• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the USA and Canada be one country?

Should the USA and Canada be one country?

  • Yes, the benefits for both countries is too much to pass up

    Votes: 12 16.4%
  • No, leave well enough alone eh?

    Votes: 61 83.6%

  • Total voters
    73
No, simply because of how much more Left Leaning their population tends to be in relation to the United States. It'd be like the UK/Scotland situation all over again.

If were ever going to take Canada, it should have been during the Revolution. Unfortunately, neither side was willing to look past the French Catholic / Anglo-Saxon-German Protestant divide seriously enough to make that any sort of union a reality at the time.

Exactly we have enough leftists here and Canada is its own distinct nation with a great history. That applies to all of the commonwealth nations.
 
An economic union that is more entangled than it is now, yes. And it may happen sooner than you or I think because of developments in the Arctic - clearly Canada and Russia have by far the largest claims in the Arctic and Russia appears to be inclined to seize first and work out the difficulties later. I can see Canada and America entering into an agreement to jointly exploit Arctic resources and by doing so dampen any attempt by Russia to take control of more than what they're entitled to.

We in Canada would likely have issues with your national debt and with your healthcare and immigration policies to name just a couple of the literally hundreds if not thousands of cultural/political differences we have.

But it would be fun to watch Washington adapt to parliamentary government with multiple parties - liberals might actually be able to get back to actually being liberals!!

Those problems will probably diminish over time, and the Canadian government(s) will eventually want unity even if they don't.
 
I want Mounties; I think they're funny. But No Frenchies.
 
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 
Is your French-speaking population bigger than the US' Spanish-speaking population?

I'll be honest - I'm very familiar with Western Canada... I've been many times to Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and such.... but I've never set foot east of Alberta. I'm not sure how they are culturally over there.

Actually, Quebec, the primarily French Speaking Province and the one trying to separate from Canada over the past half-century, would welcome this far more than many other Canadians. Many Quebecers have French relatives in the northeastern US and those pushing separation in the past lobbied in NYC and Washington for virtually becoming a US State following separation, kind of like a northern Louisiana.

Another interesting aspect would be the large number of foreign born Canadians now here - we've had substantial immigration over the last half-century and they have no strong ties to Canadian history and most have family and friends all over the US - in some cases, their first choice would have been the US but they got into Canada - getting a chance to become American would be attractive to many.
 
An economic union that is more entangled than it is now, yes. And it may happen sooner than you or I think because of developments in the Arctic - clearly Canada and Russia have by far the largest claims in the Arctic and Russia appears to be inclined to seize first and work out the difficulties later. I can see Canada and America entering into an agreement to jointly exploit Arctic resources and by doing so dampen any attempt by Russia to take control of more than what they're entitled to.

We in Canada would likely have issues with your national debt and with your healthcare and immigration policies to name just a couple of the literally hundreds if not thousands of cultural/political differences we have.

But it would be fun to watch Washington adapt to parliamentary government with multiple parties - liberals might actually be able to get back to actually being liberals!!

The example you give with the Arctic is precisely what I mean. It's not hard to foresee Russia, as they get bigger and more powerful, becoming even more brazen over time. Also, America adds money and knowhow to what you already have in Canada to better be able to develop those resources. What America gets out of it, conversely, is access to resources it otherwise wouldn't have access to.

Things like healthcare are minor hurdles at the end of the day, when you have a giant carrot dangling in front of your face. Things tend to happen. To be honest, I foresee Obamacare morphing in to nationalized healthcare in the future anyway. We'll see if we get a Republican president next time, if he's able or willing to undo it. My instincts say "no." I think we were going in that direction one way or the other, and Obama is the scapegoat for what is now an unpopular program.

I think an economic and military union/entanglement are inevitable. In many ways, we already have it. I think a single currency, if the Euro experiment works out, is also an inevitability. Every time you sell something in to the US, or buy supplies from the US, you have to pay an exchange fee (or vice versa of course). That's too much money lost from the economy that doesn't really need to be.

I don't think you'll ever see Canada 100% run out of Washington, though. That's simply not necessary. Like I said earlier, I foresee something like the United Kingdom's arrangement, where you have your parliament and we have our government, but there is some kind of umbrella representing both parties as well.
 
