NationStates Jolt Archive

A surprising number of people have said on these forums that they want to see the US and Canada unite into one nation. I just want to see what your thoughts are on this.

If the European Union is ever successful in creating one huge supercontinental nation of Europe, then in order to balance them out well enough, US and Canada should unite.

United North america (http://www.Unitednorthamerica.org)

No they shouldn't merge. The only part of Canada I would support merging with is Alberta. ;)

Actually I'd like to see just the opposite -for the USA to become a confederacy.

No they shouldn't merge. The only part of Canada I would support merging with is Alberta. ;)
Why them? Their oil reserves?

Actually I'd like to see just the opposite -for the USA to become a confederacy.
Do you mean the USA becoming part of Canada, or our states to become more loosily joined than today?

It's a nice thought, I think the world is much better off united than divided. Although there are many social and economic obstructions.

In the long run, yay.
Overnight, no.

i love canada but i dont see any reason to be one country
and what about mexico? if its gonna be pan-northamerican shouldnt it include mexico and central america? perhaps all the carribean islands too?

It's called NAFTA.

i love canada but i dont see any reason to be one country
and what about mexico? if its gonna be pan-northamerican shouldnt it include mexico and central america? perhaps all the carribean islands too?
Well personally, I want them all to join. Imagine how much stronger we'd all be. But let's take baby steps, and bring Canada first. Mexico can join too, but I see that as being somewhat more unlikely than Canada joining.

Yes, but let's take it a step further. Call it the United States of the World. Start with US and Canada, then add a few more, then more and more and more and more. And eventually the EU will be in it. Then we will just be Earthlings. No more countries.

It's called NAFTA.
NAFTA is extremely loose. Besides, it leaves out critical parts of a streamlined economy, like a currency.

Actually, I remember hearing something about a PAFTA (Pan-American Free Trade Agreement) that would include every American country (north and south) except Cuba...silly commies...

Actually, I remember hearing something about a PAFTA (Pan-American Free Trade Agreement) that would include every American country (north and south) except Cuba...silly commies...
It's in the works. It won't pass this year, as this is an election year in the US. However, it'll undoubtedly be passed, and will be more powerful than the Organization of American States in pan America cooperation.

It's really all just a scheme to strengthen the US economy...

Yes, but let's take it a step further. Call it the United States of the World. Start with US and Canada, then add a few more, then more and more and more and more. And eventually the EU will be in it. Then we will just be Earthlings. No more countries.
Imagine there's no countries...(sic) How nice to see a peaceful thread. Having lived through part of the mess of reuniting capitalist Western Germany and the washed-up Iron curtain mess of East Germany, I must caution you, though: It's not easy to unite countries, costs a lot of money, creates a lot of bad blood and problems nobody ever thought of before (...and that was after a mere 45 years of separation!)

It's really all just a scheme to strengthen the US economy...
It will definitly do that, no one's hiding that fact. But free trade should also strengthen the other economies. In free trade, it's always a win-win. Protectionism is lose-lose.

No, free trade weakens the USA economy, not vice versa, largely since it makes outsourcing and importation cheaper and easier, and also tends to balance out and strengthen weaker partners (but also encourages emigration from poorer countries.) However, i dont see why moves towards PAFTA shouldnt be made, many nations would be elated, except for some holdouts like the Venezuelans, and some questionable countries like the Cubans whose government policies are not in favor of the type of mentality needed to participate in a commercial union of this type.

As for a North American union, it isnt really all that necessary. Its close to the case already. Same goes for the confederation of the US. States coexist peacefully despite significant policy diffrences. Both movements can go on at the same time. They arent the "opposite" of each other.

...or our states to become more loosily joined than today?

Aye, that's the one.

In free trade, it's always a win-win. Protectionism is lose-lose.

Money doesnt grow on trees. Fair trade is win-lose, but the people taking the losses are generally capable, and it tends to encourage growth. It probably brings long term benefit.

Protectionism is good for the nation imposing as long as its quite limited and doesnt cause degredation of trade entirely. It in facts needs to encourage unfair trade relations to work. Look how the EU is whoring countries like South Africa right now.

