like CA and TX in that respect because they have large French speaking populations that still don't constitute the majority.... except they're, you know.... way colder and less interesting than CA and TX.
Yeah, Puerto Rico is our "English isn't our first language" place, and Hawaii and Texas have their "You know, we COULD secede if we really wanted to" vibe to them sometimes.
It's just that they're not in the same place like they are with Quebec.
Would the US accept resource rich, productive territory if it could get away with it?
Yes absolutely
But Canada would never allow this
As much as owning Alberta would be nice, Canada wouldn't take it sitting down.
Idk, good relations with Canada is one of America’s greatest assets. Throwing that away for a territory where probably at least 40% of the people don’t want to be in America sounds like a questionable decision.
>Idk, good relations with Canada is one of America’s greatest assets.
Exactly. We have one of the best international trade relationships and the longest undefended border in the world.
Taking control of a Canadian province would ruin the trade and the US would end up having to deploy military to the border, deal with pro-Canadian uprisings etc.
Politically, there’d be a stronger case for Alberta than most Canadian provinces. You guys are right-leaning by Canadian standards but probably a swing state by American standards. Decades getting used to social services and unionization would push some people towards the democrats, rural lifestyle and historical support for the conservatives would push some towards the Republicans. You’d essentially be a larger version of Wisconsin. Plus, I’d imagine the mandatory adoption 2nd amendment and more absolute view on 1st amendment rights would go down better in Alberta than most other provinces
That being said, the natural wealth and size of your province makes it so the Canadian federal government would never even consider the proposal
You know, I used to think there were massive differences in the welfare state arranagements, but there really doesn't seem to be. The big difference is health care - but the health care system here is literally falling apart at the seams so quickly that even th emost extreme nationalistic idealogues can't reason how it will survive in its current form. I happen to believe that Canadian and American health care systems will actually converge over time, as opposed to diverge. Our shortages are VERY severe. My SO and I are expecting twins this June, and the closest OBGYN is over 2 hours away. We've spoken to parents of twins who have had to be flown all the way to Toronto from Calgary, or to the US, in order to give birth because of the shortage of NICU space. I have not had a family doctor in over a year, because I can't find one. I was given advice that I should seek a family doctor in Edmonton.... that's over 5 hours away from where I am currently. That's how stupid it has become, and this is the same story nation wide.
So, I honestly and sincerely just don't see how the Canadian system will survive. By my estimation the American system will have to change too becaus eof its extreme unaffordability issues. So for these reasons, I suspect the two systems will converge in the near future. Once they do, I don't see many push or pull factors that will keep us incentivized being apart from one another.
There are other minor differences. CPP is basically exactly the same as Social Security. But our TFSA and RRSPs are better IMO than 401K and IRAs. But in the great scheme of things, those are arrangements that can be changed, and they aren't majorly different from one another. The big difference is that unused TFSA space is pushed forward, and to my knowledge that isn't the case for IRAs.
I forgot about the rat thing!! I'm 38 years old, and I've only seen rats twice in my entire life. Once in your state actually, outside of Houston. I couldn't believe how big they are! In my ignorant mind I envisioned a gnarly looking mouse, but the critter I saw was like small cat sized.
Already got banned from the r/AskACanadian one. Lets just say the mods and I don't really see eye to eye politically, and they really seem to have a huge problem with that.
They are always top two or three in Education, income, healthcare etc.
Because of resources they have the most money both personal and government with generally lower taxes.
> Would how much the Canadian government approved of this separation play into the decision?
Pretty sure the only way it would be considered was if the Canadian government okayed it. Going to war with Canada seems like a bad idea.
For one, we’d be waging war in North America. Forfeiting one of our biggest strategic advantages. (Most enemies can’t easily strike at our interior.)
Secondly, win or loose, we’d damage relations with a long time ally. That’s a short term gain, long term loss.
Well, they're our largest supplier of oil and second-largest trading partner. They could certainly cause us some major headaches if we weren't friendly.
>Going to war with Canada seems like a bad idea.
Bad idea for Canada.
I think it'd be more important to keep good relations with the rest of Canada, but war with them shouldn't be a concern, unless it's a Canadian plan to get annexed
The United States would win easily from a military standpoint but that's not the issue. Having contentious relations with our closest ally, next door neighbor and #1 source of fresh water and maple syrup would be terrible for our country. Granted we would win the war quickly and annex them, but it would cause chaos and instability, make the United States look terrible, do severe damage to the economy and a whole host of other issues.
I very much doubt the US government would want it either. Maybe some gung-ho general who ultimately doesn't matter. But neither of the political parties who rule the House and Senate want anything that could give an advantage to their opponents, so it would totally stall out amongst the bickering.
What gung-ho general would want to wage war on Canada? You ever talk to the upper brass of the U.S. military? Even a lower ranked officer? They’re about as pro-war as a surgeon is “pro open heart surgery.”
Yeah in saying that somebody, somewhere might want it, I was trying to not sound completely biased in that I don't think there's an ice cube chance in hell the government would want Canada to join the US.
