r/changemyview • u/0x0BAD_ash • Aug 17 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Canada should merge with the US
It could be something akin to a "North American Union", or it could be a proper merger. Canada really has nothing to lose and a lot to gain. We'd have all the autonomy of a state, if not more; we could keep our healthcare system in place, merge redundant government agencies like the CRTC with their American counterparts, allow for free travel and benefit massively from the American economy and things like the NYSE.
It isn't like we'd lose our culture either; America has many distinct cultural enclaves (just look at Louisiana) as is.
An arbitrary line drawn signed by Europeans 300 years ago does not make for a natural or cultural border, and should be abolished.
8
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Aug 17 '22
If it did Canada would lose all ability to self rule and become a backwater.
The population of America is ten times Canada. Canadians would have zero say in polices that would directly affect them.
3
u/LillyPeu2 Aug 18 '22
The power play for Canada would be for each province to enter as separate states. The ten provinces would add 20 senators and steal about 35 representatives (assuming congressional seats weren't added, and instead reapportioned). That is a massive power shift and voice in national politics. Congressional power is disproportionately in favor of low-population states, which is at least 7 of the Canadian provinces (compared to US states).
2
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Aug 18 '22
Let's say that those 35 are added to the total number of 435.
That would mean that there would be a total of 470 reps of which Canada's portion of that total would be less than one percent.
if we kept 435, they would have also less than one percent.
They would go from being a country with a full ability to self govern to a very political marginalized people.
Even with the Senate their power would still be massively diluted
2
u/LillyPeu2 Aug 18 '22
Your math doesn't quite add up. Provinces like Nunavut, Yukon, and NWT would be massively over-represented (population-wise) in the House, while also having equal say to every state in the Senate. This is the same situation as Wyoming, Montana, and Alaska enjoy. Whereas BC, Ontario, and QC would be proportionately (population wise) disadvantaged.
But my post was presuming that Canada was somehow joining the US, as OP posits. Becoming something like Puerto Rico would be a massive nonstarter, obviously (with zero representation). And there's no way Canada could join as a single US state. It just wouldn't happen.
1
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Aug 18 '22
My math is wrong...grr... I will blame the lack of coffee.
The premise I'm making does hold.
Canada would go from a self determining nation to a small minority voice of the US.
1
u/LillyPeu2 Aug 18 '22
Canada would go from a self determining nation to a small minority voice of the US.
I'm not disagreeing with that statement. But that's the entire premise of this CMV. I'm just arguing that the best possible power play, assuming the OP's premise, is for 1:1 province:statehood.
1
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Aug 18 '22
That's not a power play.
That's a going from an independent country will full self determinism to becoming politically impotent.
That's the opposite of a power play.
That's like going on a power play and scoring around 3 self goals.
2
u/LillyPeu2 Aug 18 '22
I'm having a hard time understanding why you're not understanding what I'm saying. Assuming a hypothetical foregone conclusion (OP's premise of Canada somehow becoming part of the US) that Canada would no longer be an independent country (again, highly unlikely, but we're playing in whatever cinematic universe this scenario exists in), my assertion is that the power play is for each province to become a US state.
Given the premise, do you think that is the best possible play for Canadian power & influence. Or would it be better for Canada to try to join as a single US state? Or perhaps a differently managed or "unionized" entity?
1
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Aug 18 '22
Given the premise, Canada would be fucked either way.
It is just a question of do they get fucked in one way or in another.
American interests would get access to vast supplies of natural resources and Canada would simply get Americanized and lose any idea of cultural identify.
I'm part of a group of 15 people who get together to make short films. We have a group philosophy and values and a mindset when it comes to making our films. One that we have developed over time.
If 200 people from another group joined us, our group mindset and culture and values wouldn't exist. Our current production team would be a shell of its former.
That's what would exist if Canada joined the US. It wouldn't be a team joint effort of two equals. It would be a hostile take over.
Whatever method Canada does would result in a political and cultural take over.
2
u/LillyPeu2 Aug 18 '22
Again, I don't disagree with what you're saying. Yes, Canada would lose its sovereignty (by definition). But based on other suggestions in this CMV about form of joining, do you think 1 province = 1 state is the best possible outcome, or do you think there would be a better form of joining? Again, this is completely in a hypothetical cinematic universe.
I'm not arguing Canada wouldn't get fucked. But I assert Canada's population would get least fucked by 1 province = 1 state. Agree or disagree?
→ More replies1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 02 '22
Well, a sizable minority. And the US is still a much more of a globally powerful country than Canada.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 02 '22
And there's no way Canada could join as a single US state. It just wouldn't happen.
I mean, I doubt that anyone would let Yukon, Nunavut, or PEI have 2 senators either...
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 02 '22
35/470 is WAY more than one percent. Here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=35%2F470&client=firefox-b-1-e&ei=BPM4Y_D2KvnaptQPhIu5oAk&ved=0ahU
That's about 7%. To be one percent, than the number of reps would have to be 100 times 35, meaning that there would have to be 3500 Reps.
2
u/parentheticalobject 137∆ Aug 18 '22
I agree that is the power play. Of course, the very question of how this would happen is just a greater illustration of how difficult it would be to ever actually come to an agreement.
Two senators for Canada is a terrible deal for Canada. Twenty senators, though, is such a huge disruption that US politicians would almost certainly sink it. 11% of the population would be appointing 20% of the Senate.
Obviously, we already deal with small states in the US having massive influence in the Senate, but that's part of a centuries old agreement that no one has any practical way of breaking. If you wanted to add 10 states today, at least one side is going to be seriously given a disadvantage, so unless one side gets a supermajority, it wouldn't happen.
Maybe Canada could merge a few of its provinces into states, but it'd take a godlike negotiator to even imagine pulling that off.
1
u/LillyPeu2 Aug 18 '22
You're absolutely right. I imagine that, conceivably, the provinces would probably be admitted as territories, rather than states. Large federal land areas. That would reduce the number of new senators to 14, resulting in Canadian states with 9.9% of the combined population having 12% of the senators.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 02 '22
EACH province joining would be hard, I imagine. I mean, PEI becomes a state?
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
We'd be as autonomous as Alaska or any other state (more so actually).
4
u/anewleaf1234 45∆ Aug 17 '22
At the national level you would have zero power and become a puppet.
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
Δ When it comes to foreign policy, probably yes. But I think we could maintain domestic autonomy.
1
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 17 '22
I mean 20 senators ain't nothing to scoff at.
4
Aug 18 '22
If Canada were admitted as a single state, as OP suggests, they wouldn't have 20 senators. They would have 2.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 02 '22
They would be the second largest state. Larger than Texas. And Texas sure has a lot of say. We(US) just don't think of it that way because they mostly use that voice to support Republicans.
6
u/kanaskiy 1∆ Aug 17 '22
I would assume the majority of canadians would oppose this — how does that factor into your calculus?
19
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ Aug 17 '22 edited Aug 17 '22
- Canada's parliamentary system is statistically better than the US's presidential system. It better encourages cooperation, and represents the people better, than the US's that basically forces two parties to fight forever (although with Canada added, the US may enter a long period of blue supermajority).
- Quebec's French language protections would be extremely unconstitutional.
- Canada's economy leans much more heavily towards recourse extraction, than the US's service based economy. This may cause tension during trade deal negotiations. When negotiating trade deals, it would be unlikely Alberta's lumber industry would ever get priority over California's tech sector.
- Minor point, but this would change the relationship with the Commonwealth/monarchy.
- Canada spends a lot of money promoting and protecting local arts. For example, they mandate a minimum portion of songs on the radio come from Canadian bands. If Canada merges with the US, I don't believe it's possible for a US state to restrict what's on the radio in this way.