Why them? Their oil reserves?
They're the only ones that would make sensible political decisions in the senate and house of representatives. Places like Manitoba or BC have potential, but first you have to make sure the populations of places like Winnipeg and Victoria flee. :p

No, free trade weakens the USA economy, not vice versa, largely since it makes outsourcing and importation cheaper and easier, and also tends to balance out and strengthen weaker partners (but also encourages emigration from poorer countries.) However, i dont see why moves towards PAFTA shouldnt be made, many nations would be elated, except for some holdouts like the Venezuelans, and some questionable countries like the Cubans whose government policies are not in favor of the type of mentality needed to participate in a commercial union of this type.

As for a North American union, it isnt really all that necessary. Its close to the case already. Same goes for the confederation of the US. States coexist peacefully despite significant policy diffrences. Both movements can go on at the same time. They arent the "opposite" of each other.
Outsourcing, starting in the 1950s with manufacturing jobs, has been quite a boon to the US economy. Cheaper products for consumers, and contrary to protectionist fearmongering, it has not led to the mass exodus of jobs from the US.

I'd like to see the nations remain politically separate, just so I have somewhere to emigrate, should the U.S. become a theocracy.

They're the only ones that would make sensible political decisions in the senate and house of representatives. Places like Manitoba or BC have potential, but first you have to make sure the populations of places like Winnipeg and Victoria flee. :p
While we're at it, Yukon should also be annexed.

Over my dead cold Canadian body!

Canada has more natural resources then any one in the world.. I think Canada is just fine the way it is, thanks any way!

Over my dead cold Canadian body!

Canada has more natural resources then any one in the world.. I think Canada is just fine the way it is, thanks any way!
You tell them!!!

Protectionism is good for the nation imposing as long as its quite limited and doesnt cause degredation of trade entirely. It in facts needs to encourage unfair trade relations to work. Look how the EU is whoring countries like South Africa right now.
That is a trap protectionists set up for members. Look at Japan. Even though it boomed for much of the second half of the 20th century, it was stagnant in the nineties. It's recovering, but the reason why is because Koizumi ended many subsidies, reduced tariffs, and forced the central bank to give loans on tougher conditions, rather than having them just prop failing businesses. Besides, protectionists have no grasp of the comparative advantage concept. Every nation has a niche, and it doesn't need to be a natural resource. Even nations that don't produce much can find niches in services.

I'd like to see the nations remain politically separate, just so I have somewhere to emigrate, should the U.S. become a theocracy.
I'm guessing you mean the Fundementalist Christian movement of the 1990s. They were a flame in the GOP, and while they have influence, that flame is pretty much dead. Besides, the neocons have gained more popularity in the GOP.

I'm guessing you mean the Fundementalist Christian movement of the 1990s. They were a flame in the GOP, and while they have influence, that flame is pretty much dead. Besides, the neocons have gained more popularity in the GOP.

Don't be so sure; there has been a persistent anti-intellectual, pro-fundamentalist bent to the body politic for much of the nation's history. While I hope that you're right, I'm keeping my eyes open.

By the by, ever read If This Goes On.. by Robert A Heinlein?

Actually I'd like to see just the opposite -for the USA to become a confederacy.
I agree with this man. Gigantic beurocratic federal superstates are destined to fail. Like the USSR.

Don't be so sure; there has been a persistent anti-intellectual, pro-fundamentalist bent to the body politic for much of the nation's history. While I hope that you're right, I'm keeping my eyes open.

By the by, ever read If This Goes On.. by Robert A Heinlein?
No. And sure, a lobby for the fundementalist Christians has always been around, but the Moral Majority type have pretty much died out. Bush having a strong Christian backround doesn't count, either. His rhetoric or policies come no where near Jerry Falwell's.

I agree with this man. Gigantic beurocratic federal superstates are destined to fail. Like the USSR.
The USSR had several diverse nations inside it, and was the epitome of a nanny state. The US doesn't even come close.

No. And sure, a lobby for the fundementalist Christians has always been around, but the Moral Majority type have pretty much died out. Bush having a strong Christian backround doesn't count, either. His rhetoric or policies come no where near Jerry Falwell's.

Like I said, I hope you're right.

