# Should the U.S. give Pt. Roberts to Canada? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 9, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930 "2003-02-09T19:31:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/1 "2003-02-09T19:31:29Z")
When the 49th Parallel was defined as the border between the United States and Canada, a little bit of southern British Columbia became part of the U.S. Pt. Roberts is part of the state of Washington, but it is connected to B.C. As I understand it, school children have to commute two hours to Blaine (IIRC) each school day, and pass two border crossings twice each day. I’ve heard that there are no pizza restaurants in Pt. Roberts, and that Canadian restaurants can’t deliver across the border. It sounds like a pain. Why not just give Pt. Roberts to Canada. If I were King if the U.S. I’d say, “Hey, Canada. We’re neighbours and we like each other. Sure, we have our differences; but we still manage to get along. Look: It seems silly that we should keep this little point of land. Take it, with our blessings. It’s a gift.” What about the people living there, who may not want to be Canadians? How about this? As part of the deal any U.S. citizen who is a resident of Pt. Roberts would be offered a choice of accepting Canadian citizenship, or be automatically given resident-alien status. They would be able to work in Canada and their children could attend Canadian schools. They would be entitled to all of the benefits of Canadian residence/citizenship. It seems equitable to me. The current residents of Pt. Roberts would get to stay where they are, they would no longer have to face border crossings for the simplets of errands, and Canada would get that little bit of B.C. The U.S. would get brownie points for doing something nice for it’s neighbour. Any thoughts? ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/2 "2003-02-09T19:38:58Z")
Utterly ridiculous. Does Canada even want it? Do the people want it? As for being given RA status, maybe they, you know, like the US government and the US Constitution better than the Canadian government? The only way this should occur is if 100% of the people want to be part of Canada, then I’d say you might have a case. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/3 "2003-02-09T19:39:03Z")
It’s a logical, reasonable, and fair solution. So, of course, neither government would accept it. Canada and the U.S., amazingly, STILL bitch at each other over little territorial disputes. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/4 "2003-02-09T19:41:16Z")
How is it logical, reasonable or fair? ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/5 "2003-02-09T19:48:34Z")
I don’t believe that the Constitution allows for land to be given away to another country once it is a state. Civil war and all that. Sets a bad precedent. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/6 "2003-02-09T19:57:17Z")
**Neurotik** : I’m not suggesting thatthe residents be kept prisoner there. They can become Canadian citizens, become resident aliens, or they can move. **Rhum Runner** : Pt. Roberts isn’t a state. In any case, does the Constitution _disallow_ ceding land to another country? I can’t see a civil war breaking out for a bit of land that, but for the 49th Parallel, would be part of Canada anyway. If The Line is not to be changed, then why doesn’t the U.S. have the southern half of Vancouver Island? It seems to me that it could make a little jog for Pt. Roberts. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/7 "2003-02-09T20:01:48Z")
I have absolutely no problem with Canada; in certain specific areas, I like their laws better than the U.S. ones. But what you’re proposing here is not merely that a land realignment be done, which has been done before and will be done again by treaty in the history of the world, but that the present occupants of that land, who are American citizens, be compelled to become Canadian citizens/subjects\* and consequently deprived of their U.S. citizenship. And the reasons advanced are that the children have too long a trip to school and that they cannot get timely pizza deliveries. Simple solutions to both these problems exist. Regarding schools: (1) Whatcom County builds and staffs a school on Point Roberts. (2) If Whatcom County cannot reasonably be expected to do so, Washington State or the U.S. subsidizes it. (3) Arrangements are made for Point Roberts students to attend school in Richmond, by a pact between the relevant authorities (school districts, states, or countries, as appropriate). Students from two countries attending school together could be an education in itself. Regarding pizza: (1) The last time I looked, there existed no law guaranteeing U.S. citizens the right to pizza deliveries. (2) An executive agreement between U.S. and Canada that permits delivery vehicles and vendors to make sales and deliveries as appropriate for the convenience of their residents near the border, with particular reference to circumstances such as this, the Quebec border with the New England states, Angle Inlet MN, and so on, would not be too difficult to do. In short, you’re metaphorically proposing to cure a case of poor drainage and consequent erosion on my side lawn by denonating a H-bomb there. - As Canada is formally a monarchy, “subjects” is correct, and has no pejorative implications – in Churchill’s words, “one of the proudest boasts of a free man is to be a subject of His Majesty!” I’ve heard “citizens” often used of Canadians, and have no idea which is the preferred usage these days. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/8 "2003-02-09T20:13:28Z")