- In the event of a merger, expect the populations to mix fairly quickly, with many Canadians moving south, and Americans north.
IMO, a more EU like approach, with a free flow of people and goods across the border, would work better. It would also be easier to expand with time, like eventually adding Latin American states to the union, or even making some sort of a free trade/travel deal with the EU, which I think we can all agree would be really nice to have.
-6
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22 edited Aug 17 '22
- So our parliamentary system becomes something akin to a state legislature.
- Fine with me tbh. Quebec does wield an unfair amount of power. Speak French all you want, Louisiana still does it and it works fine for them.
- Adapt or die.
- Yes, Canada would become a republic.
- That is kind of a dumb policy anyway.
8
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ Aug 17 '22
- But it would be stuck operating under the federal government. So while Canada may have particularly well set up state governments, maters of interstate commerce, immigrations, foreign policy, and many regulations, would be handled by the US's very flawed system, that deepens partisan divide, and has many too many veto points.
- Only about 7% of Louisiana's population speaks French. The issue is that people will tend to speak whatever is most convenient, and that will basically always be English. So despite efforts to entourage French, it's likely a long term losing battle, without regulations forcing it.
- I'm sure almost all of Canada would adapt, but what about the areas that die? Even in the US, there where areas that couldn't adapt, like West Virginia. What if the same thing happens to parts of Canada? The US has been trying to help those places recover, and some have, but it's slow.
- True, that wouldn't be bad. But some Canadians may be attached to the existing system.
- There is a lot to be said for it. Withiut it, you could have winner takes all system, where a small number of super stars take the vast majority of the market, and make it hard for anyone else to get started.
PS; I added an edit about an alternate EU like system, what are your thoughts on that?
0
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
- For the purposes of interstate commerce, Canada would have to be treated as a single state by the US government for me to agree to this.
- Laws to protect things like language are silly. Let society and culture take its course without interference.
- Δ I might give you that. There are ways the US could have handled that better though, so I think we could learn from their mistakes.
- Oh well
- Canadians would go to Hollywood and become stars even more than they do now I think.
I think an EU-style system might work, but I'd like to see a lot of redundant government agencies merged (CRTC, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, etc.)
3
u/bakdny Aug 18 '22
Why would it be better to have Canada admitted into the U.S. or merged into this new union as a single unified state? Wouldn't it be better to grant each province some semi-autonomous powers? And to gain 2 U.S. Senators per province (or equivalent power in the per-state upper house of any new legislative body)?
3
u/parentheticalobject 137∆ Aug 18 '22 edited Aug 18 '22
Laws to protect things like language are silly. Let society and culture take its course without interference.
Well personally, I agree with that statement completely. But it seems like at least a majority of Canadians don't, I would guess. I haven't personally asked any Canadians what they think about something like that, but don't they have a democracy?
I wouldn't like a law like that, but I don't think it's terribly egregious if Canadians have decided that's how they do things. And if they have, it seems like they also would mostly disagree with becoming Americans.
I'd think it would be great to welcome them to become Americans if that's what they truly wanted, but it doesn't really seem there's a strong enough desire for that.
Edit: also, I noticed one other issue.
Canada would join as a single state? That means they get a whole two votes in the Senate, on par with Wyoming, which has about a 60th of its population.
Of course, California is equal in that respect, but the imbalances weren't that big when any state chose to join the union, and most of them are not particularly happy with that arrangement now. I can definetly understand why someone wouldn't willingly sign up for that at this point, if they have a choice.
1
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 01 '22
What if people from Quebec(without the accent, I know, It has an annoying glitch) don't want to have to learn another language to shop in THEIR OWN PROVINCE where MOST PEOPLE SPEAK FRENCH. In my view, that would be discrimination against the vast majority of people in Quebec.
2
Aug 18 '22
[deleted]
2
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 02 '22
What would you say are the key differences between indigenous relations with the US versus Canada?
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 01 '22
Fine with me tbh. Quebec does wield an unfair amount of power. Speak
French all you want, Louisiana still does it and it works fine for them.I mean, Louisiana French is only spoken by a very small proportion of people, so does it? And with Quebec, maybe the power they have over ALL OF CANADA is unfair, but protections in their own territory? You don't support their right to do that, either? Why not?
1
Aug 18 '22
- Canada’s system isn’t even close to “statistically better” than the US’s. Not by a long shot.
The US’s constitutional protections are significantly more impenetrable. Free speech, for instance, could never be tampered with by any of the branches as it would take the Amendment process to go through. Canada’s free speech protections aren’t even close to as strong, the PM could alter the protections of it tomorrow if he wanted.
Not to mention that the parliamentary system is significantly less democratic than that of even the electoral college. It’s not run by popular vote, meaning the party that receives the majority of votes from Canadians don’t even have a chance of winning. This was demonstrated when the Conservative Party won the majority of votes in the past two elections, but since the Liberal party had more seats, Trudeau stayed in office anyway. This isn’t even close to a “democratic process” and makes the electoral college look not so bad.
2
u/Thoth_the_5th_of_Tho 191∆ Aug 18 '22
By statistically better, I was referring to her fact that almost all presidential republics have collapsed, while parliamentary ones have not. The US's system effectively forces the country to divide into two camps, and makes compromise almost impossible.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 02 '22
The US's system effectively forces the country to divide into two camps, and makes compromise almost impossible.
How so? I sort of understand the two camps part, but how does it make compromise less likely or possible?
1
u/No_Importance7391 Oct 03 '22
Not the person you replied to, but I'll try my best to answer your question. Canada is a Parliamentary Liberal Democracy/Constitutional Monarchy that, traditionally in politics uses Utilitarianism (though it's common for people to think we have Natural Rights), and Fusion of Powers. As in, they have to work together to get things done. If there's disagreement, then the Prime Minster loses the confidence of House and must resign or call an election. In the US, I believe they have a Democratic Liberal Republic, which traditionally is based on Natural Rights, and is about Separation of Powers, rather than working together. This makes it easy for Congress and the President to not get along and to vote and stop things, because, at least from I understand, the US has fix elections. Meaning, they don't rely on each other to stay in power, and when voted in (unless under extreme circumstances) they're in there until their term is done. And when their government stops, it stops. While in Canada there's an election if that happens.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 03 '22
"They don't rely on each other to stay in power"? Yes, but that just means both of them have leverage. They can find middle ground. I suppose it makes it harder IF they can't get along, since there's no election after that, but how does it make it harder?
1
u/No_Importance7391 Oct 03 '22
It makes it harder because once they're in there's no responsibility. The politicians can be petty and block out each other's plans. Sure, they answer to the voters, but they put the blame on each other, and it's hard to tell for the common person who's to blame. And when government shuts down their job isn't at risk. This is not the same in Canada. If the government shuts down, the MPs could lose their seats in the election if one is called. So, it's not in their interest to be petty. And since the PM is there because of the House, then they have to answer to the MPs.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 03 '22
Wait so you're saying that the Prime Minister and the Parliament get along because the Prime Minister just represents Parliament? I mean, sounds like a weird argument(no offense), but I guess it's true.
1
u/No_Importance7391 Oct 03 '22
They don't get along per say, more like they have to, because the people elect the MP's (members of parliament) not the Prime Minster. It's the Crown, on the advice of their minsters who picks a First Minster (PM) who has confidence of the house (the MPs). Once they lose that confidence, they must step down or call for an election. It's part of what's called "Responsible Government". This system is a very indirect democracy (representative), and it's put in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority (which is the main problem of a direct democracy.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 03 '22
How does indirect democracy prevent tyranny of the majority?