Well, this is why I am in favor of it.
What is the difference between the average American, and the average Canadian? With the exception of the Quebecois, not much. On a personal and cultural level, a union of the two wouldn't be felt by many, and ultimatly, no one would care.
It benefits Canada because it has nothing to loose, but a lot to gain. The Canadian Federation is rather loose right now. But there are generous social features, such as universal healthcare, prescription drug controls, etc. The new states could easily keep these measures at the state level, and modify each program to the province-turned-state's specific needs. In addition, there'd be less of a burden for supporting national programs like defense, or a national law enforcement agency.
As for the US, there are many economical benefits. It'd mean a common currency, and trade without bounds. It'd mean streamlining of regulations, and it'd make the US market more attractive to foreign investors. After all, Canada will add an additional 10% to our population. Besides, it'd help to eliminate things like border crossings, that are a pain in the ass for us all. It is a win-win situation.

Like I said, I hope you're right.
I know I am. Even if they had major influence, there are so many different moral issues in America, that they cross-cut into eachother. One issue doesn't dominate over the other. Take abortion and gay marraiges. Not everyone that is pro-life is also anti-gay marraiges, and vice versa. It was the basis of the Federalist Papers of Alexander Hamilton.

I know I am.

Must be nice. I'm incapable of knowing that I'm absolutely, one-hundred-percent right on any given issue.

Guess that's why I'm agnostic.

No thanks. Canada and America are just slightly different countries (i.e. gun laws, death penalty, socialism vs. capitalism, etc.). I have no interest in seeing Canada annexed to the USA, nice as its people can be.

I think this article, that Irodin introduced me to, sums it up.
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org/healthcare.htm
Universal healthcare can be funded at the state level, and taxes for Canadians may actually be lower, because they need to support less federal programs.

If canada merged with the US we (canadians) very likely have to give up are much beloved socialist ideas and values because the US is VERY VERY anti socialist(I have found thus so anyway). (the extreme form of socialism is comunisism for those who don't know) Explainbles are our healtcare programe, are goverment vast holddings in the private sector(ie. insurance companies, railway , fairy , and of tarnist companys) which provide us with cheap relaible services. With is party why we have such high tax rates. also prices of products would rise to something along the lines of the prices that a charged in the US. Although do see Canada and USA becomes closer that ever, (maybe a near 100% joint miltray front or a joint economy inclueding a common currecy). I Strongly diargee with a joing nations plan.

If canada merged with the US we (canadians) very likely have to give up are much beloved socialist ideas and values because the US is VERY VERY anti socialist(I have found thus so anyway). (the extreme form of socialism is comunisism for those who don't know) Explainbles are our healtcare programe, are goverment vast holddings in the private sector(ie. insurance companies, railway , fairy , and of tarnist companys) which provide us with cheap relaible services. With is party why we have such high tax rates. also prices of products would rise to something along the lines of the prices that a charged in the US. Although do see Canada and USA becomes closer that ever, (maybe a near 100% joint miltray front or a joint economy inclueding a common currecy). I Strongly diargee with a joing nations plan.

As an american, i agree with you entirely. I might detail this later[/spam]

I wonder what the reaction would be if one of the border states or provinces wanted to switch sides... how do you think the respective governments would react?

If canada merged with the US we (canadians) very likely have to give up are much beloved socialist ideas and values because the US is VERY VERY anti socialist(I have found thus so anyway). (the extreme form of socialism is comunisism for those who don't know) Explainbles are our healtcare programe, are goverment vast holddings in the private sector(ie. insurance companies, railway , fairy , and of tarnist companys) which provide us with cheap relaible services. With is party why we have such high tax rates. also prices of products would rise to something along the lines of the prices that a charged in the US. Although do see Canada and USA becomes closer that ever, (maybe a near 100% joint miltray front or a joint economy inclueding a common currecy). I Strongly diargee with a joing nations plan.
The state level would be able to maintain any social programs. That's probably the main difference between the US and Canada. Some states, while not actually declaring that they have universal healthcare, have it de facto, like California, particularly San Fransico.
Also, some state governments do own parts of transit. Hawai'i's government manages inter-island ferry service. And while railroads themselves aren't publically owned, most states have their own mass transit systems, especially rail. The people on these forums (myself included) hate socialism on a national level. However, I myself have no problem if it is practiced at a state level. It's far more manageble and economical that way.

I wonder what the reaction would be if one of the border states or provinces wanted to switch sides... how do you think the respective governments would react?
I can't speak for Canada, but if one of our states defected to Canada (or Mexico or Russia), the best way for the US to maintain credibility is to go to war. We've done it in the past, and we can't be inconsistent. However, such a war would be quick and bloodless, as no real state armies exist.