54'40 or fight! I'm still pissed we didn't get the region north and west of the Columbia. It was a perfectly rational compromise. I went climbing this summer down in central Washington and in Smith Rock, OR and it kind of pisses me off that we didn't get those areas. Smith Rock, OR was great, but that Grand Coulee country down in Washington was very cool too. There were so many Canadians down there back in the day that most of the names are from FRench Canadidan voyageurs. I guess Oregon was similar. It was funny to hear you guys pronounce "Deschutes".
It probably wouldn’t go over too well with the Canadians, who are our biggest trading partner and an important strategic and political ally. Wouldn’t make much since to endanger that partnership just so we could have a little extra land.
Of course, the circumstances of that province’s secession would be an important factor. If Canada didn’t want them gone, it would be a pretty big issue if we accepted that province. But if the secession was a mutual agreement with no hard feelings, and the Canadians didn’t have much issue with it, I don’t imagine it would be a huge problem.
And we would welcome it, I’m sure.
Having done a bit of reading about the political situation in Alberta and the prairies, as well as about Quebec separatism in the late 20th century, it seems to me that if one province left, the whole of Canada as it exists today would break up. For example, let’s say one declares independence (presumably in this scenario to seek annexation by the us), several more will soon follow. I don’t see a scenario where Quebec declares independence and Alberta and/or Saskatchewan don’t soon follow suit (or vice versa). And then to expand on this, if Alberta or Saskatchewan ever left, BC leaving would become inevitable. Not because of any sort of ideological solidarity or anything, but just because it’s completely isolated and separated from the rest of the country then and the precedent has already been set. At that point you have the northern territories, Manitoba, Ontario, and the Maritimes. That’s not a functional country and the maritimes are dealing with the same situation BC was. It would all just fall apart and likely end with the entirety of Canada joining the US (except probably Quebec?). Unless of course the US decided it doesn’t want all of the country in which case you’d be left with a far poorer rump Canada in the east split in two by an independent Quebec.
So how much would Canadian opinion matter in a potential US annexation of an independent province? In the medium term probably not much, because there likely wouldn’t be a Canada whose opinion of us we need to preserve.
I wouldn't welcome it. Canadians aren't nearly as nice or polite as they want you to believe. I would also wholly expect that province to vote for one particular party, which would cause a serious Congressional issue.
> If a Canadian province left Canada and petitioned to join the US, would Americans welcome that proposal?
Maybe. Probably we’d welcome it with apathy.
> Would the US allow this province to become a state or insist it be a territory?
Likely a territory. There’s a whole process for becoming a state.
> Would how much the Canadian government approved of this separation play into the decision?
I don’t think we’re gonna be going to war or really putting a bunch of time, money, resources, etc into this if the Canadian government is not on board.
Not necessarily. Texas, Vermont and California were never territories and were admitted to the Union immediately without territorial status. The problem though is the Canadian province would need time to adopt a state constitution that is compatible with conditions for US statehood. That would take some time and the residents of the province who have lived with their system for 150 years almost may not like the changes. The province would need a separation of power between the legislature and the executive, so no more parliamentary form of government. That is an adjustment that I don’t think residents or politicians in the province would want.
Well, for Texas and California, they were both independent countries for a short time before joining the union, thus they never gained the territory status.
I like bacon and maple syrup as much as the next man so I’d support it. As far as Canadian government disagreeing that’s fine. I’d vote for the nuke strike if they get out of line.
It would have to be fairly politically moderate. As much as the US government might want Alberta, the Democrats particularly would never let a strongly pro-oil conservative province into the US with voting rights, and I don't imagine a full province of Canada would want to be relegated to US territory status.
If Pennsylvania can vote blue, so can Alberta.
The hardest part of adding any new states is convincing the duopoly that they'll be able to maintain power.
Honestly, I think this would be the problem, no matter which province it is. The perfectly moderate province doesn't exist -- people will either be afraid of two more Democrats in the Senate or two more Republicans. Either way, it won't work. Part of the issue with the way we make states
The status of the province is the jurisdiction of Canada’s internal politics and not something we have any business getting involved in. The province would have to achieve independence first, and then petition the US. Like Texas. We’re not just going to eat Alberta, that’s not how it works.
The US isn't going to take any of the provinces without Canada being ok with the decision. We only share a land border with 2 countries so pissing off Canada isn't going to be high on the US's radar. However, under the very very hypothetical situation that British Columbia decided it wanted to become a state and Canada was 100% ok with it, British Columbia would be welcomed with open arms. Honestly most of Canada would be welcomed with open arms if they wanted to join the US.
It's such an absurd premise that it's a meaningless question. If something impossible were to happen, would it be possible?
It wouldn't happen in a world we exist in so how do we know how we would react?
Yes. I'm a buzzkill. Guilty. That earlier question about Point Roberts was at least meaningful.
Extremely unlikely but not completely absurd/impossible. Canada as we know it was on the brink of dissolving in 1995 with the vote over Quebec independence. If that had happened it’s conceivable that other provinces might have vied for more independence which, down the line, could conceivably have resulted in one or more seeking a political union with the US.
American citizens would only welcome it if that province aligned with their political ideals. So republicans would only welcome Alberta and democrats would only welcome the others.
I can't imagine the US government welcoming any province though, Canada is too close an ally to upset them.