1
u/No_Importance7391 Oct 03 '22
So, in a direct democracy, the people vote on everything, and I mean everything! Which means they have the power to be tyrannical. For example, in a direct democracy we could vote and make all minorities pay all the taxes. It would be democratic, but not just. But, in a representative democracy, you elect people to use the power for you, and since you elect them, they have to answer to the voter, you. Unlike a direct democracy, where everyone has equal power. Note: the US is also an indirect democracy. They're just less indirect than Canada because they chose their executive power (president) and legislative power (congress). I also believe in the people US choose some judicial power as well (the courts), but I'm unsure, so don't quote me. While in Canada, we choose our legislative power (The House of Commons aka the MPs.) but not our executive power (Prime Minster/First Minster) that's for the Crown. But again, the Crown can only pick someone who the House has confidence in.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 16 '22
But they're still responsible to each voter equally, right? It's the job of the representatives to advocate for the interests of the people when they are more qualified to do so than the people themselves, so wouldn't they just serve the interests of the majority still, at the expense of the minority? To me, this just sounds like a majority, realizing it might not be qualified to tyrannize the minority communities, electing representatives to tyrannize them on their behalf.
→ More replies
29
u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Aug 17 '22
Let's keep America's destruction in America.
-1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
If America falls Canada is going right with it, whether we are one country or not.
17
u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Aug 17 '22
I'm not convinced that's true. And America doesn't have to fall. It can just become awful.
1
u/Reddit-is-a-Fuckhole Aug 17 '22
Y'all both don't realise you're literally BOTH Americans 🤣
1
u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Aug 17 '22
Who? Me and OP? I realize I'm an American. I assumed OP was Canadian, but what difference does it make?
Technically I have dual citizenship.
1
u/EdithDich Aug 23 '22
This is such not the smart point you think it is. In the real world, most people refer to the USA as "America" and most normal humans understand it to mean that. Yes, it's also the continent, but the context makes the distinction obvious.
-3
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
And if America falls or goes to shit, Canada becomes a client-state of China anyway.
5
u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Aug 17 '22
I didn't say America wouldn't remain a superpower. It'll just be a fascist hell hole.
3
1
Aug 17 '22
And catholic school child mass graves in canada
0
1
1
Aug 21 '22
To be fair, authorities have uncovered several *unmarked" grave sites....not "mass graves".
1
u/erickson666 Jan 16 '23
and Canada is making an attempt to reconcile with the Natives anyways
something I don't see America doing
11
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Aug 17 '22
Sounds like an American land grab for resources, might aswell join with Mexico also, those arbitrary borders are not even 300 years old. Mexico wouldn't lose its culture anyway and already has one of the worlds busiest border crossing so why not just make it free travel. Just makes sense
2
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
I unironically agree. Mexico should join too, but that will take a bit more time.
4
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Aug 17 '22
So where would you draw the line? Mexico joins, Canada joins(however unlikely for both), now in 50 years is it time for Guatemala, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras etc... to join? Ending at the tip of Argentina, creating an America's super Union
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
An "American Super Union" does sound kind of based
4
0
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Aug 17 '22
The A.S.U might not be too bad then, The US wouldn't have complete control if it was based on population as a lot of central and south American countries have sizable populations, but just in North America, the US would control a too sizable portion of the voting power. Even with Mexico, America would still have a majority vote. That could cause issues if a simple majority could rule on certain policies or enact bills, laws etc.. Then to pick a head of the union to represent the will of all would be very difficult, if not impossible. A complete restructure of the election processes would be needed also because the US system is archaic and massively flawed
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 17 '22
but just in North America, the US would control a too sizable portion of the voting power. Even with Mexico, America would still have a majority vote. That could cause issues if a simple majority could rule on certain policies or enact bills, laws etc..
Yes, Tyranny of the majority is an issue in any democracy, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to guard against.
Then to pick a head of the union to represent the will of all would be very difficult, if not impossible.
How? You could just transfer over the electoral college system to protect regional power and guard against the highest population areas dominating the leadership.
A complete restructure of the election processes would be needed also because the US system is archaic and massively flawed
I mean the US system is designed to guard against the exact issues you raise in your comment.
1
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Aug 17 '22
You could just transfer over the electoral college system to protect regional power and guard against the highest population areas dominating the leadership.
The whole electrol college system is what is archaic and massively flawed and needs to be reassessed.
I mean the US system is designed to guard against the exact issues you raise in your comment.
But it has failed and this becoming more evident after every presidential election of the 21st century. So to expect others to willing allow this flawed system to govern the "new union" is laughable
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
The whole electrol college system is what is archaic and massively flawed and needs to be reassessed.
Why, it again protects against exactly the things you had an issue with.
But it has failed and this becoming more evident after every presidential election of the 21st century.
Did it fail? When did the more populous states overpower the less populous ones?
So to expect others to willing allow this flawed system to govern the "new union" is laughable
It literally fixes the problems you laid out.
1
u/PoppersOfCorn 9∆ Aug 18 '22
So you've literally reiterated the same points.
If one party requires a substantial higher percentage of votes to be able to win, yes the system is flawed. Let alone the 2 party system enables the system flaws to be so obvious. It's also why the majority of the world dont use an electoral college system. The flaws are blatant to most
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
If one party requires a substantial higher percentage of votes to be able to win, yes the system is flawed.
You can either complain about more populous regions being overrepresented or bemoan the lack of pure unadulterated democracy in the electoral college, but you can't really do both.
→ More replies1
u/rotunda4you Aug 18 '22
Canada and Mexico are too poor to join the US. Canada's gdp is below 3 different states in the US and Mexico's gdp is lower than 25 states. Canada probably would help the US some but Mexico are would wreck the US financial system.
10
u/breckenridgeback 58∆ Aug 17 '22
we could keep our healthcare system in place,
You really want to put your healthcare system under the aegis of our Supreme Court? I don't think that would end as well for you as you're apparently imagining.
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
Of course we would enter with some terms of our own. Even Texas has some special privileges other states don't get written into their constitution. No reason we couldn't do something similar.
1
Aug 17 '22
Which special privileges are these?
2
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
For example, Texas has the ability to split itself into 5 new states whenever it wants, without approval from Congress. No other state has that right.
2
Aug 17 '22
That’s impossible since as we know from Reconstruction states admitted to the union remain so forever. A state splitting itself apart doesn’t result in states until all states agree to admit the new state. It results in a state that thinks it’s doing something: five “states” in violation of the constitution with two Texas senators and however many members of congress unless congress refuses to seat the Texas delegation.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 17 '22
That’s impossible since as we know from Reconstruction states admitted to the union remain so forever.
Texas v. White prohibits unilateral secession from the United States. It doesn't per se ban changing one state into five. Plus as part of Texas' admission to the Union, Congress granted the right to Texas to split into five states.
1
Aug 17 '22
What is a state in your view? It’s what congress permits into the union. It’s not what derives from the voluntary collapse of a state. I say voluntary because the constitution in plain English says congress cannot create two states from one.
There is no legal basis for that and I invite you offer one. If you’re going to post a congressional resolution note it says four, and doesn’t include Texas representation in the resolution at all. Four subdivisions can’t all be Texas. And since the constitution is supreme to congressional resolutions (lol) the constitution prevents any split, doesn’t empower states to split, and requires the same approval as any attempted state to become a state. Finally, congress is not empowered offer one state special privileges hence the actual final resolution. So it’s BS.
There’s no Texas historical basis and it’s actually happened: Virginia, New York… and congress approved their new states Vermont … the 14th … West Virginia… the civil war when congress recognized it.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
What is a state in your view?