Now, I see that a fair number of Canadians, and surprisingly, Quebecois, do support unification. May I ask why they do? Thanks.

Bump

I think it's a very good idea, but at the moment I'd have to say no. Now just isn't the time. And I'm not even sure I'll still be living when it would be time for such a thing to happen. I just don't think it would work at the moment. And past that, we'd need to make little tiny baby steps (obviously). Most likely starting with something like Europe did, and having one currency for both countries. But although it's good in theory, there's no way it could work with the current states of the two countries. Although we aren't complete opposites, we are too different at the moment for such a thing to be attempted.

A surprising number of people have said on these forums that they want to see the US and Canada unite into one nation. I just want to see what your thoughts are on this.
God forbid!! Canada may have its' problems, but she surely doesn't need to add to them by joining the US.

Thanks but no thanks.

BTW, the latest polls in Canada regarding this subject was in the neighbourhood of 75% NO. I also believe that was before the War on Iraq which 80% of Canadians oppose.

Leave the Canadians alone and go bother the Mexicans.

Well, this is why I am in favor of it.
What is the difference between the average American, and the average Canadian? With the exception of the Quebecois, not much. On a personal and cultural level, a union of the two wouldn't be felt by many, and ultimatly, no one would care.
It benefits Canada because it has nothing to loose, but a lot to gain. The Canadian Federation is rather loose right now. But there are generous social features, such as universal healthcare, prescription drug controls, etc. The new states could easily keep these measures at the state level, and modify each program to the province-turned-state's specific needs. In addition, there'd be less of a burden for supporting national programs like defense, or a national law enforcement agency.
As for the US, there are many economical benefits. It'd mean a common currency, and trade without bounds. It'd mean streamlining of regulations, and it'd make the US market more attractive to foreign investors. After all, Canada will add an additional 10% to our population. Besides, it'd help to eliminate things like border crossings, that are a pain in the ass for us all. It is a win-win situation.


Speaking as a Canadian, I think you over-trivialize the differences, and thank you very much but I think that socially Canada would indeed have much to lose by joining with the US.

So I'll take the hassle of a border crossing and keep my health care, better general education and affordable higher education, my lower violent crime rates, sensible restrictions on gun ownership, laxer censorship rules on TV, gay marriages, a less litigeous society (yes - sometime things ARE your fault), colourful money, and a political system that is NOT entirely in the back pockets of large corporations.

It ain't perfect - but it's my home. And I happen to like the way the neighbourhood is managed better than yours.

invadecanada.us

Speaking as a Canadian, I think you over-trivialize the differences, and thank you very much but I think that socially Canada would indeed have much to lose by joining with the US.

So I'll take the hassle of a border crossing and keep my health care, better general education and affordable higher education, my lower violent crime rates, sensible restrictions on gun ownership, laxer censorship rules on TV, gay marriages, a less litigeous society (yes - sometime things ARE your fault), colourful money, and a political system that is NOT entirely in the back pockets of large corporations.

It ain't perfect - but it's my home. And I happen to like the way the neighbourhood is managed better than yours.

Amen to that baby! :cool:

Speaking as a Canadian, I think you over-trivialize the differences, and thank you very much but I think that socially Canada would indeed have much to lose by joining with the US.

So I'll take the hassle of a border crossing and keep my health care, better general education and affordable higher education, my lower violent crime rates, sensible restrictions on gun ownership, laxer censorship rules on TV, gay marriages, a less litigeous society (yes - sometime things ARE your fault), colourful money, and a political system that is NOT entirely in the back pockets of large corporations.

It ain't perfect - but it's my home. And I happen to like the way the neighbourhood is managed better than yours.
Ya know, it's not like you immediatly become a clone of Texas once you join the U.S., (or U.S.N.A....whatever). You want all that stuff? Get your state to do it. Education, gun restrictions, and gay marriages (more or less) are all in the hands of the state.

Now, if Canada loses its pride, suffers higher violent crimes, etc. Than that's the problem of the Canadians, not Americans.


But hey, each to his own, right? The more I think about this, the more this unity between two countries seem more sensible. I don't just mean the U.S. and Canada. But I'm also talking about Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, Australia, Mynmar, India, Russia, China, Austria, France, Britain, and every other country. Wouldn't it be great if we cast aside differences and acknowledge the simple fact that we're all humans and there is no point in bordering ourselves from other humans?