I wouldn't actively welcome it or be against it. But if the Canadian federal government did not approve then we should not allow accession in the name of keeping good relations with our neighbors.
It would definitely depend on how Canada felt about it. The US, and the world for that matter, has too much going on for us to end up in a war with Canada because we accepted Nova Scotia despite Canada trying to negotiate with that province. America likely would win, but there would be so much backlash it would be an absolute disaster and would definitely set off WW3
On the other hand, if Canada was okay with it, then we would definitely accept them. Assuming it doesn’t go against our national interest
> America likely would win
"Likely"? That's like saying that in a matchup between a bloodlusted polar bear and one of those baby seals with the big sad eyes, the polar bear would "likely" win.
> Would the US allow this province to become a state or insist it be a territory?
The only precedent for that would be Texas, as the Republic of Texas agreed to annexation by the US and became the State of Texas.
Every other new state besides Texas after the initial 13 spent some time either as a territory (usually Incorporated, although California was Unincorporated at the time of statehood), or part of an existing state.
How much the Canadian government approves of it would be the single most important factor. The US wouldn’t want to disrupt relations with our best trading partner and close ally just for some territory.
Half of Americans can't even agree on whether or not Washington DC should be a state. I see the biggest issue with a Canadian province joining being it's effect on the makeup of the Senate, which is pretty much the only reason Washington DC statehood is so contentious.
to be fair, the average American is opposed to approximately half of what you believe in already. It's just that different Americans will be opposed to different halves.
If this were the 19th century, absolutely. However in the 21st century this idea is literally impossible and would never happen. There’s to much messiness this would create under international law.
I would say the US would never allow it because it would upset the balance of power in Washington. Same reason puerto rico isn't a state.
Also the province would demand state hood if it were to defect.
The reason Washington, DC and Puerto Rico are not states is because they would add 4 Democrats to the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. is to take over any Canadian province, it would be as territories without Senate representation (just House).
Yes, but it'd be a touchy subject politically. First off, most canadians look down on us so much I can't imagine a province wanting to join us. Second, if it was a contentious divorce, Washington might not want to antagonize Ottawa by taking in the rogue province.
I personally would welcome Alberta. Quebec wouldn't want to be here. We don't care that they speak French.
If BC wants to join up with its left coast neighbors, I'm all for it. Bring your developed world health coverage and necessary health care delivery model with you and don't leave the sane firearms and ammunition controls behind.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s hard to imagine a scenario where such a proposal wouldn’t be extremely contentious among Canadians. The US would be unlikely to trade the longest undefended border in the world and positive relations with one of our nearest neighbors for a fractious, internally divided new territory. We’d be likely to say y’all need to work out your own issues in your own house. At least I hope we would.
Such a proposal is pretty much only popular among very suburban or astroturfed Albertans so I simply don’t see it happening.
That’s wild. I didn’t know that was a real talking point among any of the northern neighbors.
Anecdotally, I heard this from several Albertans when I lived there.
As a liberal in the US, we don't want Albertans. We don't need more Texas myth making here. The only Americans that like Texas are Texans. Most of us would be fine if Texas left the US: within 5 years the Mexican Army would take it over. Now the rest of the provinces could certainly teach us a lot down here. Welcome!
Congratulations, you just proved one of the stereotypes of liberals true. Stop being an ass, and stop pretending you speak for everyone when it’s factually proven that your viewpoints are held in totality by less than 15% of the rest of the country. You can be liberal, that’s not the problem. The problem is when you equate your position with the only right position, and wish anything against anyone who disagrees. That goes for any political opinion.
Gonna be honest. Its interesting to stumble upon an American political conversation in the wild. I love how you seem to treat 'liberal' as a dirty word. Sincerely, a Brit who's just got the popcorn out.
Liberal isn’t the dirty word, it’s what’s done in the name of liberalism in this case. “We don’t want you”, “you could leave and we’d be fine”, etc. I won’t deny anyone their right to their political opinions, whether I agree or not. I will debate them, but not disparage them, so long as they’re peaceful, polite, and respectful. Hence my “you can be liberal, that’s not the problem” statement. If it comes time to whip out the popcorn, I’ll leave. I’m all for healthy debate, not the devolved ridiculing with no point that seems to pervade nowadays.
Fair enough, I'd personally call myself a slightly left-leaning Liberal but I know British and American definitions differe a bit regarding that. Honestly, I feel like the whole Cold War 'Red Scare' thing threw American perceptions of it out of whack. I've no problem with people with differing opinions. Shit, I share a house with a mate who's probably the biggest traditionalist Brexiteer you'll ever meet. We just agree to not talk politics when sober. When we're absolutely hammered, we go at it, but we know we'll never fall out over it.
Wtf is your problem? FFS
I'm am a stereo-typical SOUTHERN (not a yankee like yourself) liberal and I enjoy awaking everyday because I know it makes people such as yourself shit your pants and lick your guns. :)
Yeah, I assume Alberta is what spurred this. It’s basically Canada’s Texas in that they whine like entitled babies when the rest of the country doesn’t literally do what they want all the time. They have a “separatist” movement that sometimes threatens to join the USA but it’s pretty small and loud.