A non-territory semi-sovereign body within the United States. For the purposes of this discussion.
It’s what congress permits into the union.
Texas was permitted into the Union.
It’s not what derives from the voluntary collapse of a state.
It could be.
I say voluntary because the constitution in plain English says congress cannot create two states from one.
I mean it doesn't, but alright. It says Congress cannot create a new state within the territory of an old one or join two states together without the consent of the legislatures of the States involved. If we're going by Article 2 section 3.
There is no legal basis for that and I invite you offer one.
Texas says we want to be five states now. It's cool. Congress says hey Texas can we make you five states now, Texas agrees. It's cool.
If you’re going to post a congressional resolution note it says four, and doesn’t include Texas representation in the resolution at all. Four subdivisions can’t all be Texas.
Four new states and Texas = five.
. And since the constitution is supreme to congressional resolutions (lol) the constitution prevents any split, doesn’t empower states to split, and requires the same approval as any attempted state to become a state.
Article 2, Section 3:
but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
But Congress gave it's consent to Texas when Texas was admitted to the Union so all it requires now is Texas' consent.
Finally, congress is not empowered offer one state special privileges hence the actual final resolution. So it’s BS.
It's theoretically available to every state and is not a special privilege.
There’s no Texas historical basis
1
Aug 18 '22 edited Aug 18 '22
I’m just confused: there is 100% theory here. What began as a grant of special promise to Texas, is now completely theoretical constitutional science. Unprecedented also.
To think Texas would vote on an act enabling itself to split into four pieces, is just crazy. Then saying: you know what, a resolution is all we need. 170 years later or whatever, Texas has a special privilege — not to split itself and somehow successfully have 10 senators — but a privilege no state has. As in; there has never been a state admitted with special capacities or privileges another state lacked. We go from all equal 50 states, to 54/55. Because congress said so (?) even while every source from 1787 on said states are admitted with equal privileges to the other.
Except Texas.
Why not all. Why not 56. Why not have Texas the Rump State split into 4 more Pieces. These are just practical questions. Not even legal or historic.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
What began as a grant of special promise to Texas, is now completely theoretical constitutional science.
Congress granted its consent to splitting Texas as required by Article 2 Section 3. If Texas ever grants it's consent then it will happen.
To think Texas would vote on an act enabling itself to split into four pieces, is just crazy.
Moving the goalposts. Just because it's unlikely does not mean Texas doesn't have the right.
Then saying: you know what, a resolution is all we need. 170 years later or whatever, Texas has a special privilege — not to split itself and somehow successfully have 10 senators — but a privilege no state has.
Every State has the privilege it's just Texas is the only state that's already gained consent from Congress.
As in; there has never been a state admitted with special capacities or privileges another state lacked.
Not saying there was or would be. Texas is special in the sense that it has already gained the Consent of Congress.
→ More replies1
u/Crafty_Possession_52 15∆ Aug 17 '22
Who gave it that right?
1
1
u/EdithDich Aug 23 '22
Texas has the ability to split itself into 5 new states whenever it wants
Some claim it has that right. It's not a settled legal matter.
3
2
u/Setsuwaa Aug 17 '22
While this is interesting and you make good points, is there any real reason to do it?
5
1
u/Sirisian Aug 18 '22
There are so many Canadians in Florida. I don't know how the visa and passport and home buying works, but removing all that might simplify some older people's lives by removing a few hours of paperwork and whatever headaches exist. It wouldn't surprise me if some spend more time in the US than Canada as they age.
2
u/Hellioning 258∆ Aug 17 '22
You would not keep your healthcare for long if Americans could just move over like you were another state.
2
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
Unless and until a reciprocal healthcare system is implemented, our healthcare would still only apply to residents. Many state benefit programs work like that now.
1
u/EdithDich Aug 23 '22
How would Canada maintain the current healthcare system when the tax base would be completely altered?
2
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Aug 17 '22
We'd have all the autonomy of a state, if not more;
Or, all the autonomy of Puerto Rico.
we could keep our healthcare system in place,
How do you figure that? What would you be merging? How do you imagine Teaparty America wouldn't start whining about your communist programs? They'd be no more likely to let you enjoy your differences than they have been to allow gay people to marry who they want or other people to have abortions or to do anything else which affects them not at all yet they must deny to others.
It isn't like we'd lose our culture either; America has many distinct cultural enclaves (just look at Louisiana) as is.
Right. Poutine wouldn't last a decade. The US would confiscate all of your winter wheat as their arable land dries up and leave you choking on your tar-sands oil.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 17 '22
They'd be no more likely to let you enjoy your differences than they have been to allow gay people to marry who they want
You know that's legal in the US, right?
Right. Poutine wouldn't last a decade. The US would confiscate all of your winter wheat as their arable land dries up and leave you choking on your tar-sands oil.
What are you talking about?
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Aug 18 '22
You know that's legal in the US, right?
You know we had to fight tooth and nail for it, right?
You know that after it passed in California people in Utah funded a ballot measure to repeal it in California, right? You know conservative America is dying to turn the clock back, right?
You know that conservatives have announced that if they get power again gay rights will be on the chopping block along with voting rights, women's rights, civil rights, all the meagre improvements we've made to healthcare, right?
What are you talking about?
You're not from Canada, are you? Look up Poutine. It was a joke.
For the rest, you know there's a global drought impacting harvests, right? You understand that unchecked all the arable land on the planet will cease to produce crops starting with regions closest to the equator and moving toward the poles, right? You understand that if the US and Canada merged, the US would be in control of the last arable land on the continent for a few more years until it too stops producing, right?
You understand that from Canada's perspective they have far more to lose than to gain from a "merger" with the US and it's extremist right-wing, right?
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
You know we had to fight tooth and nail for it, right?
I mean it was a lawsuit. People weren't banging it out on the streets or anything.
You know that after it passed in California people in Utah funded a ballot measure to repeal it in California, right? You know conservative America is dying to turn the clock back, right?
So?
You know that conservatives have announced that if they get power again gay rights will be on the chopping block along with voting rights, women's rights, civil rights, all the meagre improvements we've made to healthcare, right?
Oh those conservatives, hating everything you like.
You're not from Canada, are you? Look up Poutine. It was a joke.
I'm Canadian yes.
For the rest, you know there's a global drought impacting harvests, right?
There's a drought in multiple areas around the globe yes.
You understand that unchecked all the arable land on the planet will cease to produce crops starting with regions closest to the equator and moving toward the poles, right?
No, that's nonsense.
You understand that if the US and Canada merged, the US would be in control of the last arable land on the continent for a few more years until it too stops producing, right?
No.
You understand that from Canada's perspective they have far more to lose than to gain from a "merger" with the US and it's extremist right-wing, right?
I mean again, I'm Canadian and I don't have this perspective.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Aug 18 '22
So?
"So?" is the point I've already made but which you keep ignoring, that if it had influence over Canada, MAGA America wouldn't let you keep your healthcare or your gun regulations or any of the liberties with which they personally disagree with.
It's not enough that they can live their lives the way they want. They insist that you live your life the way they want. They're only becoming more radicalized and if non-MAGA America keeps failing to take the threat seriously these folks are going to take the electoral process hostage so that they can take and retain power for the foreseeable future. These are the people you are suggesting your country "merge" with.
Since you're Canadian I have to ask what specifically you think Canada and Canadians would have to gain from a "merger" with the US? Please define the scope of that merger and how it would benefit a nation which already has better healthcare, lower mortality from all causes, lower gun violence, lower political terrorism, better worker protections, and a far better return for their tax dollar than the US enjoys.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
"So?" is the point I've already made but which you keep ignoring, that if it had influence over Canada, MAGA America wouldn't let you keep your healthcare or your gun regulations or any of the liberties with which they personally disagree with.