As per my previous post:

Leger also compared these results to a similar survey of 1,508 Canadians in early September 2001.

On the question of annexation by the United States, 19.9 per cent of Canadians said at that time that they would be in favour, while 76.5 per cent rejected the proposition. Another 3.6 per cent said they didn't know or refused to answer.

As per my previous post:

Leger also compared these results to a similar survey of 1,508 Canadians in early September 2001.

On the question of annexation by the United States, 19.9 per cent of Canadians said at that time that they would be in favour, while 76.5 per cent rejected the proposition. Another 3.6 per cent said they didn't know or refused to answer.
And vice-versa. No one wants to be absorbed by another nation. Which is why I support the United States of North America. It's a rough change, but it'll do for my plans for world domination.

The only way that the world were to become one nation on earth would be if politics was set aside after cultural dialogue. The main reason we have so many differences and so many boundaries (political...etc. etc.) is because we are not willing to share our visions of right and wrong and our conceptions of the world. Hopefully, mediums like internet, television, radio and such provide a more accessible way of communicating our thoughts to each other. Marshal McLuhan said it himself that with the creation and use of television the world has become a 'global village', but even the United NAtions has a lot of faults (like it has no muscle)...Nevertheless, has anybody brought up the idea that we're also connected by our pockets? My copmuter's parts are designed in America and Japan, built in China or Malaysia and the software is form India and Seattle and the ideas I use inside of this machine are from my cultural background and all this other stuff...We are already connected materially...it remains to share our ideas and build.


I think in the next five years, there will be a huge amount of change in communication, and hopefully it goes in a direction that profits all (or the majority) of humanity.

invadecanada.us

That's cool too, but I'm kinda liking the idea of a peaceful unification.

It will never work in the forseeable future....

Most Canadians absolutely blindly refuse to admit or see the fact that Canada (with the exception of the whole welfare state bit) is almost culturally identical to the United States. When travelling between the two nations, half the time I couldn't tell which country I was in without the signs, and even then maybe I still couldn't.

However, what most American's don't seem to realize is that America-bashing is even more of a sport in Canada than it is in Europe, just less so in the media. Canadian media is all we love our neighbours to the south, but I guarantee you if you round up 1000 random Canadians (younger ones anyways), well over half will dislike or hate the United States.

People hate me purely for the fact I hold an American citizenship here.... (not everyone of course, but many do... and even out of my friends many of them dislike that fact). Seperatists (quebecois) would probably take advantage of a union between Canada and the U.S to run off as its own country, then when it begins to collapse on itself it'd run back to Canada/U.S for help.

Most Canadians wouldn't accept it based on the fact that being patriotic in Canada means hating the United States.

It will never work in the forseeable future....

Most Canadians absolutely blindly refuse to admit or see the fact that Canada (with the exception of the whole welfare state bit) is almost culturally identical to the United States. When travelling between the two nations, half the time I couldn't tell which country I was in without the signs, and even then maybe I still couldn't.

However, what most American's don't seem to realize is that America-bashing is even more of a sport in Canada than it is in Europe, just less so in the media. Canadian media is all we love our neighbours to the south, but I guarantee you if you round up 1000 random Canadians (younger ones anyways), well over half will dislike or hate the United States.

People hate me purely for the fact I hold an American citizenship here.... (not everyone of course, but many do... and even out of my friends many of them dislike that fact). Seperatists (quebecois) would probably take advantage of a union between Canada and the U.S to run off as its own country, then when it begins to collapse on itself it'd run back to Canada/U.S for help.

Most Canadians wouldn't accept it based on the fact that being patriotic in Canada means hating the United States.

As some one who has spent some time in Canada I can understand how you may have drawn these conclusions. However, as a Canadian many generations back, I believe you don't understand the Canadian spirit.. which is okay and I don't really expect you to. Canadians don't hate America.. we find it quite funny in fact. We don't want to be part of what we see as a circus. It's not hate, it's a true and genuine belief that we are moving in the right direction and you're not. It's a real belief in some very core principles that no "visitor" could possibly understand. You would have to know Canadian history and why we are who we are and what we believe, short of a belief in freedom and McDonalds we don't share as much as you may think.

Canada and the U.S are like your little brother that has mob ties...

You love them, and its nice to know that you can rely on each other...
But, you dont necessarily want them moving in with you.

Canada and the U.S are like your little brother that has mob ties...