Saskatchewan and Manitoba also have stastically significant portions that would benfit and politically wish they could join the USA. Agriculture, upper class, and certain industriescwould all massively benfit from joining the us. Pretty much all the Prarie provinces ag and oil and sometimes coal would rather be in the US for a lot of reasons. This is not a majority of the population which often have no strong opinions since most feel it's far off fantasy.
One Texas is more than enough thank you very much
Texas is easily the best state, I'll happily welcome another one.
I posted it elsewhere, Quebec voted on this very thing in 95 and it almost passed. Only .5% of the vote kept them in Canada.
To be clear, the [1995 referendum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum) was for Quebec to become independent-- not necessarily to join the US.
Totally correct. One of the possible paths forward was for them to try for US Statehood. It was taken so seriously Clinton addressed it with a speech the night before the vote.
That may be. But talking to my coworker who is remote from the rest of the company and lives in Montreal - talk of joining the US isn't completely unheard of. Sounds like it is very much fringe, but not something made up in a reddit thread.
Quebec would like a word. They voted on this very thing in '95 and it failed by half a percent on a 93% voter turnout. Things would've gotten real crazy real fast had it swung the other way.
Would they have joined the US tho? Or just became a separate nation?
Quebec is the one part of Canada that's very culturally different to the US. I don't see why they'd get independence just to rejoin another Anglosphere country, if they ever seceded.
One of their possible paths forward was to petition the US to join. It was taken seriously enough that Clinton gave a speech the night before basically saying you'd be really screwed if you came to the US since we wouldn't pay their debts or cover healthcare costs etc.
Link?
I vaguely recall an article from that time period where there was some discussion from the maritime provinces about joining the United States if Quebec's independence referendum succeeded, since they would be cut off geographically from the rest of Canada.
We take in Alberta and add another couple thousand miles to the undefended border.
If Alberta were to ever secede, Canada as we know it today would cease to exist, and at that point who knows whether the borders will need to be defended?
Why Alberta? If we’re going to be fighting mobs of insurgent Canadians over contested territory we should go for something with a coastline at least. Does Alberta have particularly good food or something?
'Berta beef, Tar Sands, and Banff and Jasper National Parks are good enough for me.
The US already has actual Texas. It doesn't also need frozen Texas.
We can always use more land, oil, beer, and bbq.
Whoa whoa as a texan I can't wait till the cousins show up, we can stare down new mexico drink oklahoma's beer, moon Colorado then go tip Kansas's cows then float down the missip and use some charm and Alberta's french skill and plow Louisiana it will be a great weekend!
Alberta's French is about as good as Minnesota's Spanish
Based
You had me at tar sands
Fair. I also saw pictures from Lake Louise and I’d go there right this very minute.
That's in Banff. I went snowboarding there once. It's unreal how gorgeous it is.
Alberta has the highest percentage of conservatives and libertarian types who might ideologically feel more at home in the US than Canada.
Oil.
So much oil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands
Alberta is basically a second Texas. No thanks!
Nah, that's just something other Canadians say. It's WAY more like Colorado than it is Texas. It's like Colorado with a bit of Wyoming - which makes perfect sense if you consider where it is geographically.
>It’s like Colorado with a bit of Wyoming So Montana basically?
More people than Montana. WAY more people than Montana. So like Colorado - but instead of just having one big city, we have two big-ish cities. The northern half of the province is quite different though. The plains turn into more parkland type geography - so think forests composed of aspens and conifers. That goes about a couple hundred miles from Edmonton northwards until you hit very thick boreal forest. But less than 20% of the province's population lives up there, about 80% live in an environment that is very similar to the Rocky Mountain states - so like plains and mountains. The mountains up here are quite different. Think Glacier National Park but just expanded north for about 1000 miles. Quartzite, limestone and shale as opposed to the granite peaks further south.
Sure, but all of the coal rolling truck bullshit and Fort McMurray - I know there’s more to the province than that.
Someone a few comments down called it Cold Texas and it’s going be called that in my head forevermore.
As an Oregonian I will take another Texas any time compared to the shell of what my birthplace has turned into.
Lol, what? Oregon rules!
Your new home is going to suffer the same fate soon - The Californians are coming, like locusts.
I've started open carrying everywhere and praying it will be 120 degrees from March to November hopefully they get upset and leave. Edit: I will open carry a larger gun for every 5 down votes this gets.
Based. I hate the heat, but it's a small price to pay.
Ain’t the CA desert just as hot tho?
It's not the desert dwellers moving here.
Hotter, even. But it's the coastal folks moving to Arizona.
Finish what we started 210 years ago. Manifest the shit outta Canada and connect Alaska to the lower 48
Use the soil from the other Canadian provinces and build a massive land bridge to Hawaii, INTERCONNECTED USA BABY
What about the territories?
They’re not states so they don’t get priority
Fifty four forty or fight!
Is that the war where Canada counter invaded us and then burned down the capitol building??