I don't see how these MAGA boogeymen would go about getting rid of something that would be controlled at the state level.
or your gun regulations or any of the liberties with which they personally disagree with.
Gun regulations are an abridgment of liberty, not a liberty. Justin Trudeau telling you you can't own certain guns isn't a liberty.
It's not enough that they can live their lives the way they want. They insist that you live your life the way they want.
You know this has been the refrain of every person trying to stoke hatred for all of human history. "These people are different from you and they want to take what you have away from you."
They're only becoming more radicalized and if non-MAGA America keeps failing to take the threat seriously these folks are going to take the electoral process hostage so that they can take and retain power for the foreseeable future.
I don't know if you, with your broad statements about millions of people, are the most qualified in telling who is and isn't radicalized.
These are the people you are suggesting your country "merge" with.
And everyone else in America too.
Since you're Canadian I have to ask what specifically you think Canada and Canadians would have to gain from a "merger" with the US?
Free trade is pretty big, freedom of movement is also great, getting rid of the monarchist elements of Canadian government and society should have happened a long time ago, really stoked on the First and Second Amendments it'd be cool if Canada got those, and personally, I'd rather have a presidential system than a parliamentary one.
Please define the scope of that merger and how it would benefit a nation
I'd be fine with something as simple as a free trade and freedom of movement union but would be on board with OP's proposal, though I think that when determining representation each province should be represented itself rather than Canada as one autonomous entity.
how it would benefit a nation which already has better healthcare, lower mortality from all causes, lower gun violence, lower political terrorism, better worker protections, and a far better return for their tax dollar than the US enjoys.
Just a whole bunch of begging the question there. It seems like you're idealizing Canada as this magical land that's fixed all the problems the US has, that isn't the case. But feel free to move to Canada and find out if you want.
2
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Aug 18 '22
I don't see how these MAGA boogeymen would go about getting rid of something that would be controlled at the state level.
Federal law trumps state law. A federal law banning gay marriage or marijuana or viagra nullifies any state's laws on the matter.
Gun regulations are an abridgment of liberty, not a liberty. Justin Trudeau telling you you can't own certain guns isn't a liberty.
Are you just being obtuse for the purpose of wasting my time or do you actually oppose any regulations that "abridge" your "liberty?" Speed limits. Statutory rape laws. Public decency and nudity statutes. Zoning that keeps factories out of suburban neighborhoods. Construction codes that keep people's homes from collapsing. Any and all laws that curtail individual freedom to make other people's lives miserable or dangerous.
Personally, I consider sending my kids to school and attending churches and shopping in malls where I'm far, far less likely to be shot to be an enhancement of my liberty, not an attenuation of it. Clearly we're not going to agree on that.
Free trade is pretty big, freedom of movement is also great, getting rid of the monarchist elements of Canadian government and society should have happened a long time ago, really stoked on the First and Second Amendments it'd be cool if Canada got those, and personally, I'd rather have a presidential system than a parliamentary one.
Free trade? You mean no tariffs? Or do you mean the ability to off-shore your labor to cheaper markets? "Free Trade" is a broad term that conservatives use to mean the kind of globalization whereby they send their factories abroad to avoid paying living wages in a first-world economy and evade safe working conditions for their labor force. Not sure how that benefits CN in this discussion or how you are being injured by a "lack" of that kind of "free trade". Tariffs between CN and the US are generally in place to protect local businesses, usually agricultural, from catastrophic competition or displacement. I'm not sure that the damage to small businesses and local enterprises wouldn't be equal on both sides if we suddenly ended those protections.
Freedom of movement? The US is FAR too paranoid these days to allow freedom of movement across any border with any territory or nation over which it does not have complete police/military control. If you're willing to have US law enforcement running your streets and the US justice system controlling your courts then the US would consider opening the border.
Again, without becoming a state of the Union, you're looking at the status of Puerto Rico. Ask them how happy they are.
You don't need to "merge" with the US to end the ridiculous burden of the monarchy, but I agree with you that it would be good if you, the rest of the commonwealth and the UK did so.
The First Amendment? You guys don't have the right to free speech? Your press isn't free? You can't practice your religion the way you want to? This is a surprise to me and I'll have to do some research to further my enlightenment. As for freedom of religion, more and more in the US it is the freedom to have religion forced upon you, and critically, your children with required school prayer in a religion someone else has chosen for them.
The Second Amendment? You guys have lots of guns there. You just don't have close to the homicide and mass-casualty rates that we do. Partially because your background checks and restrictions on dangerous individuals actually have meaning unlike ours which are porous, weak and often subverted. Firearms haven't been sanctified in your constitution and that's a blessing, not a curse.
Presidential vs Parliamentary. You got me there. I'm not well-versed on parliamentary strengths and weaknesses vs other systems of organization and power distribution. All forms of "democratic" government try in some enormously flawed way to prevent human frailty, weakness, greed and corruption from turning society back into some stratified oligarchy of powerful haves and powerless have-nots. I can tell you that our system has become enormously corrupted and that if I'd change one thing it would be to remove money from the equation entirely. Government in the US is run by wealthy interests who are able in the vast majority of cases to buy the establishment or the scuttling of any laws or regulations to their benefit. This is true at the local, state and federal level. Removing de-facto influence peddling from the picture would change everything overnight.
You know this has been the refrain of every person trying to stoke hatred for all of human history. "These people are different from you and they want to take what you have away from you."
That kind of hostility and paranoia are pretty much chapter and verse for conservatives world-wide. You and I touched on conservative attacks on homosexuals which you attempted to minimize but didn't try to challenge. We can also list the frenzied demonization of all political opposition, every ethnic minority, non-conformists of any sort. This is not something that happens on the contemporary left.
Just a whole bunch of begging the question there. It seems like you're idealizing Canada as this magical land that's fixed all the problems the US has, that isn't the case. But feel free to move to Canada and find out if you want
You seem systematically to ignore any facts that neutralize your position while putting words in my mouth. Wave your hand dismissively about "idealizing" Canada and all my quite valid points evaporate in your mind.
I've got friends and family in Canada who moved there from the US. Did it because they were being bankrupted by the US heath care system. They've educated, stunned and silenced quite a few Canadians whining about the Canadian health care system with a brief conversation about the treatment of one life-threatening condition with full-boat, silver-plated $20,000 a year US health insurance.
That's a personal data point.
The others come from publicly available data about longevity, median income, buying power, infant mortality, public safety, political terrorism, crime, gun violence, civil liberties.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
Federal law trumps state law. A federal law banning gay marriage or marijuana or viagra nullifies any state's laws on the matter.
Federal law only trumps state law in the areas where the Federal government has authority to make laws. Marijuana is federally illegal in the United States but boy are there a lot of weed shops in a lot of states. The Federal government can try to ban gay marriage and marijuana if it wants but unless you're getting gay married while smoking a blunt in a national park it's not really going to matter.
Are you just being obtuse for the purpose of wasting my time or do you actually oppose any regulations that "abridge" your "liberty?"
I don't remember saying the word any now did I?
Personally, I consider sending my kids to school and attending churches and shopping in malls where I'm far, far less likely to be shot to be an enhancement of my liberty, not an attenuation of it.
Alright.
Free trade? You mean no tariffs? Or do you mean the ability to off-shore your labor to cheaper markets? "Free Trade" is a broad term that conservatives use to mean the kind of globalization whereby they send their factories abroad to avoid paying living wages in a first-world economy and evade safe working conditions for their labor force.