You love them, and its nice to know that you can rely on each other...
But, you dont necessarily want them moving in with you.

Well put, except you do know Canada is bigger then the USA right? *LOL*

A surprising number of people have said on these forums that they want to see the US and Canada unite into one nation. I just want to see what your thoughts are on this.

Canada, culturally, is already an American state. Whatever character Canada had 50 or 100 years ago has been lost. Canada might make some gestures of independence that differentiate it from America - it has a kind of welfare state after all, and it might have trade with Cuba, and it might oppose American imperialist adventures like the war against Iraq, but culturally it may as well be just another part of the US. And NAFTA has economically tied it so closely to the US that in all but name Canada is an American colony.

Canada, culturally, is already an American state. Whatever character Canada had 50 or 100 years ago has been lost. Canada might make some gestures of independence that differentiate it from America - it has a kind of welfare state after all, and it might have trade with Cuba, and it might oppose American imperialist adventures like the war against Iraq, but culturally it may as well be just another part of the US. And NAFTA has economically tied it so closely to the US that in all but name Canada is an American colony.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about.. then again I've seen many of your posts in the past, so I'm not that surprised. For your information Canada actually makes money, lots of money from NAFTA, the USA doesn't. I think we all know by the numbers we out dealt you.

What's this "union" talk? Annexation is the way to go.

19th Century Manifest Destiny: Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean.
21th Century Manifest Destiny: Arctic Circle to Tierra Del Fuego.
;)

Well put, except you do know Canada is bigger then the USA right? *LOL*
according to a website, it wins by 4%...

So the lil bro has a bit more hair, we like ours slick and oiled. :D... Seriously, I didn't mean it like that.

What's this "union" talk? Annexation is the way to go.

19th Century Manifest Destiny: Atlantic Ocean to Pacific Ocean.
21th Century Manifest Destiny: Arctic Circle to Tierra Del Fuego.
;)
Actually we're thinking to keep it down to perhaps Baja California...I mean, it's not like Mexico isn't ours, eh?

Mexico a part of the U.S. since the 1840's!

Speaking as a Canadian, I think you over-trivialize the differences, and thank you very much but I think that socially Canada would indeed have much to lose by joining with the US.

So I'll take the hassle of a border crossing and keep my health care, better general education and affordable higher education, my lower violent crime rates, sensible restrictions on gun ownership, laxer censorship rules on TV, gay marriages, a less litigeous society (yes - sometime things ARE your fault), colourful money, and a political system that is NOT entirely in the back pockets of large corporations.

It ain't perfect - but it's my home. And I happen to like the way the neighbourhood is managed better than yours.
I think you forget about state's rights that exists in the US. Individual states actually have a fair amount of autonomy. They manage every aspect of their education systems, including owning most of the colledges. (61% of all higher education facilities are public). They are the ones that manage healthcare. They even retain the right to form a militia, but at present, I don't think any state has more than a ceremonial militia (and of course, the National Guard). As long as Canadians are at least allowed to own some sort of a gun, gun control laws can exist. At present, for example, assualt weapons are banned. I could go on, and on, and on. What you see of America is our foreign policy. I think most foreigners know very little about domestic policy in the US. About 80% of all domestic government actions in the US happen at a state level.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about.. then again I've seen many of your posts in the past, so I'm not that surprised. For your information Canada actually makes money, lots of money from NAFTA, the USA doesn't. I think we all know by the numbers we out dealt you.
You guys spend far too much time watching the trade deficit. For such an educated woman, I'm surprised. The trade deficit covers just goods imported and exported from a nation. It doesn't cover services, and that is how we make our money. We could probably make far more if we wanted to, as most of the world's money finds its way to just two square miles of downtown New York. Some nations need a helluvalot more land just to make a buck.

I think it's a very good idea, but at the moment I'd have to say no. Now just isn't the time. And I'm not even sure I'll still be living when it would be time for such a thing to happen. I just don't think it would work at the moment. And past that, we'd need to make little tiny baby steps (obviously). Most likely starting with something like Europe did, and having one currency for both countries. But although it's good in theory, there's no way it could work with the current states of the two countries. Although we aren't complete opposites, we are too different at the moment for such a thing to be attempted.
Obviously, a monetary union can and will come first, followed by open borders (as long as Canada beefs up security on their coasts, and the US on its and Mexico's border). Any further unification would come over the longee duree, that is at least fifty years.