An economic union that is more entangled than it is now, yes. And it may happen sooner than you or I think because of developments in the Arctic - clearly Canada and Russia have by far the largest claims in the Arctic and Russia appears to be inclined to seize first and work out the difficulties later. I can see Canada and America entering into an agreement to jointly exploit Arctic resources and by doing so dampen any attempt by Russia to take control of more than what they're entitled to.

We in Canada would likely have issues with your national debt and with your healthcare and immigration policies to name just a couple of the literally hundreds if not thousands of cultural/political differences we have.

But it would be fun to watch Washington adapt to parliamentary government with multiple parties - liberals might actually be able to get back to actually being liberals!!

Our national debt actually isn't a problem, at least not relative to the rest of the developed world. That includes Canada, by the way.

I would be more worried about Canada's national debt without the United States than with it.

As long as the OPEC countries sell their oil exclusively in US Dollars, the dollar will continue to be the reserve currency globally. Right now, 60% of the world's reserve currencies are US dollars (clearly, so that these nations can buy foreign oil).

As long as foreign countries need oil, this creates demand for US dollars, which makes our debt a non-issue. Also, icing on the cake, the majority of these foreign reserves are reinvested in to the United States in the form of government bonds.

This means, at the end of the day, America has a virtually unlimited money supply. We're the only nation on earth that has it so good.
 
Is your French-speaking population bigger than the US' Spanish-speaking population?

I'll be honest - I'm very familiar with Western Canada... I've been many times to Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and such.... but I've never set foot east of Alberta. I'm not sure how they are culturally over there.

22.3% of the country speaks French as a first language and we have a province that is officially only French, in the U.S. only 13% speaks Spanish with no region speaking it as an official language. Quebec is vastly different culturally form the rest of Canada and especially America being more European, specifically French. The East is also far more Liberal then the rest with Quebec being the most Liberal as even rural areas are safe Liberal or NDP ridings.
 
22.3% of the country speaks French as a first language and we have a province that is officially only French, in the U.S. only 13% speaks Spanish with no region speaking it as an official language. Quebec is vastly different culturally form the rest of Canada and especially America being more European, specifically French. The East is also far more Liberal then the rest with Quebec being the most Liberal as even rural areas are safe Liberal or NDP ridings.

Let's not forget about Puerto Rico.
 
Awesome idea. I'm sure the Canadians would love it if we shared our culture war with them, thus paralyzing their country forever.
 
Only if the Argonauts and Rough Riders get into the NFL....screw them Edmonton Eskimos, and Hamilton Tiger-Cats (a tiger IS a cat..duh)
 
And here I want there to be an amicable divorce here in the U.S.

Let the socialists and communists go their way; let the facsists and crony capitalists go their way; and let those of us who want to be free of each control freak faction go our way, lol...

Canada seems of have fixed some of their messes, but they love big, intrusive government - and of course the U.S. has gone completely off the rails.

I'd be for a U.S./Canada merger if it meant we lovers of freedom could have a little slice of sovereign land of our own... but of course, authoritarian states don't let their victims escape, do they??
 
That is not really part of the U.S., even then it still would not do much to the numbers to my knowledge.

40 million Spanish-speakers reside in the US, not including Puerto Rico. It doesn't matter. The point was that, numbers-wise, the US could absorb Quebec without too much difficulty. At least, it would not affect US culture very much, it would only spice it up and enhance it as I'm sure many from Quebec would travel around America.

On the other hand, Quebec might be better off becoming a commonweath similar to Puerto Rico in its ties with Canada and the US.

That would be up to the people of Quebec.
 
40 million Spanish-speakers reside in the US, not including Puerto Rico. It doesn't matter. The point was that, numbers-wise, the US could absorb Quebec without too much difficulty. At least, it would not affect US culture very much, it would only spice it up and enhance it as I'm sure many from Quebec would travel around America.

On the other hand, Quebec might be better off becoming a commonweath similar to Puerto Rico in its ties with Canada and the US.

That would be up to the people of Quebec.

I doubt it, the U.S. would have to accept French language and Quebecois culture whether it would like it or not.
 
Why do you say that?

In my opinion, the reason it won't happen anytime soon is because of rural, rightwing Americans. I think you could sell the benefits to Canadians and urban, educated Americans in the north.

Never. You could never get more than a handful of lunatic Canadians to agree to such a stupid proposal. If you seriously think you could sell this hallucination to a measurable group of Canucks you've never been north of the border. Canadians don't want to be Americans. You might be surprised to find that most people in the developed world don't want to be Americans. Sorry, but you brought it up...
 
I doubt it, the U.S. would have to accept French language and Quebecois culture whether it would like it or not.

What does that even mean?

The US has no national language at all. So if, in a hypothetical scenario, Quebec became part of the USA, there would be zero change for Quebec, and zero change for the rest of the USA.

Decisions to print road signs in two languages, to teach foreign languages in schools.... those are made at the state and even county level in the US. Presumably, Quebec would be a state, so they could and probably would elect to continue on with the status quo.

I assume that the rest of the US would continue with their status quo.
 
Last edited:
This has been tossed about a lot in the past, and in the '60s, was almost considered a slam dunk.

However, curiously enough for such two similar regions, a number of things have changed since then.

America has moved relentlessly to the political right, to the extent that things like universal medical care, for example, (even Nixon went for that), once considered, is now looked on as little better than communism. There are two political parties currently in the US: one a little to the right of the political center, and one a little to the right of Attila the Hun. All other voices in what should otherwise be a cacophony of divergent opinion, in a nation of 315 million, are submerged, beaten down, ridiculed, paid off, or otherwise seen by common wisdom as being ridiculous.

In Canada, there are five major federal political parties, three of which could possibly form government. They represent a relatively broad philosophical spectrum.

Today Americans are arming themselves to the teeth, with debates about allowing guns into churches, schools, universities, hospitals, etc; whether one should hide their gun in a pocket or purse; whether it is ok to carry an assault rifle into the supermarket, or to a political rally. Not surprisingly, gun deaths are in close coordination with guns in circulation.

In Canada, the wild west lives on in movies, but not in the streets. Guns are regulated, and hand guns are almost unknown aside from a few very select occupations, and a small handful of sportsmen, the latter under regulations that would have the NRA recreating the storming of the Bastille, this time with the White House as the target. Needless to say, gun deaths are proportionately lower.

The answer to crime in the US is imprisonment, and the US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world. People are locked up for long periods, sometimes on the most dubious indications. At any one time, close to one percent of the US population can be under lock and key.

Prevention and counselling take a stronger role in Canada, and incarceration rates are far less. Imprisonment is seen as a last resort.

In the 1960s, ideas about religion were about the same in both countries. We have strongly diverged since then. Most Americans today profess some sort of metaphysical belief, and many are deeply immersed in religious dogma.

In Canada, about a third of the population professes no religion, and among the rest, belief can be soft to the point of non-existence. It is usually only a small minority of recent immigrants that actually practice such beliefs.


So should they be one country? Maybe, but some movement on the American side would be necessary before such a measure is taken, IMO.
 
we are citizens, they are subjects. but most of their good athletes end up here anyway
 
What does that even mean?

The US has no national language at all. So if, in a hypothetical scenario, Quebec became part of the USA, there would be zero change for Quebec, and zero change for the rest of the USA.

Decisions to print road signs in two languages, to teach foreign languages in schools.... those are made at the state and even county level in the US. Presumably, Quebec would be a state, so they could and probably would elect to continue on with the status quo.

So this hypothetical country is just the US, doubled in size? Decisions that Canadian provinces usually make are now in the hands of, who?
 
we are citizens, they are subjects. but most of their good athletes end up here anyway

Ohferfvcksakes.
When did your brow get so lower?
 
What does that even mean?

The US has no national language at all. So if, in a hypothetical scenario, Quebec became part of the USA, there would be zero change for Quebec, and zero change for the rest of the USA.

Decisions to print road signs in two languages, to teach foreign languages in schools.... those are made at the state and even county level in the US. Presumably, Quebec would be a state, so they could and probably would elect to continue on with the status quo.

The thing about that is, Quebec would require French to be recognized at a Federal level. Unlike Spanish speaking immigrants which are expected to learn English, Quebec parle seulment Francais. Francophones in Canada have a right to speak French and receive all government (federal, state, whatever) services in French. The U.S. government would have to recognize the French language and provide services in that language. There is also the fact that anti-Americanism is strongest in Quebec.
 
Back
Top Bottom