**Polycarp** : A resident alien would not have to surrender his or her U.S. citizenship. He or she would be a U.S. citizen living in another country. Pizza was just an example of how things most people take for granted may be difficult to get. I’m not a resident of Pt. Roberts, so I don’t know all that may not be readily available there. Suffice it to say though, that it’s more difficult for a resident to go on a shopping trip to Vancouver because he or she lives in the U.S. Why not allow kids to attend school in Richmond and people to cross the border freely (i.e., without going through a checkpoint)? I see nothing wrong with that. I believe in open borders. The risk of a terrorist slipping into the U.S. trough Canada – having first arrived in Pt. Roberts – is slim. After all, they’d have to get into the U.S. to get into Pt. Roberts. With this sort of arrangement, Pt. Roberts residents would be “virtual Canadians” anyway. Why not make it official? ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/9 "2003-02-09T20:24:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > \*\ ***Rhum Runner** : Pt. Roberts isn’t a state. In any case, does the Constitution _disallow_ ceding land to another country? I can’t see a civil war breaking out for a bit of land that, but for the 49th Parallel, would be part of Canada anyway. If The Line is not to be changed, then why doesn’t the U.S. have the southern half of Vancouver Island? It seems to me that it could make a little jog for Pt. Roberts. \*\* Pt. Roberts is a _part_ of the state of Washington. In [Texas v. White (1869)](http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist122/Part1/TexasvWhite.htm) SCOTUS settled the issue of secession. Once land is part of a state it can not leave the union, even if it wants to. > [@](#): > > The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. it began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. **By these the Union was solemnly declared to “be perpetual.” And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained “to form a more perfect Union.” It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?** > > But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, though the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. And we have already had occasion to remark at this term, that “the people of each State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and independent existence,” and that “without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United States.” **Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within the design and care of the Constitution as the preservation of the Union and the maintenance of the National government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of _indestructible States_…** > > Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. \*\*They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. \*\*(emphasis added) ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/10 "2003-02-09T21:53:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Johnny L.A. \* > **Neurotik: I’m not suggesting thatthe residents be kept prisoner there. They can become Canadian citizens, become resident aliens, or they can move.** But why should they have to make that choice? Why not just let them remain US citizens, in US territories and not having to surrender any of their rights by no longer living in the US? ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/11 "2003-02-09T22:11:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rhum Runner \* > \*\*Pt. Roberts is a _part_ of the state of Washington. In [Texas v. White (1869)](http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist122/Part1/TexasvWhite.htm) SCOTUS settled the issue of secession. Once land is part of a state it can not leave the union, even if it wants to. \*\* But this has nothing at all to do with ceding Port Roberts. Read the opinion. Nowhere does it prohibit the Federal government from ceding land to another country. It only states that the Union as a whole is indissoluble. It does not say that a state of the US cannot, with the consent of the Federal government, cede a portion of its territory to another entity. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/12 "2003-02-09T22:15:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*But this has nothing at all to do with ceding Port Roberts. Read the opinion. Nowhere does it prohibit the Federal government from ceding land to another country. It only states that the Union as a whole is indissoluble. It does not say that a state of the US cannot, with the consent of the Federal government, cede a portion of its territory to another entity. \*\* Did you catch this part? "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of **indestructible** States… " If the land is part of the state, and the state is indestructible how do you propose to give it away? It is pretty clear that the state cannot leave, in whole or in part. At least, that is how I read it. Certainly I don’t see where the Feds can come in and order a part of the state to be given to a foreign power, but if you have some other authority on which to rely, by all means let’s here it. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/13 "2003-02-09T22:23:58Z")
Where did I say **order**? If both the state and the Federal government agree, what’s the problem? And in any case, the “indestructability” of a state is utterly repudiated by practice. My evidence: West Virginia. If Virginia were indestructable, West Virginia could not exist. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/14 "2003-02-09T22:31:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Polycarp \* > \*\* As Canada is formally a monarchy, “subjects” is correct, and has no pejorative implications – in Churchill’s words, “one of the proudest boasts of a free man is to be a subject of His Majesty!” I’ve heard “citizens” often used of Canadians, and have no idea which is the preferred usage these days. \*\* “Subjects” is incorrect. Canadians are citizens of Canada, not subjects of a monarch. I’d go into explaining the difference, but it’s been explained before better than I could do it, so a search would turn it up. I would think that the U.S. would, if it wanted to give away Pt. Roberts, have to be willing to PAY its residents if they wanted to move. I don’t think it’s enough to arrange a deal with Canada - you’d have to give them real cash money. ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/15 "2003-02-09T23:38:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*Where did I say **order**? If both the state and the Federal government agree, what’s the problem? > > And in any case, the “indestructability” of a state is utterly repudiated by practice. My evidence: West Virginia. If Virginia were indestructable, West Virginia could not exist. \*\* West Virginia is a [complicated story](http://www.wvculture.org/history/journal_wvh/wvh30-1.html) and whose legality is in doubt. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/16 "2003-02-10T00:13:14Z")