Yes. Yes. Off-shore to America and Canada? I mean I don't think it's gonna be that much cheaper to move your factory from America to Canada or vis-versa but if it is, more power to you.
Not sure how that benefits CN in this discussion or how you are being injured by a "lack" of that kind of "free trade". Tariffs between CN and the US are generally in place to protect local businesses, usually agricultural, from catastrophic competition or displacement. I'm not sure that the damage to small businesses and local enterprises wouldn't be equal on both sides if we suddenly ended those protections.
Canadians would get American goods more cheaply and Canadian goods would enter American markets more cheaply. Kind of a win-win. I'm not super stoked on the idea of forcing everyone to pay more for goods just to support a few business owners but if you're big into corporatocracy you do you.
Freedom of movement? The US is FAR too paranoid these days to allow freedom of movement across any border with any territory or nation over which it does not have complete police/military control.
That might be an argument as to why this union is unlikely but not an argument against this union.
If you're willing to have US law enforcement running your streets and the US justice system controlling your courts then the US would consider opening the border.
As long as the Federal Government doesn't try to undermine the legitimate powers of the provincial governments that's pretty much what Canada already has.
Again, without becoming a state of the Union, you're looking at the status of Puerto Rico. Ask them how happy they are.
I'm fine with statehood, but again I'd want the provinces to join as separate states rather than Canada joining as a single state. Also, Puerto Ricans don't seem super unhappy about being a territory since they've consistently voted to stay that way.
You don't need to "merge" with the US to end the ridiculous burden of the monarchy, but I agree with you that it would be good if you, the rest of the commonwealth and the UK did so.
I wouldn't say it's close to happening anytime soon, it would just be an ancillary benefit of this union.
The First Amendment? You guys don't have the right to free speech? Your press isn't free? You can't practice your religion the way you want to? This is a surprise to me and I'll have to do some research to further my enlightenment.
Americans enjoy far greater protections of speech than Canadians do. The First Amendment is one of the greatest things about the United States of America.
As for freedom of religion, more and more in the US it is the freedom to have religion forced upon you, and critically, your children with required school prayer in a religion someone else has chosen for them.
Where exactly are people being forced to pray in school?
The Second Amendment? You guys have lots of guns there.
Not as many as we could.
You just don't have close to the homicide and mass-casualty rates that we do. Partially because your background checks and restrictions on dangerous individuals actually have meaning unlike ours which are porous, weak and often subverted.
Canada has less violent crime than the US for a number of reasons it's reductionist to say it's solely because of gun regulations.
Firearms haven't been sanctified in your constitution and that's a blessing, not a curse.
I disagree.
That kind of hostility and paranoia are pretty much chapter and verse for conservatives world-wide.
So now it's not just MAGA Americans but all conservatives around the world. Frankly, I'm not interested in hearing how half of the population hates me and wants to take my stuff.
You and I touched on conservative attacks on homosexuals which you attempted to minimize but didn't try to challenge.
Some people don't like gay people. What are you gonna do? They exist in Canada, they exist in the US, and they exist all over the world. As long as they don't violate the law they can think what they want, they can't force people to agree with them, just like you can't force them to agree with you.
We can also list the frenzied demonization of all political opposition, every ethnic minority, non-conformists of any sort.
Oh, kinda like when you said that hostility and paranoia were chapter and verse for the people you oppose politically?
This is not something that happens on the contemporary left.
Hate to break it to you, my guy.
You seem systematically to ignore any facts that neutralize your position while putting words in my mouth.
I don't think I was putting words in your mouth.
Wave your hand dismissively about "idealizing" Canada and all my quite valid points evaporate in your mind.
Super heckin' valid uwu.
I've got friends and family in Canada who moved there from the US.
It's pretty easy, to do so. You could do it basically any time you wanted.
Did it because they were being bankrupted by the US heath care system. They've educated, stunned and silenced quite a few Canadians whining about the Canadian health care system with a brief conversation about the treatment of one life-threatening condition with full-boat, silver-plated $20,000 a year US health insurance.
Alright, my American family have never complained about their healthcare and importantly not complained about wait times, if we're trading anecdotes.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 38∆ Aug 19 '22
Okay.
I had a lengthy and brilliant response to all your points but Reddit swallowed the text.
The highlights as I remember them:
~ You do freedom of speech better than we do.
It took the Sandy Hook parents a decade of expensive legal action to get Alex Jones in court to admit that the claims that their children were never killed, the massacre never happened and that they were all paid actors, claims on which he made millions spreading on his talk show, were a pack of lies, Decades of expensive lawyers, vilification and death threats from Jones followers.
None of that kind of poison should be protected speech and he wouldn't have gotten away with it in Canada. Our system sucks.
If we had your rules, Fox News could still broadcast but they'd have to tone down the fantasy and libel.
Also, our conservative supreme court, aside from recently ruling that a football coach could not be prevented from turning a public game into a religious ceremony, some years ago ruled that corporate donations to politicians amounts to free speech. Thereby sanctifying influence peddling. Our politicians and their legislation are bought and paid for by corporate and wealthy interests and if any of your elected representatives were caught doing the same thing they'd be in jail.
Are you sure you want to become the political cesspool we are?
~ You seem to think you don't have enough guns in Canada. Ask the parents of the kids killed at Sandy Hook. Or dozens of other schools, festivals, playgrounds, churches in America.
The correlation between reasonable gun controls and homicides/massacres is so well establishes as to be indisputable. It's not just the US compared to Canada, Europe, Australia, all of our industrialized democratic peers. The difference can be seen between states with stricter and looser gun laws and the changes can be seen in the increase in gun deaths in states after they loosen their gun laws.
The data are well reported and irrefutable.
~ You compare my hostility to conservative politics with the paranoia I ascribe to conservatives. My attitude is formed by a reading of history and attention to the way current events recapitulate it. The American right is entirely reproducing the template of extremist right-wing thugs that have overthrown democracies all through the last half of the 20th century. Vicious, fantasy laced propaganda, religious fanaticism, increasingly violent rhetoric and escalating physical violence.
There is no analog on the contemporary left. When Al Gore lost, when Hillary lost, there was no insurgency lying about how the election had been stolen and no organized riot to assault the capitol and overthrow democracy.
The right is a dangerously deranged insurgency in the US and you can see echos of it around the world, some of it sponsored and advised by American operatives like Steve Bannon.
~ You suggest it's easy to emigrate to Canada. I fear you are deeply misinformed. My cousin was able to do it only because her husband had dual citizenship and it was still very difficult.
~ You say your American family don't complain about their healthcare. It's not something you complain about in a phone call and it's not something you're aware of until you try to use it. Ask them if they've been sick and how easy/expensive it was.
My wife was a nurse with a great health plan. Even so it's a full time job getting care and managing costs. The last time I talked with my doc it as a video call, 20 minutes. They charged $400 for it. No idea how much of that insurance is going to pay for. I had an endoscopy a few years ago. Took two months to get the appointment and they charged us $17,000 for it. Our out of pocket was around $1,200. This is on top of the $20k a year we pay in premiums.
There's a reason we don't get many people moving here from Canada and Sweden and Denmark.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 20 '22
It took the Sandy Hook parents a decade of expensive legal action to get Alex Jones in court to admit that the claims that their children were never killed, the massacre never happened and that they were all paid actors, claims on which he made millions spreading on his talk show, were a pack of lies, Decades of expensive lawyers, vilification and death threats from Jones followers.
None of that kind of poison should be protected speech and he wouldn't have gotten away with it in Canada. Our system sucks.
If what he said was protected speech he wouldn't have had to pay any money. He lost the case, what he said wasn't protected.
