Yeah, I really didn’t get the “exorbitant extra costs for bilingual package labeling” bit. It’s been like that since I was a kid, you’d think the sunken costs of switching over would have been amortized out of existence by now. At this point, printing a bilingual label should cost no more than any other label.
I don’t get it either. I live in the catchment area for a very popular French immersion grade school that people are moving house to get their kids into. The demand for French immersion schools far exceeds supply in my city.
I have several nieces and nephews, now grown, who all went to FI schools and remain bilingual today. And it has benefited every one of them at some time.
It occurs to me, on re-reading my comments, that they sound rather narrow-minded if taken out of context, and I apologize for that. The reality is that I grew up in Montreal, immersed in a French culture, and I was pretty fluently bilingual, along with my friends (many of whom were francophones). It’s a shame that after many decades in Ontario my French has become so rusty that I can barely speak it at all. Still, there’s a difference between the sentiment expressed in the quote above and an “official language” mandate that impacts huge swaths of the country in which it’s entirely irrelevant. Or objecting to the fact that my brother, living in the US and now a US citizen, has difficulties with his birth certificate when required for official purposes because he was born in Quebec and the thing is entirely in French. Because, apparently, the “official language” mandate that includes English doesn’t apply to Quebec. [/end rant]
Where would the US get a curling team from?
My only problem is that I work for the State of Washington, so I’d worry about my job. Not only that, but I have a pension, what would happen to that? 
When British Columbia joined Canada in 1872, the federal government took on any pension requirements for British public servants in BC, which I think was the bulk of the civil service.
When Newfoundland joined, Canada took responsibility for pensions for Newfoundland civil servants transferred to Canada, but not for Newfoundland civil servants whose function remained with the province.
Not necessarily - Canadian provinces also have constitutions, and I could see Washington keeping most of its state Constitution intact if it tried to join Canada.
No primaries indeed, but membership in a political party generally gives one the right to vote for its leader. Granted, Canadians in political parties have to pay dues.
This is not necessarily true. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that this is only the case when there is enough of a francophone community in a particular area to warrant it - I have no idea what the francophone community is like in Washington state but it certainly wouldn’t have to match other public schools.
It’s an insane idea. The USA has previously well established that secession is not allowed. For Canada to then participate in a state’s secession is an act of war.
If there was a reason for Windsor to be a really big city, it would already be a really big city. Cities arise for organic reasons; for a variety of reasons, it came to pass that Ontario’s huge city is Toronto, and Windsor is way behind, just barely making the top ten and it’ll probably drop below tenth by the 2030 census.
Another whole thread on this? You guys are trying to kill me, right? 
I could see Canada responding “I thought you approached us? For sanctuary against gross breaches in human rights, not for tax purposes. You should have a State Constitution but every clause in your dinky document that isn’t in lock-step with ours is negated, or you can stay in the meth lab”
Provinces do have their own constitutions, but parts of those constitutions are entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. The Lt Gov and the monarchy as head of state for each province are part of the Constitution of Canada. A province can’t change that on its own, and can’t circumvent the role of the Lt Gov in legislation. It needs unanimous consent from the federal government and all ten provinces to change that. It’s a fundamental part of the Constitution.
Why would the federal and provincial governments agree to have a special provision in the Constitution of Canada for Washington province, different from all the other provinces, providing for a republican provincial constitution?
All I know is that in threads about the Canadian political process, I’ve seen some US posters on these boards say that the lack of a vote in the primary is a deal-breaker for them, personally. I expect it would be an issue. YMMV, of course
Yes, but the SCC has set the bar really low. It’s not the total number of francophones in the province, but the concentration in a particular location that is determinative. If there are enough francophone kids to be the equivalent of a small school in that particular city, then they are entitled to their own French school, under their own management and control.
Going by Wikipedia, the % of francophones in Washington state is 0.33% of 7,887,965, which is about 26,000 francophones.
By way of comparison, according to the Canadian Encyclopedia article on Franco-Newfoundlanders, there are 2,681 people in Newfoundland with French as their mother tongue, which resulted in 360 students attending 6 French schools (note - not French immersion). If 2,681 people and 360 kids are enough to trigger French schools in one province, then 26,000 in the new Washington province would likely be more than enough.
And, the schools must provide equivalent facilities to the English majority schools, paid for out of public funds, under the management and control of the francophone minority, not the majority public school board. It the francophone minority is entitled to a school, that school must “match other public schools”.
You’d still need a provincial government, so most jobs would probably roll over. And I expect there’d be some guarantees for pre-existing debts and obligations like pensions.
And it’s probably useful to remember that Canada already has one example of adding a new province to follow, that at least some of us still remember as living history. People like my mom, who technically was born in a foreign country. The population numbers are obviously higher, but the principles are sound.
Although that was a case of a monarchical / parliamentary system (albeit in suspended animation), so an easier transition.
(I’ve raised the Newfoundland example over in the Puerto Rico thread, if you’re interested.)
Every French immersion school I know of is a fully public schools. Catholic and Islamic schools all get public funding, why wouldn’t French immersion?
FWIW I do not believe Washington State would willingly join Canada (I think one of the really small states like Vermont or Maine is a better scenario in terms of realism). A lot of focus has been on whether Canada would take them, but I doubt it would even get to that point. In some sort of U.S. breakup scenario, it seems very likely California / Oregon / Washington would attempt to form some sort of confederation or new country and would not have any particular interest in joining Canada. Unlike being in the United States, there are not significant benefits for WA to join Canada. Canada’s military is weak and largely irrelevant–while Canada enjoys the same beneficial geography as the United States which makes it hard to attack, any real defense for Canada would be against Russia and that has always been provided by American military guarantees.
In the weird scenario where WA was just completely independent, what is the actual benefit for them in joining Canada?
The francophone schools aren’t French immersion, which are for non-francophone kids and are part of the local public or separate school.
The schools for the linguistic minority are a constitutional guarantee, « where numbers warrant ». If they meet that threshold, yes, they are publicly funded
I don’t see it myself; just responding to Aeschines’ hypothetical in the other thread.
Careful here, if you’re talking with Americans. To some of them, being part of the long-ago British Empire (today’s Commonwealth) means that we’re all subjects of the UK and the Queen, even today, and have rights that American citizens don’t have. Like the ability to move between Commonwealth countries without visas or immigration requirements. Of course, this is BS; if I (a Canadian) was to move to the UK or Australia or New Zealand, I’d have to go through the same immigration procedures and paperwork as an American.
And the “subjects of the Queen” part is total nonsense; Canadians have not been “subjects” of anybody since 1947.
I’m going to assume that your Mom was born in the Dominion of Newfoundland prior to 1949. It’s not “technically”; it’s a fact that the Dominion of Newfoundland was a separate country, and equal to, the Dominion of Canada, and the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth of Australia, and other Commonwealth of Nations members. At least until 1949, when Newfoundland became a province of Canada.
At the risk of going off-topic (call it a footnote), even if you have to jump through the same hoops as other nationals to settle here, citizens of Commonwealth countries are entitled to vote in the UK (and are required to register to vote, if your local council’s annual register updates catch up with you).
Good information, @PatrickLondon , thank you. Though I have no intention to move to the UK, it’s nice to know that I would have a voice in government through having a vote.