West Virginia became a state in 1863. ]Texas v. White was decided in 1869. So far as I know, _White_ is still good law, and therefore I maintain that Pt. Roberts cannot be given to Canada. Got anything else? ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/17 "2003-02-10T00:17:06Z")
The legality of state secession would have **no relevance whatsoever** to an attempt to cede Point Roberts. The United States is a soveriegn nation with the power to sign treaties concerning its borders. A very similar example occurred in Texas in 1964 when the United States and Mexico signed the _Chamizal treaty_, which ceded disputed territory which had been claimed and administered by Texas to Mexico. See [http://www.window.state.tx.us/border/ch01/ground.html](http://www.window.state.tx.us/border/ch01/ground.html) Note that 5,000 people had to move to accommodate the change. They didn’t like it, but there was nothing they could do about it. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 12:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/18 "2003-02-10T00:32:26Z")
**jklann** um, no. The situations are completely inapposite. In the Mexico case you have a situation where the boarder was defined by a river, the boarder was disputed, and the true location of the boarder was never defined with any great precision. Defining the boarder as being the Rio Grande river obviously is going to invite controversy. Suppose the river unexpectedly detoured south to Mexico City, would anyone seriously contend that all the land north of the city suddenly became part of the US? No, of course not. In the case of Pt. Roberts there is no dispute over where the boarder lies, there is no shifting river, and the land is firmly a part of Washington state. I meant to add earlier that there are many island communities in Maine that are at least as inconveniently located as those on Pt. Roberts re schools and other things. People that choose to live there have to accept the inherent difficulties. ---
**Author:** ![Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@Freddy\_the\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Freddy_the_Pig)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/19 "2003-02-10T02:30:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Rhum Runner \* > \*\*The situations are completely inapposite. \*\* Maybe so, but the Chamizal Treaty is the closest precedent we have to a hypothetical attempt to cede Point Roberts. (It’s certainly more on point than _Texas v. White_). There has never, to my knowledge, been a case where the United States ceded land _which was part of a state_ to a foreign power in a case _where the foreign power did not claim the land_ as part of a boundary dispute. But I refuse to accept that the United States could not do so if it wished. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI treaties made under the United States Constitution are the “supreme Law of the Land”. I can’t fathom a court striking down a land cession treaty as unconstitutional. > [@](#): > > **Suppose the river unexpectedly detoured south to Mexico City, would anyone seriously contend that all the land north of the city suddenly became part of the US? No, of course not.** No indeed, that would be a shift by “avulsion”. But river boundaries can and do shift by “erosion”. The Chamizal dispute concerned whether the Rio Grande had shifted by avulsion or erosion. ---
**Author:** ![Rhum\_Runner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@Rhum\_Runner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhum_Runner)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930/20 "2003-02-10T03:26:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jklann \* > \*\*Maybe so, but the Chamizal Treaty is the closest precedent we have to a hypothetical attempt to cede Point Roberts. (It’s certainly more on point than _Texas v. White_). There has never, to my knowledge, been a case where the United States ceded land _which was part of a state_ to a foreign power in a case _where the foreign power did not claim the land_ as part of a boundary dispute. But I refuse to accept that the United States could not do so if it wished. Under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI treaties made under the United States Constitution are the “supreme Law of the Land”. I can’t fathom a court striking down a land cession treaty as unconstitutional. > No indeed, that would be a shift by “avulsion”. But river boundaries can and do shift by “erosion”. The Chamizal dispute concerned whether the Rio Grande had shifted by avulsion or erosion. \*\* Now this is an interesting question. Can an unconstitutional treaty be given force of law? I think, at a minimum, Texas v. White holds that states may not secede, and they are indivisible. So, can Congress, acting through their treaty and supremacy power divide a state and then give the land to a foreign power? It seems settled that the Congress may grant foreign territory and lands to other sovereigns through treaty. See Edwards v. Carter 580 F.2d 1055. In that case a treaty conferred the Panama Canal back to Panama. Ok, but that wasn’t a state. What do you make of this? > [@](#): > > [N]o agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. Reid v. Covert 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1230 (1957). Later in the same opinion we get this: > [@](#): > > Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares: > _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;_ > There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. **These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in ‘pursuance’ of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights–let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition–to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.** In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined. \ This seems, to me, to say that Congress can not due through treaty what is denied to it by the Constitution, and thus I continue to maintain that we cannot give land to Canada. Texas = dividing a state is unconstitutional. Reid = no unconstitutional treaties. Ergo, no grant of Washington St. land to Canada. What do you think? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-the-u-s-give-pt-roberts-to-canada/153930.md?page=2)