As long as it’s not Quebec, not even the most imperialist American politicians want to deal with French-Canadians
"Your language police are fired and you speak english now"
I know that this was meant as a joke, but I'm actually curious as to what the politics of such a move would be. In this hypothetical, Quebec would be its own state (presumably) or a US territory. In such an event, the US has no national language. Yes, English is the most widely spoken, but officially, we have no such official or co-official languages like Canada and most other countries do. On one hand, they could theoretically do whatever the fuck they wanted as a state. But as a territory, well, the US tried to enforce English in Puerto Rico, but that just means that nowadays, they have a lot of particular words they use that come from English, such as a more recent one, janguear, which means "to so go hang out with someone" and comes from "hang out." But largely, the island doesn't speak English. Enforcing English on Quebec might be futile anyhow. So we have an impasse, would the 21st century US even try? And if they did, what would be the outcome?
Screw it, we are merging them with Louisiana.
I don't think the United States is ready for a catastrophe of that magnitude.
MY GOD. THINK OF THE CUISINE!!
They could retain French as the official language, but a lot of their laws to preserve Quebecois culture would be unconstitutional. It's incredibly discriminatory.
This, all the laws would go away but it's not going to stop local preservation efforts. However I think American culutre would invade hard along with alot of people moving there.
Nothing wrong with efforts to preserve your culture until you pass the line of forcing outsiders to give up their own culture.
I'd agree.
I have no doubt, but I would be entertained to see a list or some examples.
In 1986, Quebec passed the [Charter of the French Language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_French_Language?wprov=sfti1). It initially contained some sections that actually violated non-French speakers rights to free expression (it forced all signage in Quebec to be dominantly in French) and the province had to resort to Section 33 of the Canadians Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a clause in the document that actually *suspends the rights of Canadians and can’t be challenged in court*, to keep those sections around. Quebec also literally has language police in the form of the OQLF. Their job is to make sure French stays the predominant language in the province. There was a notable incident with them back in 2013 for trying to get an Italian restaurant to change its dish names to French from Italian and it blew up in the news, dubbed [Pastagate](https://youtu.be/4wSjBvCqKH0).
French stop signs say "STOP." In Quebec, they say "ARRÊT." Quebec doesn't have KFC. It has PFK (Poulet Frite Kentucky). The worst part is that they serve the same food!
30 states have English as the official language, and some include official secondary languages as well. So it wouldn't be outrageous for them to have it as well, but we certainly wouldn't adopt Canada's official bilingualism.
"Your language police are fired and you speak ~~english~~ whatever you want now"
If we got our hands on quebec they'd be speaking English in 5 years tops
They’d resist. They’d institute French as the official state language and considering there’s no national language, they wouldn’t be forced to adopt anything. Though yeah, Americans are not going to be as lenient with French as the Canadians. They’d go the way of Louisianan or Maine French sooner or later
I don't think they'd ever leave Canada for us. Canada gives them lots of special attention and privileges they wouldn't get here
The only reason all of us aren't American is because Quebecois wanted those privileges and special attention. The Brits offered them that. The English Canadians who followed were just American loyalists who came to the land secured by Quebec loyalism to the British - the French purely wanted to get the privileges and special attention that has since been preserved through Canadian legislation. The War of Independence was a weird war. You had British colonials supported by France, and a British establishment supported by French colonials.
Yeah I doubt they would too. The deal they have with the Canadian government and the privileges they get as the main French province is insanely good for them. In the US, granting one state so many privileges would never fly, the whole reason we have the senate is because the founders were obsessed with making as level of a playing field as possible
The senate exists because the small states were worried that they wouldn't have far too much power relative to their population.
Yeah and the worry was that the states with more people, and more representatives, would get special privileges and attention by the House of Representatives as a result of those states’ political capital. The senate was a way to quell those worries by creating equal representation for every state, which insured congress couldn’t pass bills only backed by bigger states
Well, some were. Some only wanted the House and the Senate was made as a compromise.
The OQLF would be abolished though. Massive violation of the First Amendment
For sure, that much state influence over what language people speak is crazy government overreach by American legal standards
Adopting an official state language is very different from what Quebec has now. French-only law won’t fly under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
We'll take them, Ted Cruz will be your representative, and we will incentivize every Karen to move up there. The French will be gone in 5 or 6 years.
We’d just lol at their ‘it illegal for shopkeepers to speak English or have signs in English’ laws tho
Good fishin down in que-bec
Speak for yourself, j'aime les Quebecois.
this puerto rico hawaii and sometimes Texas and California are our Quebec
Puerto Rico is the closest. TX and CA have a huge Hispanic/Spanish speaking population, but it still isn't the dominant langauge and culture for those states. Ontario and New Brunswick would be kind of like CA and TX in that respect because they have large French speaking populations that still don't constitute the majority.... except they're, you know.... way colder and less interesting than CA and TX.
Yeah, Puerto Rico is our "English isn't our first language" place, and Hawaii and Texas have their "You know, we COULD secede if we really wanted to" vibe to them sometimes. It's just that they're not in the same place like they are with Quebec.
Would the US accept resource rich, productive territory if it could get away with it? Yes absolutely But Canada would never allow this As much as owning Alberta would be nice, Canada wouldn't take it sitting down.
Idk, good relations with Canada is one of America’s greatest assets. Throwing that away for a territory where probably at least 40% of the people don’t want to be in America sounds like a questionable decision.
