Would a US state want to join Canada, post-Roe? would Canada want one?

This is a fork from the thread on the (alleged) coming US civil war, where @Aeschines stated:

I have my doubts.

Let’s assume for the moment that, say, the state of Washington, south of British Columbia, secedes from the US by joint state-Congress resolution. (i.e. - not unilateral secession, unlike the Late Unpleasantness, but a negotiated exit).

I suggest Washington because my understanding is that it’s a left-coast liberal state, so a prime candidate for Aeschines’s proposal. I doubt very much that states like Lower Alberta (ie Montana) and Lower Saskatchewan (ie North Dakota) fit Aeschines’s proposal.

With that out of the way, would Washington state want to become Washington province? and would Canada want it?

Here’s what the good folks of Washington would need to accept to become part of Canada:

  • give up the right to bear arms; anyone who wants to own a long-gun would need to get a federal possession and acquisition licence; anyone who wants to own a handgun would need to get a restricted possession and acquiisition licence, and could only lawfully possess the handgun in their home and at the firing range, and in transit; no concealed carry of a firearm; no open carry of a handgun, except when going to and from the range;
  • give up the criminal law power; all criminal laws are enacted by Ottawa;
  • give up the state militia/National Guard; military power is the exclusive purview of Ottawa;
  • give up republican form of government; Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, is the head of state for Washington province;
  • give up governor/legislature form of government, instead adopting parliamentary government;
  • all Members of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Washington, and all federal Members of Parliament from Washington, have to swear allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors;
  • give up two senators in a powerful upper house, and instead get an undetermined number of senators (probably six) in an unelected upper house that has much less political power;
  • give up a direct vote for President, in both the primaries and the general, in exchange for indirect vote for the Prime Minister, with no primary;
  • abolish private or employer medical health insurance and opt into a universal health care system; not mandatory, but if Washington province doesn’t do that, it pays taxes to Ottawa but doesn’t get the benefit of matching federal health care money under the Canada Health Act;
  • provide public funding for francophone schools, equivalent to that of the other public schools;
  • accept a much smaller military, and less international military influence;
  • have judges of the Washington superior trial court and court of appeal appointed by Ottawa;
  • accept the final appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada, which is a general court of appeal, including questions of purely provincial law; not restricted to federal laws and federal constitutional matters.

On the other hand, Washington province would get a much larger proportion of the House of Commons than it currently has in the House of Representatives, so that presumably would be a plus.

So, Question 1:

Would the good folk of Washington state want to take those terms, in exchange for no restrictions on abortion? or for the broader reasons Aeschines sets out?

On the other side, would Canada want Washington state?

Let’s start with raw politics: population and representation. Washington’s population is 7,887,965, according to Wikipedia. That would automatically make it the third most populous province, displacing BC to fourth place (pop. ~ 5,071,000) and coming after Quebec (pop. ~ 8,485,000). That would mean Washington province would have the third largest group of seats in the House of Commons, which would mean a major shift in the political dynamic overnight. Would other provinces want such a major change?

Specifically, Quebec would be highly concerned by it, because the population of Washington state is largely anglo. Again according to Wikipedia, 82.51% speak English as their mother tongue. The next largest group is Spanish-speakers, at 7.9%, followed in descending order by Chinese (0.94%) (57,895) Vietnamese (0.84%), Tagalog (0.83%), Korean, 0.80% (49,282) Russian, and 0.55% (33,744) German (0.55%), and Japanese (0.39%). Francophones come in at 10th place, at a mere 0.33% of the total population. And, if Washington province is anything like the western Canadian provinces, the second language spoken by those linguistic groups will be largely English, not French. So Quebec, always concerned by its demographics in Canada, would likely be strongly opposed, in my opinion.

Then there’s general political culture. Washington province may have left the US, but its population will have American political culture as their background (eg guns, military, republicanism). Would Canadians want to absorb that large group into our political culture? Would we find our political culture changing to a more “American” viewpoint, based on the politics of our new third-largest province? That’s hard to speculate on, but it would certainly be an issue.

And why would the views of other provinces matter? because in Canada, the federal Parliament cannot unilaterally add new provinces to Confederation. Under the amending formula in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, new provinces can only be admitted by the joint resolutions of the federal Senate and House of Commons, and by two-thirds of the provinces which together have at least 50% of the national population. That would mean that Washington wannabe-proivnce would need to get most of the provinces onside, agreeing to a reduction in their power in the House of Commons, and with Quebec likely opposed. (Quebec doesn’t have a veto, but with roughly 20-25% of the population, its opposition would be significant in meeting the 7/50% threshold.)

So Question 2: would Canadians agree to admit Washington province? For the reasons given above, I have my doubts.

Hey, great post, and you lay out important points very nicely.

What would be the stuff I wouldn’t like? I despise the British royal family and find it ludicrous that any country (including the UK) tolerates them in any way, but that wouldn’t be a deal-breaker for me.

I think it’s cool that the US has no official language and people speak whatever they want, and that’s that. I think the whole “we’ve got to preserve this language!” kind of thing is a bit sad. But also not a deal-breaker for me.

So there are none. If I lived in Washington, I’d take the deal, and I think a large portion of the population would as well without giving it a second thought. A large portion, of course, would not, as they have an emotional attachment to the idea of the US, etc., or are gun nuts, MAGAheads, etc.