Leave the Canadians alone and go bother the Mexicans.
They're next. In fact, a US-Mexico union is actually more likely for many reasons.

It will never work in the forseeable future....

Most Canadians absolutely blindly refuse to admit or see the fact that Canada (with the exception of the whole welfare state bit) is almost culturally identical to the United States. When travelling between the two nations, half the time I couldn't tell which country I was in without the signs, and even then maybe I still couldn't.

However, what most American's don't seem to realize is that America-bashing is even more of a sport in Canada than it is in Europe, just less so in the media. Canadian media is all we love our neighbours to the south, but I guarantee you if you round up 1000 random Canadians (younger ones anyways), well over half will dislike or hate the United States.

People hate me purely for the fact I hold an American citizenship here.... (not everyone of course, but many do... and even out of my friends many of them dislike that fact). Seperatists (quebecois) would probably take advantage of a union between Canada and the U.S to run off as its own country, then when it begins to collapse on itself it'd run back to Canada/U.S for help.

Most Canadians wouldn't accept it based on the fact that being patriotic in Canada means hating the United States.
Assuming you're correct, that's rather sad, indeed. Most Canadians hardly even realize that we aren't that different from eachother. As for myself, I visit Toronto every once in a while. I'm amazed at how similar it is to any rust belt city in the immediate south, and I don't mean that as an insult. The rust belt is filled with dead factories, but they are all lively places, and very similar. Toronto has far more similarities to Philly or Cleveland than does Paris to London, despite the fact that both pairs of cities are geographically the same distance apart (and Philly is much farther).

They're next. In fact, a US-Mexico union is actually more likely for many reasons.
The main reason beeing voters in the South West. Which would probably lead to free border crossings rather then political or economic union.

Canada and the U.S are like your little brother that has mob ties...

You love them, and its nice to know that you can rely on each other...
But, you dont necessarily want them moving in with you.
As you said, we're close apart. But in international relations, big brother/little brother relationships are reliable to a point. They can become fickle for the fact that they are so similar, rather than different. I believe that General Patton said something about England, that our greatest divide is a use of a common language (and in some ways, that is true). So let's just stop hiding behind borders and pretending we are different, and let's just seal the deal.

I doubt there would be much support among the Canadians to be assimilated into your evil US empire.

The main reason beeing voters in the South West. Which would probably lead to free border crossings rather then political or economic union.
Both sides would be disgusted on freer borders. In the US, drug trade would flourish, and it'd be far easier for terrorists to get in. In Mexico, it has a love-hate relationship with emigrants to the US. They, like any country, don't like brain drain to a richer country. Besides, Mexico has a tighter southern border than we do. They have troops on the Guatemalan border, and they are ordered to shoot to kill any illegal aliens. And you may be surprised how many Central Americans use Mexico to get to the US.

Both sides would be disgusted on freer borders. In the US, drug trade would flourish, and it'd be far easier for terrorists to get in. In Mexico, it has a love-hate relationship with emigrants to the US. They, like any country, don't like brain drain to a richer country. Besides, Mexico has a tighter southern border than we do. They have troops on the Guatemalan border, and they are ordered to shoot to kill any illegal aliens. And you may be surprised how many Central Americans use Mexico to get to the US.
I was actually reffering to the huge numbers of Mexicans living in California and the rest of the SW-US.

I think this thread is a dead issue? Canadians by a large number are against joining the US and people like Bush make it even easier to just say NO.

I was actually reffering to the huge numbers of Mexicans living in California and the rest of the SW-US.
I'm actually thinking that they'd find a political union with the Southwest and Mexico feasible, even if they make the South West secede.

I think this thread is a dead issue? Canadians by a large number are against joining the US and people like Bush make it even easier to just say NO.
Not quite yet. Just because many oppose such an idea doesn't mean that it can't be discussed. The only way one can declare the issue dead is if one side has utterly unintelligible arguements, while the other side can sweep them clean.

Not quite yet. Just because many oppose such an idea doesn't mean that it can't be discussed. The only way one can declare the issue dead is if one side has utterly unintelligible arguements, while the other side can sweep them clean.
Your call but unless something dramatically changes in the next 10 years or so, this issue is a non starter.