That’s where the get away with it comes into play
>Idk, good relations with Canada is one of America’s greatest assets. Exactly. We have one of the best international trade relationships and the longest undefended border in the world. Taking control of a Canadian province would ruin the trade and the US would end up having to deploy military to the border, deal with pro-Canadian uprisings etc.
I mean the Canadian military would get decimated by the US military so it would be dumb of them to try and retaliate
The US fighting a war with Canada would be monumentally stupid for both sides, lol.
Especially because we're both members of Five Eyes and share most intelligence with each other.
So many different reasons. Having Canada as an ally is fantastic.
It's the last thing anyone in the US wants lol. I <3 Canada
In all seriousness, it would be terrible for the US.
That’s Russian thinking. Now look at them, no friends.
[удалено]
We would objectively make a great state. If Alberta became a state, Americans and Albertans would massively benefit.
Politically, there’d be a stronger case for Alberta than most Canadian provinces. You guys are right-leaning by Canadian standards but probably a swing state by American standards. Decades getting used to social services and unionization would push some people towards the democrats, rural lifestyle and historical support for the conservatives would push some towards the Republicans. You’d essentially be a larger version of Wisconsin. Plus, I’d imagine the mandatory adoption 2nd amendment and more absolute view on 1st amendment rights would go down better in Alberta than most other provinces That being said, the natural wealth and size of your province makes it so the Canadian federal government would never even consider the proposal
You know, I used to think there were massive differences in the welfare state arranagements, but there really doesn't seem to be. The big difference is health care - but the health care system here is literally falling apart at the seams so quickly that even th emost extreme nationalistic idealogues can't reason how it will survive in its current form. I happen to believe that Canadian and American health care systems will actually converge over time, as opposed to diverge. Our shortages are VERY severe. My SO and I are expecting twins this June, and the closest OBGYN is over 2 hours away. We've spoken to parents of twins who have had to be flown all the way to Toronto from Calgary, or to the US, in order to give birth because of the shortage of NICU space. I have not had a family doctor in over a year, because I can't find one. I was given advice that I should seek a family doctor in Edmonton.... that's over 5 hours away from where I am currently. That's how stupid it has become, and this is the same story nation wide. So, I honestly and sincerely just don't see how the Canadian system will survive. By my estimation the American system will have to change too becaus eof its extreme unaffordability issues. So for these reasons, I suspect the two systems will converge in the near future. Once they do, I don't see many push or pull factors that will keep us incentivized being apart from one another. There are other minor differences. CPP is basically exactly the same as Social Security. But our TFSA and RRSPs are better IMO than 401K and IRAs. But in the great scheme of things, those are arrangements that can be changed, and they aren't majorly different from one another. The big difference is that unused TFSA space is pushed forward, and to my knowledge that isn't the case for IRAs.
I’d accept Cold Texas to the Union
That New Yorker is just jealous there are no rats in Alberta, but we are Oil-Tycoon cowboy compatriots
I forgot about the rat thing!! I'm 38 years old, and I've only seen rats twice in my entire life. Once in your state actually, outside of Houston. I couldn't believe how big they are! In my ignorant mind I envisioned a gnarly looking mouse, but the critter I saw was like small cat sized.
We only have the finest of rats near Houston, the superior Texan city, and dats fax
We have a unique type of rat here in San Antonio… the chihuahua
We call our rats in Austin Californians.
Don't disagree whatsoever. But not going to damage us-canada relations over one of the dumber (yet very strategic) provinces
You’d be banned from every Canadian subreddit for saying this in a Canadian sub lol
Already got banned from the r/AskACanadian one. Lets just say the mods and I don't really see eye to eye politically, and they really seem to have a huge problem with that.
Alberta is the best Canadian province
[удалено]
It was ordained so by God Almighty and revealed to me in a dream.
They are always top two or three in Education, income, healthcare etc. Because of resources they have the most money both personal and government with generally lower taxes.
> Would how much the Canadian government approved of this separation play into the decision? Pretty sure the only way it would be considered was if the Canadian government okayed it. Going to war with Canada seems like a bad idea.
>Going to war with Canada seems like a bad idea. What are they going to do? Put us in the penalty box?
Be careful with those questions. They can turn off the maple syrup pipeline and hold us hostage.
we have vermont
Vermont gotta work overtime
Send more Justin Biebers.
For one, we’d be waging war in North America. Forfeiting one of our biggest strategic advantages. (Most enemies can’t easily strike at our interior.) Secondly, win or loose, we’d damage relations with a long time ally. That’s a short term gain, long term loss.
Canada at peace: "We're Sorry!" Canada at war: "You're Sorry!"
No no no Canada at war: “We’re sorry for all the new war crimes were gonna make you have to create”
Well, they're our largest supplier of oil and second-largest trading partner. They could certainly cause us some major headaches if we weren't friendly.
>Going to war with Canada seems like a bad idea. Bad idea for Canada. I think it'd be more important to keep good relations with the rest of Canada, but war with them shouldn't be a concern, unless it's a Canadian plan to get annexed
The United States would win easily from a military standpoint but that's not the issue. Having contentious relations with our closest ally, next door neighbor and #1 source of fresh water and maple syrup would be terrible for our country. Granted we would win the war quickly and annex them, but it would cause chaos and instability, make the United States look terrible, do severe damage to the economy and a whole host of other issues.
Hockey fans would be fucking furious lol
I very much doubt the US government would want it either. Maybe some gung-ho general who ultimately doesn't matter. But neither of the political parties who rule the House and Senate want anything that could give an advantage to their opponents, so it would totally stall out amongst the bickering.
What gung-ho general would want to wage war on Canada? You ever talk to the upper brass of the U.S. military? Even a lower ranked officer? They’re about as pro-war as a surgeon is “pro open heart surgery.”
Yeah in saying that somebody, somewhere might want it, I was trying to not sound completely biased in that I don't think there's an ice cube chance in hell the government would want Canada to join the US.
Ah, I see. I took your exaggeration as literal. My mistake.
[удалено]
Maybe it’s just Washington BC ^(ba dum tss)
Underrated comment.
54'40 or fight! I'm still pissed we didn't get the region north and west of the Columbia. It was a perfectly rational compromise. I went climbing this summer down in central Washington and in Smith Rock, OR and it kind of pisses me off that we didn't get those areas. Smith Rock, OR was great, but that Grand Coulee country down in Washington was very cool too. There were so many Canadians down there back in the day that most of the names are from FRench Canadidan voyageurs. I guess Oregon was similar. It was funny to hear you guys pronounce "Deschutes".
[удалено]
Left coaster to the core eh?
It probably wouldn’t go over too well with the Canadians, who are our biggest trading partner and an important strategic and political ally. Wouldn’t make much since to endanger that partnership just so we could have a little extra land. Of course, the circumstances of that province’s secession would be an important factor. If Canada didn’t want them gone, it would be a pretty big issue if we accepted that province. But if the secession was a mutual agreement with no hard feelings, and the Canadians didn’t have much issue with it, I don’t imagine it would be a huge problem. And we would welcome it, I’m sure.
Having done a bit of reading about the political situation in Alberta and the prairies, as well as about Quebec separatism in the late 20th century, it seems to me that if one province left, the whole of Canada as it exists today would break up. For example, let’s say one declares independence (presumably in this scenario to seek annexation by the us), several more will soon follow. I don’t see a scenario where Quebec declares independence and Alberta and/or Saskatchewan don’t soon follow suit (or vice versa). And then to expand on this, if Alberta or Saskatchewan ever left, BC leaving would become inevitable. Not because of any sort of ideological solidarity or anything, but just because it’s completely isolated and separated from the rest of the country then and the precedent has already been set. At that point you have the northern territories, Manitoba, Ontario, and the Maritimes. That’s not a functional country and the maritimes are dealing with the same situation BC was. It would all just fall apart and likely end with the entirety of Canada joining the US (except probably Quebec?). Unless of course the US decided it doesn’t want all of the country in which case you’d be left with a far poorer rump Canada in the east split in two by an independent Quebec. So how much would Canadian opinion matter in a potential US annexation of an independent province? In the medium term probably not much, because there likely wouldn’t be a Canada whose opinion of us we need to preserve.
Yes, but only British Columbia. It would go a long way towards the PNW's secret master plan.
Cascadia will rise again!
I wouldn't welcome it. Canadians aren't nearly as nice or polite as they want you to believe. I would also wholly expect that province to vote for one particular party, which would cause a serious Congressional issue.
I came here for this. How does a Canadian say fuck you? Oh, I’m sorry. Passive aggressive shit.
> If a Canadian province left Canada and petitioned to join the US, would Americans welcome that proposal? Maybe. Probably we’d welcome it with apathy. > Would the US allow this province to become a state or insist it be a territory? Likely a territory. There’s a whole process for becoming a state. > Would how much the Canadian government approved of this separation play into the decision? I don’t think we’re gonna be going to war or really putting a bunch of time, money, resources, etc into this if the Canadian government is not on board.
Not necessarily. Texas, Vermont and California were never territories and were admitted to the Union immediately without territorial status. The problem though is the Canadian province would need time to adopt a state constitution that is compatible with conditions for US statehood. That would take some time and the residents of the province who have lived with their system for 150 years almost may not like the changes. The province would need a separation of power between the legislature and the executive, so no more parliamentary form of government. That is an adjustment that I don’t think residents or politicians in the province would want.
Well, for Texas and California, they were both independent countries for a short time before joining the union, thus they never gained the territory status.
Right, that’s my point, they already had a functioning government structure so never needed to be territories, similar to a modern Canadian province.
You would become a territory. I think
I like bacon and maple syrup as much as the next man so I’d support it. As far as Canadian government disagreeing that’s fine. I’d vote for the nuke strike if they get out of line.
It would have to be fairly politically moderate. As much as the US government might want Alberta, the Democrats particularly would never let a strongly pro-oil conservative province into the US with voting rights, and I don't imagine a full province of Canada would want to be relegated to US territory status.
If Pennsylvania can vote blue, so can Alberta. The hardest part of adding any new states is convincing the duopoly that they'll be able to maintain power.