I am “patriotic” only in the sense that I like the US and its land (the Midwest in particular) and its people and want good things to happen here. I could easily have lived in Japan the rest of my life, and in many ways that would have been an easier life. I would prefer all of North America to be one country with a good government and people free to move wherever they like within it and do whatever they like so long as it doesn’t hurt others. Idealistic, I know.

I don’t think Canada, however, would want Washington Province. Canada is a small country on a very big piece of land. It’s an advantageous situation. “We” (well, right-wingers) don’t want Mexicans coming to the US because “we” don’t want to share what we’ve got, and “we” want white people to stay in the majority. Canada is in a similar position with respect to the US. I’m sure there is no desire to share all that land with the people who would flood in and ruin everything, and, as you say, the entering Americans could instantly dilute the political power of current Canadians to zero.

It could make sense if Canada wanted to grow its population, economy, and power on the world stage, but I would highly suspect Canada is comfortable as it is and doesn’t want change.

When you refer to all that land, bear in mind that a lot of it is not easily habitable. There’s a reason most Canadians live within 100 km of the US.

Stop, I can only get so erect.

You realize, of course, that Washington east of the Cascades is as red as blood, right? No flipping way those folks join Canada. Better chance of Louisiana petitioning to join. They at least speak something vaguely related to French. But Spokane? Never.

Very well laid out OP, BTW.

Yes, I know a bit about that from these boards (Bundys!), but not enough to factor into my OP. Will let the Washingtonians address it. But the gun bit … probably a difficulty.

Thanks. I’m a lawyer, after all - laying out opposing positions is a big part of the job.

Speaking as a bawn ‘n’ bred denizen of the Soviet of Washington — and speaking only for myself — I have no real issue with any of the points raised in the OP. In fact, some of them, such as parliamentary government and appointed (as opposed to elected) judges, fall on the “plus” side of my ledger. I do own one long gun, which I would have no problem registering.

As an alternative, what about BC annexing the wetside? Or at least as far down as Puget Sound (south of that the political climate is more similar to the dryside)?

Certainly. But if Canada’s land were exploited (in both the positive and negative senses) to the same extent as that of the United States (e.g., Alaska-like land developed to an Alaska-like extent, etc. etc.), there would still be a heck of a lot more people there.

I mean, across the water from Detroit could be another Detroit, right?

Right, so strictly speaking it would no doubt be a bunch of pieces of states that would be interested in joining Canada. Northern Illinois, yes. Southern, no. New England? Maybe whole states. Etc.

The Bundy discussion made me think of a point that may be attractive to the province of Washington: Crown land in Canadian provinces is largely owned by the provinces, not by Ottawa, so there would be a good chance that the federal lands in Washington State would be transferred to Her Majesty in right of Washington province. Would that be enough to get the Bundys onside? Of course, that wouldn’t mean that they could freely occupy provincial Crown land just cuz, so probably not.

Uh, no, thank you.

Kind of tangential to the topic at hand (which has so far been centered primarily on Washington State), the governors of the three continental West Coast states have banded together to give the proverbial finger to the SCOTUS abortion ruling. MHO, while the odds against any sort of dissolution remain overwhelming, this raises the possibility ever so slightly.

Having trouble pleasing the missus? Don’t want the embarassment of getting the little blue pill? Try Dr Piper’s Solution! Guaranteed to aid with that little problem, and make it a big asset!

**Offer void in red states.**

“I thought you wanted to role play that I was a nanny!”

“No no no, I said nanny-state

Not in a Canadian-adjacent state but a parliamentary government is a draw for me. Having said that, there are a couple of facets to your system - like FPTP voting and single member ridings - that could use some improvement.

Transferrable votes and multi-member constituencies have been tried at various times, and generally rejected. Proposals to change FPTP have also been rejected in some referenda. Whether it’s inertia, principled opposition, or just comfortable with the way things are, I don’t see it changing.

Bear in mind, FPTP in a parliamentary system can have different results than in the US congressional/presidential system. We currently have 5 parties in our House of Commons: Liberals, Conservatives, New Democrats, Bloc Québécois, and Greens.

By my inexpert and far away eyes, Northwest Canada-like Alaska is developed to a Northwest Canada-like extent. It’s less developed for the same reason interior Alaska is less developed. Most of Alaska’s population live on or close to the Pacific coast.

That was my thought as well. Our northern territories don’t have easy access to the Pacific or Atlantic oceans.

Maybe things will pick up with global warming and the Arctic melts. That would be a good thing, right?

Hey, if we can attract upstanding liberal Americans like you to come to Canada, it’s a win-win, so I should point out that we have very little actual involvement with either the monarch or the rest of the royal family, although the Queen and William and Kate are personally quite popular among many Canadians. The Queen’s official role as head of state and the final stage of approving legislation via royal assent is actually handled by a Canadian governor general federally and lieutenant governor provincially. The closest you would come to having to deal with the royal family is having to see the Queen’s smiling mug on some currency, although Canadian prime ministers now appear on some others. We are certainly not like the UK where (for instance) the postal service is called “Royal Mail” and features an emblem of a crown. Mail service in Canada is called Canada Post, or more fully, Canada Post Corporation and features a corporate logo. To make you feel more at home, they are just as incompetent as the US postal service.

That’s just a Quebec thing. A real passion within Quebec, and a sop to the Quebecois in the rest of Canada that nobody cares about.

Well, you know what I mean. Another whole city could exist at that latitude.