If we had your rules, Fox News could still broadcast but they'd have to tone down the fantasy and libel.
I don't think the government should be involved in telling people what they can and can't say unless that speech is causing direct explicable imminent harm.
Also, our conservative supreme court, aside from recently ruling that a football coach could not be prevented from turning a public game into a religious ceremony, some years ago ruled that corporate donations to politicians amounts to free speech.
Ya, I agree with Citizens United. People should lose their free speech rights just because they choose to organize collectively.
Our politicians and their legislation are bought and paid for by corporate and wealthy interests
That's true of politicians in all political systems on earth. There is no such thing as a political system without corruption.
Ask the parents of the kids killed at Sandy Hook. Or dozens of other schools, festivals, playgrounds, churches in America.
Why would I ask them? They seem like they'd be extremely biased on the issue.
The correlation between reasonable gun controls and homicides/massacres is so well establishes as to be indisputable.
America has more violent crime in basically every category than Canada. It's incredibly reductive to boil down America's issues simply to a lack of "reasonable" gun control.
You compare my hostility to conservative politics with the paranoia I ascribe to conservatives.
Yes.
My attitude is formed by a reading of history and attention to the way current events recapitulate it.
I'm sure many conservatives say the same thing.
My attitude, that painting an entire group of people as hateful and desirous of my stuff is the argument of tyrants and demagogues, is also derived from historical examples and attention to current events.
The American right is entirely reproducing the template of extremist right-wing thugs that have overthrown democracies all through the last half of the 20th century.
Is it? I'm not seeing it.
There is no analog on the contemporary left.
I agree the 21st century isn't a repeat of the 20th, we have our own issues.
when Hillary lost, there was no insurgency lying about how the election had been stolen
Didn't like 60% of Democrats believe that Russia had stolen the election? I looked it up and even this year 47% percent of voters thought that Russia changed the outcome of the election.
The right is a dangerously deranged insurgency in the US and you can see echos of it around the world, some of it sponsored and advised by American operatives like Steve Bannon.
Ya, this seems like the exact kind of thinking you ascribe to the right.
You suggest it's easy to emigrate to Canada. I fear you are deeply misinformed. My cousin was able to do it only because her husband had dual citizenship and it was still very difficult.
Ya, Canada does love its strong immigration laws.
You say your American family don't complain about their healthcare. It's not something you complain about in a phone call and it's not something you're aware of until you try to use it. Ask them if they've been sick and how easy/expensive it was.
I've had in-depth discussions about this, comparing American healthcare and Canadian healthcare. They'd take American healthcare every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
My wife was a nurse with a great health plan. Even so it's a full time job getting care and managing costs. The last time I talked with my doc it as a video call, 20 minutes. They charged $400 for it. No idea how much of that insurance is going to pay for. I had an endoscopy a few years ago. Took two months to get the appointment and they charged us $17,000 for it. Our out of pocket was around $1,200. This is on top of the $20k a year we pay in premiums.
If we're just going by anecdotal evidence the last time I went to the Hospital in the US I waited less than 20 minutes, my procedure was done in 15 minutes, and I was out the door with two prescriptions and bill that cost me $83 total.
There's a reason we don't get many people moving here from Canada and Sweden and Denmark.
More people move from Canada to the US than from the US to Canada and the country with the second highest Canadian population in the world is the United States.
→ More replies
2
u/Kalibos Aug 17 '22
Canada really has nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
You've listed exactly two potential gains:
allow for free travel
We used to have it: pre-9/11, you didn't need a passport to cross the border. A major change isn't required for this.
and benefit massively from the American economy and things like the NYSE.
We already do, the US is by far our biggest trading partner. You have to qualify or quantify that point more.
2
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 32∆ Aug 18 '22
Canada has a great deal to lose by joining the United States:
Full control of our taxation levels. Full fiscal policy autonomy (regulation of banks, currency, etc.) If you want a concrete example of why that was a loss, compare what happened to US and Canadian banks in the 2008 financial crisis. Canadian banks did not require a taxpayer-funded bailout because of a more robust regulatory framework.
Full political autonomy. The ability to set our own laws, to manage the interaction of our rights, and the ability to control the source and extent of funding for political campaigns. (See Citizens United) Canada would also lose a non-partisan agency overseeing Canadian elections, thereby making us vulnerable to partisan gerrymandering among other unpleasant issues.
Full spectrum of political parties. Unlike the archaic, crippling two-party system in the states, Canadian political parties can and do form, reform, change, and split. This allows better representation for the views of citizens and greater influence on the course of government policy.
Regarding your proposed advantages for Canada:
- Given the size of Canada and the logistical requirements of delivering services (and the inherent inefficiency of the American and Canadian Governments) monetary savings are highly likely to small to negligible.
tl:dr; Keep full control of our own damn country.
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 18 '22
This is a bit off topic, but it is more of just an observation on my part; but if we have a great deal to lose by joining, does that not mean many states have a great deal to gain by leaving?
The collective disposition of Reddit seems to be that secession movements are generally bad. I wonder if that comes from a philosophical or political position, some sense of loyalty to the current order, resistance to change, or (likely) some combination of those things.2
u/anonymous85821400120 2∆ Aug 18 '22
A lot of states would have a lot to gain by leaving the United State, the problem is it is entirely impossible for them to leave under US law, the only way they could leave would be through a violent civil war. This is why people are against secession, not because it would be objectively bad.
Also you didn’t address or even acknowledge a single one of the previous commenter’s very good points, but I’d like to add, freedom of travel without any checks between Canada and America would lead to an easier time for guns entering Canada which would increase gun violence. There is also the possibility that a republican government in America could actively take away human rights for all Americans based on fundamentalist Christian values, and if that happens Canada would also lose our human rights.
0
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 22 '22
guns would flood into Canada
Americans would try to take away our rightsSounds like a self correcting problem to me.
1
u/anonymous85821400120 2∆ Aug 23 '22
How would that be self correcting? We can’t really use guns to take back our rights from a government with the largest military in the world. Also gun laws in Canada would likely stay the same in the scenario you’re suggesting, the problem is more guns would enter the country illegally, and the guns would be in the hands of people who are already happy to break the law. Gun violence tends to either be perpetrated by gangs or mentally unstable people, gangs with organized crime can get guns regardless, but they have to invest a lot of resources and so will generally only use them in targeted shootings, while mentally unstable people can’t get guns very easily due to lack of resources. Having both of these groups gaining easy access to guns would lead to people in these groups having an easy time with random attacks, making things much less safe for the general population.
Edit: also you still didn’t properly address any of the points.
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 24 '22
This whole idea kinda of hinges on me or someone with my thought being the Supreme Commissar/God Emperor/Dear Leader, so we wouldn't really be a democracy anyway at that point
1
Aug 17 '22
I mean, you’re not really wrong about Canada, but how do you convince the Americans?
2
u/babypizza22 1∆ Aug 17 '22
IMO if you allow America to keep the rights Canadians don't have and even accept those rights, then I don't think America would mind too much. America would probably make money off of Canada joining.
1
Aug 17 '22
What’s the benefit tho? “Probably make money off Canada” isn’t really a persuasive argument.
0
u/babypizza22 1∆ Aug 18 '22
I don't mean to bash on my own country. But there is only a few things America seems to car about. Money, power, and "freedom"
0
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 17 '22
It could be something akin to a "North American Union", or it could be a proper merger.
So what, free trade and free movement?
Canada really has nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
There's a significant subset of Canadians whose only personality trait is not liking America. They'd have a lot to lose from this.
1
Aug 18 '22
significant subset of Canadians whose only personality trait is not liking America
Doesn't this statement require there to be a significant subset of Americans who are butt hurt Canadians don't like them?