Your call but unless something dramatically changes in the next 10 years or so, this issue is a non starter.
Again, this is the longee duree. I want this to happen in my lifetime, but it doesn't need to be soon. However, our two nations should cooperate more on economic and defensive matters, in order to compete with the EU.
And the good news is that a pan-American union is the easiest to acheive of all regions, even Asia. Every nation in Asia despises the other, but they also wish to be at the head of such a union. Many in Japan want such an idea to fall through, but naturally a Japanese led union. China has said it'd object to any unless it is at the head of it. And of course, China is not that compatible with the rest of the world. So really, we're the only region outside Europe that for the next 100 years that can form a broader union peacefully.

bump

bump

The state level would be able to maintain any social programs. That's probably the main difference between the US and Canada. Some states, while not actually declaring that they have universal healthcare, have it de facto, like California, particularly San Fransico.
Also, some state governments do own parts of transit. Hawai'i's government manages inter-island ferry service. And while railroads themselves aren't publically owned, most states have their own mass transit systems, especially rail. The people on these forums (myself included) hate socialism on a national level. However, I myself have no problem if it is practiced at a state level. It's far more manageble and economical that way.
half of the funding of sosiac funding comes form the federal gov. only mey this could work would be a joining of peers with the union being merly offical and not having any major effects of politcs of ether nation. (i.e. one big nation cut in to 2 regions each having there own gov. and near abuslute control of the land with in them and they would be divided in to smallier regions like states and such.)

half of the funding of sosiac funding comes form the federal gov. only mey this could work would be a joining of peers with the union being merly offical and not having any major effects of politcs of ether nation. (i.e. one big nation cut in to 2 regions each having there own gov. and near abuslute control of the land with in them and they would be divided in to smallier regions like states and such.)
Still, all that'd mean is allocating some federal taxes to state taxes, and social programs aren't what most of your federal taxdollars go to. Therefore, you'll have other federal taxes, but Canadians are use to life with high taxes, I assume.

A surprising number of people have said on these forums that they want to see the US and Canada unite into one nation. I just want to see what your thoughts are on this.
WTF? Thats f***in crazy! Hell no.

Hm. As an American, I would want to propose a few things for any such unification.

First, we keep a population based representation in a Legislative House of Some Sort of Frequently Elected Persons, and put every Canadian province/territory in as a full state - none of this pansy "territory" mish-mash that website on the first page of this thread indicates. The overall size is clearly flexible, but it would have to be larger than the current US House of Reps.

We keep a Senate... on the same standard terms. 13 territories/provinces in the main part of Canada as states means a Senate of at least 126. Any other territories joining at this time would make the number rise fully. All pre-existing seniority would have to be reset.

At the same time, offer statehood and independence to any other territories currently possessed or held by either Canada or the US in separate referenda. Offer all appropriate special case status with regard to language and culture - at least what Quebec has.

Assign a third, smaller elected body, a Legislative Council that gets to vote on (but not propose) legislation (with the intention of insuring continuity with the appropriately rewritten mutual constitution of the merged countries), the composition of the Council to be split between the regional sectors of the country. As per the subcapitals, regional subdivisions should include Northeast (Eastern Canada) Southeast (Eastern US) Central (That big flat area in the middle - minnesota, manitoba, and a few others) Northwest (Western Canada, Alaska, and maybe Washington and Montana) Southwest (Arizona/Utah/California/etc) and Non-Contiguous (Hawaii, PEI, and other special little islands/territories.) If we have two per region, that's a round dozen members - that may be too few or just enough. This Council may serve double-duty partially within what is now the executive branch, proposing, evaluating, and placing cabinet members for vote in the main legislature.

Any legislation passed by the three legislative houses would then, of course, be approved by the executive branch (president) - the election system for which may need to be worked out a bit. Direct popular vote or split electoral votes may both be viable options.

Build a new national political capital on the Manitoba/Minnesota border. The current capitals could remain as administrative subcenters; a third subcapital should probably be constructed on the west coast somewhere for regional convienience, shared between the Northwest and Southwest regional subdivisions.

Although I recommend placing a minimum public health care and mutual contract recognition within the combined constitution, certain controversial areas, such as firearms legislation, may be redelegated permanently to the state level, with the appropriate amendments retrofitted en masse into the states/provinces of the appropriate nation. Others will cause no small amount of fuss and cannot be managed at the state level.

Some overall decentralization will probably be necessary in many matters.

bump