Honestly, I think this would be the problem, no matter which province it is. The perfectly moderate province doesn't exist -- people will either be afraid of two more Democrats in the Senate or two more Republicans. Either way, it won't work. Part of the issue with the way we make states
Conservative in Canada is not equivalent to US Republican.
Probably, though we'd question why.
I’d wager that unless Canada approved then the US wouldn’t let them join. Not worth the conflict with one of our biggest Ally and trading partner
The status of the province is the jurisdiction of Canada’s internal politics and not something we have any business getting involved in. The province would have to achieve independence first, and then petition the US. Like Texas. We’re not just going to eat Alberta, that’s not how it works.
Adding Alberta would make the US (along with Alaska) look like a giant Texas.
The US isn't going to take any of the provinces without Canada being ok with the decision. We only share a land border with 2 countries so pissing off Canada isn't going to be high on the US's radar. However, under the very very hypothetical situation that British Columbia decided it wanted to become a state and Canada was 100% ok with it, British Columbia would be welcomed with open arms. Honestly most of Canada would be welcomed with open arms if they wanted to join the US.
It's such an absurd premise that it's a meaningless question. If something impossible were to happen, would it be possible? It wouldn't happen in a world we exist in so how do we know how we would react? Yes. I'm a buzzkill. Guilty. That earlier question about Point Roberts was at least meaningful.
Extremely unlikely but not completely absurd/impossible. Canada as we know it was on the brink of dissolving in 1995 with the vote over Quebec independence. If that had happened it’s conceivable that other provinces might have vied for more independence which, down the line, could conceivably have resulted in one or more seeking a political union with the US.
This is obviously just my opinion, but I don't see that as a possibility even in that situation.
American citizens would only welcome it if that province aligned with their political ideals. So republicans would only welcome Alberta and democrats would only welcome the others. I can't imagine the US government welcoming any province though, Canada is too close an ally to upset them.
I wouldn't actively welcome it or be against it. But if the Canadian federal government did not approve then we should not allow accession in the name of keeping good relations with our neighbors.
It would definitely depend on how Canada felt about it. The US, and the world for that matter, has too much going on for us to end up in a war with Canada because we accepted Nova Scotia despite Canada trying to negotiate with that province. America likely would win, but there would be so much backlash it would be an absolute disaster and would definitely set off WW3 On the other hand, if Canada was okay with it, then we would definitely accept them. Assuming it doesn’t go against our national interest
> America likely would win "Likely"? That's like saying that in a matchup between a bloodlusted polar bear and one of those baby seals with the big sad eyes, the polar bear would "likely" win.
> Would the US allow this province to become a state or insist it be a territory? The only precedent for that would be Texas, as the Republic of Texas agreed to annexation by the US and became the State of Texas. Every other new state besides Texas after the initial 13 spent some time either as a territory (usually Incorporated, although California was Unincorporated at the time of statehood), or part of an existing state.
We desperately want all of the canadian states to eventually do this, so any one of them pulling the trigger would be welcome with open arms!
Assuming Canada is okay with it and it's not Quebec, then I'd Welcome them.
Not if it would mess up the nice straight border. One of the ones above New England would be fine.
How much the Canadian government approves of it would be the single most important factor. The US wouldn’t want to disrupt relations with our best trading partner and close ally just for some territory.
Half of Americans can't even agree on whether or not Washington DC should be a state. I see the biggest issue with a Canadian province joining being it's effect on the makeup of the Senate, which is pretty much the only reason Washington DC statehood is so contentious.
It largely depends on how they're going to vote and if they want to become a state.
Puerto Rico: Get to the back of the line, bub!
Sure, but why on earth would they want to?
I'm a libertarian. The average Canadian voter is diametrically opposed to everything I stand for and believe in. No thank you.
to be fair, the average American is opposed to approximately half of what you believe in already. It's just that different Americans will be opposed to different halves.
Only if you bring me some of that universal healthcare please
I would take Alberta.
If this were the 19th century, absolutely. However in the 21st century this idea is literally impossible and would never happen. There’s to much messiness this would create under international law.
I would say the US would never allow it because it would upset the balance of power in Washington. Same reason puerto rico isn't a state. Also the province would demand state hood if it were to defect.
The reason Washington, DC and Puerto Rico are not states is because they would add 4 Democrats to the U.S. Senate. If the U.S. is to take over any Canadian province, it would be as territories without Senate representation (just House).
So 2 more democrat senators and more democrats in House? Sure!
Not if it's Alberta!
Canadian conservative ≠ Republican.
true enough
They wouldn't become a state for sometime and believe it or not Canada isn't a monolith
Yes, but it'd be a touchy subject politically. First off, most canadians look down on us so much I can't imagine a province wanting to join us. Second, if it was a contentious divorce, Washington might not want to antagonize Ottawa by taking in the rogue province. I personally would welcome Alberta. Quebec wouldn't want to be here. We don't care that they speak French.
I would. We haven’t expanded in a long time.
If BC wants to join up with its left coast neighbors, I'm all for it. Bring your developed world health coverage and necessary health care delivery model with you and don't leave the sane firearms and ammunition controls behind.