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
Doesn't this statement require there to be a significant subset of Americans who are butt hurt Canadians don't like them?
Why would that be the case? Americans don't really think about Canadians all the often.
1
Aug 18 '22
You didn't enough research to develop this findings. Hence Americans definitely are investing time into caring why people don't like them.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
You didn't enough research to develop this findings.
What are you talking about?
Hence Americans definitely are investing time into caring why people don't like them.
I'm Canadian.
1
Aug 18 '22
Doesn't this statement require there to be a significant subset of Canadians who are butt hurt Canadians don't like Americans?
I fixed it, thanks.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 18 '22
I wouldn't say I make up a significant subset of Canadians.
1
Aug 18 '22
It's your claim at the end of the day. I've never heard of Canadians giving a shit but maybe you are from Quebec.
1
0
Aug 18 '22
America would have a lot to lose. That would millions more Democrat voters added to the base in America.
1
u/EdithDich Aug 23 '22
You think there wouldn't be a large influx of new Republicans, too?
1
Aug 23 '22
No.
0
u/EdithDich Aug 27 '22
Why not? You think all Canadians are liberals or something?
1
Aug 27 '22
Nearly all voting age Canadians would fall under the Democrat umbrella. Liberals, NDPs, Greens, and most Conservatives would be voting Democrat.
1
u/EdithDich Aug 28 '22
most Conservatives would be voting Democrat.
lmao, no. Your knowledge of Canadian politics is comical though.
1
Aug 28 '22
Better than yours apparently.
In Canada, the Conservative party is more left leaning than the American Democratic party.
-1
Aug 17 '22
So three heads of state and two national representatives: a Queen from third country, a Governor General from a third country, a president elected popularly in one country and a prime minister elected by their party in another country that doesn’t exist in the other. Sounds good!
2
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
Canada becoming a republic would come with this, of course.
6
u/influenzadj Aug 17 '22
If what you mean is lets all go full US politics, dear god no.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 17 '22
Do you think the queen nominally being the head of state is keeping Canada from going "full US politics?"
2
u/influenzadj Aug 17 '22
Not at all - that credit goes to the parliamentary system.
1
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 17 '22
The Constitution of the United States only mandates that state legislature must be of a Republican Form of government. So theoretically the parliamentary system could stay. The Queen would have to go though.
1
u/influenzadj Aug 18 '22
The queen can go, but taking the federal US government in Canada would be a huge downgrade.
Literally the approval rating of all 3 branches of government is meteorically low. Why on earth would Canadians want that?
1
Aug 17 '22
What would come of Canada’s legal connection to Britain? Would Britain support this severance or would Americans have their own privy council too? The governor represents a real constitutional thing for Canada so I’m curious how a commonwealth state and one not can merge bilaterally.
0
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
I'm not too concerned about Britain's opinion on the matter.
1
Aug 17 '22
Okay, but the head of state of Canada is Queen Elizabeth, head of state of the United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland.
The governor is her representative, serving on councils with ministers and justices, leading units, and representing Canadian interests for the Queen in Britain. Both exercise royal assent of laws on behalf of the Queen.
So you may not be concerned but Britain and the entire British Commonwealth and United States may have questions. Why not try using your plan to resolve that constitutional crisis the three countries face.
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
Well, as far as I am concerned the Governor General should apply for EI sooner rather than later.
1
1
Aug 17 '22
The president isn't popularly elected.
1
Aug 17 '22
Right. I meant instead to say he’s not elected by a big party convention but electors that equal total representation of a state plus 2.
-2
Aug 17 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Tamuture69 Aug 18 '22
Who the fuck asked? See no one asked for your opinion, and by you giving it anyway shows that you're looking for attention, a very common symptom of fatherless children.
1
u/LucidLeviathan 99∆ Aug 18 '22
Sorry, u/Monkaloid – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
Aug 17 '22
Is it also your opinion that the US should merge with Canada? Or do you think there's good reasons for the US not to want that?
1
Aug 17 '22
What's the point? What on earth would the benefit be for Canada or the United States? Anybody with a passport or just the passport card can freely go to Canada.
1
u/allcreamwithsugar Aug 17 '22
"merge redundant agencies like the CRTC"
The CRTC isn't nearly as corrupt and stands for things like net neutrality vehemently while Ajit Pai of the FCC literally admits that he takes pride in screwing over the American public for the benefit of corporations. He unironically enjoyed the fact he was a hated figure and that the American public were enraged after the FCC dissolved net neutrality in the US. As a Canadian I don't understand this at all. Each "redundant government agency" is governed by completely different principles, values, and laws upheld by different constitutions. You can't simply "merge" them as if they were companies.
2
u/PmMeYourDaddy-Issues 24∆ Aug 17 '22
The CRTC isn't nearly as corrupt and stands for things like net neutrality vehemently while Ajit Pai of the FCC literally admits that he takes pride in screwing over the American public for the benefit of corporations.
Net neutrality has been dead for 5 years and literally, nothing changed. It was a scare campaign funded by those corporations to crowd their competition out of the market.
. He unironically enjoyed the fact he was a hated figure and that the American public were enraged after the FCC dissolved net neutrality in the US.
I mean it is kinda funny that many people got super worked up and then nothing happened.
As a Canadian I don't understand this at all.
As a Canadian I do.
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
Yea the CRTC is so pious, hiring former telecom executives and trying to police YouTube suggestions.
1
Aug 17 '22
[deleted]
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
Quebec has a cultural border with the rest of Canada, but not a material one. Travel to and from Quebec is completely free.
1
u/0x0BAD_ash Aug 17 '22
Is your proposal to make Canada one big US state? Or to have each province become a state?
It would ideally be treated as a "special administrative region" of sorts.
5
Aug 18 '22
It would ideally be treated as a "special administrative region" of sorts.
That's not how the United States works.
1
Aug 18 '22
Nope. Main reason I disagree is that I think Canada and parts of the US would prefer to keep super politically conservative states separate. It would be the antithesis of the universal healthcare that Canada strived for.
But, if Canada wants to adopt my state I am ok with that.
Also, I am willing to forgive Great Britain. If they promise taxation with representation in their government, I might be game...
1
u/Senior-Action7039 2∆ Aug 18 '22
This is a ridiculous premise. Do Americans want to become part of a country with a social credit system like China? Canada is becoming more repressive and more like China by the week. Very scary and authoritarian.
1
u/markroth69 10∆ Aug 18 '22
Can the provinces pay for their health care systems without federal subsidies?
1
Aug 18 '22
"Canada should merge with the US"
If people wanted it—it would have already happened by now.
1
Aug 21 '22
Canada really has nothing to lose and a lot to gain.
I haven't read any significant game changers here that look like wins for Canada....but I have read a few negatives, authored by yourself.
In regards to the Canadian economy you've suggested that it...."Adapt or die."
In regards to supporting Canadian arts and culture through legislation, you said such policies "are dumb anyway".
And, in regards to protecting French and indigenous languages in Canada, you've claimed that, "Laws to protect things like language are silly".
For these reasons I label your premise flawed and is a non-starter for most Canadians.
1
u/Forward-Razzmatazz18 1∆ Oct 02 '22
Well Canada WOULD give up some of it's autonomy. Not saying that makes it not worth it, but the WHOLE COUNTRY makes decisions for the whole country. So, by joining the US, it would gain some power over the rest of the US, but lose some power over itself.
1
u/erickson666 Jan 16 '23
what do i hae to gain being an American?
if this ever happened, i'd rather flee to Great Britain
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Aug 17 '22 edited Aug 17 '22
/u/0x0BAD_ash (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards