There is a city there: Windsor, Ontario, due south of Detroit.
I know, but the point is that it there could be a BIG city there, and Canada could be built up more overall.
I would have suggested that New York be given to Canada, but the problem is that New York City, the most liberal region (and, basically, a bigger Toronto) is far south from the Canadian border while the upstate is red.
Minnesota would also be a good candidate.
Just to be clear, you wouldn’t even need to do that. You personally would need a general Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) but long guns don’t need to be registered, except in Quebec.
What about all the native tribes in Washington (on whose lands many casinos are built)?
Respect for First Nations rights seem to be a big issue in Canada, and said respect seems popular there. And they also have such casinos.
What I don’t understand is what Roe has to do with Washington State. Are people there upset about being in the same country as Idaho? But I suppose the answer is yes.
As for guns, Washington is shall-issue, so I don’t think the earlier decision affects them.
Borders would have to all change. If I’m Canadian, taking on the Hanford Site high level nuclear waste is out of the question.
The U.S. has Point Roberts and Alaska. And Russia has Kaliningrad. So, in theory, lack of geographical continuity is no blocker. Canada could take Manhattan, Long Island, and the Bronx. Although — come to think of it — Trump won Suffolk County. So we’ll need another international border directly east of Stony Brook University.
Can’t we just take Puerto Rico? The US doesn’t really seem keen on having it, and this way we could vacation down south while using Canadian dollars.
I started this thread in response to the thread mentioned in my OP, where Aeschines was talking about a state fleeing as a result of Roe. See the OP in that thread for details.
There is already a movement in eastern Washington to join Idaho. The proposal makes a lot more sense if only western Washington was included. Then I, as a dual US/Canadian citizen would welcome it. At least parts of New England (specifically VT and MA would also be welcome.
The real problem is that it would inevitably lead to Trumpublican domination of America for a generation, at least. Elections would become sham, if indeed they would continue to be held.
Bring in the blue counties of California and suddenly Canada is an economic super-power. We will need to borrow a cup or two of water…
Puerto Rico and Turks and Caicos.
Speaking only for myself, I would not want any US state to join Canada. I just don’t think it would be a good fit for us for all the reasons stated. As much as we’re similar, the differences are still pretty wide.
Yeah, but it wouldn’t be Canada anymore. We would be utterly dominated by California. While Canada is far from perfect, I love my country. If I wanted to live in California, and I don’t, then I would move to California.
That would take some work. In Canada, 1st Nations lands aren’t enclaves, immune from federal or provincial laws. First Nations are contesting that, and developing theories of inherent sovereignty. How a First Nation in Washington province would fit in, I have no idea, but it would definitely be a matter for discussion.
Speak for yourself, please. Fransaskois, franco-ontariens, Acadiens, and other francophone groups outside Quebec (who are not Québécois, by the way), do care deeply about this issue, as do sympathetic anglos.
I don’t think they are interested in giving up the right to work anywhere in the U.S. If you want to win them over, though, you could try offering Canadian citizenship to all who want it now.
Economically, I doubt it is in your national interest. Their extreme low fertility rate suggests a future burden of supporting a large non-working population.
I am speaking for myself, but also from observation. There are fewer than 3% Francophones in Canada outside of Quebec. That compares with about 18.5% Spanish-speaking population throughout the US. Yet Spanish is not a mandated “official language” in the US, because there isn’t the incredible political pressure to make it so. This has resulted, in Canada, in things like exorbitant extra costs for bilingual package labeling that 97% of the population just finds useless, intrusive, and annoying.
Canada, take Minnesota. Please. Half of northern Minnesotans already think of themselves as Canadians, and you’d be the source of the Mississippi River.
Count me among the 3% that considers it a wonderful way to learn vocabulary in my second language and experience solidarity with my francophone fellow countrymen.
Seriously, are people still genuinely irked by bilingual packaging? May they never visit the EU—the nine*-language labelling would break their brains.
*value approximate