Alberta to Vote on Joining the U.S.

Quote of the Day

Many conservatives who live in Alberta, Canada, have had a gutful of what they say is their government’s heavy-handed policies and are backing an effort to secede.

They want to carve out a new border and become the 51st of the United States of America.

A vote on the referendum in Alberta is set for June 30.

John Thompson
June 10, 2023
Canadian Conservatives Have Had Enough: Alberta To Vote On Becoming 51st US State

The referendum is unlikely to pass. But if they reach the point where secession is viable I think the U.S. should give it serious consideration.


16 thoughts on “Alberta to Vote on Joining the U.S.

  1. We better clean up our act so the USA they think they’re joining is the USA they actually get.

  2. It would be wonderful if one could vote one’s way into freedom. But that would be denying the way you got in the position of needing to vote on it in the first place?
    Castro’s retarded son is not going to give up that easy.
    The upside is that were all pretty much in the same shit-pit. So if we ever get around to the donnybrook stage, it will be nice to know you aren’t alone.
    Since the powers that be want to turn America, Canada, and Mexico into one block. Maybe we should co-opt the movement and make it all about freedom?

  3. The socialists in DC will never allow it to happen. That would mean two more conservative senators and a handful of additional conservative members of the House of Representatives. Unless perhaps admittance is conditional upon mail in voting only, over a 90+ day period. The socialist would probably go along with that.

    • Make it a deal with Puerto Rico as a balancing state?
      Until the Civil War the Democrats and the Whigs were careful to always have a “balance” between “Free States” and ‘Slave States”.
      A rather telling shorthand there, I think.

  4. Invite most of them. I draw the line at Quebec, though. Give those clowns back to France.

  5. Well, that would certainly change the shape of Montana…

    That would make other things more interesting too. How does this work? We take Alberta, they take Washington State?

    • Hey, now! While I’m OK with that in principle, it means I’d have to move. Maybe just the west-of-the-cascades part, let eastern WA join Greater Idaho? I’d still have to move, but not as far.

      • I am very seriously looking at Coos Bay/North Bend, GI if southwest Oregon get in on the deal. Eastern and southwestern Washington, Northern California, and everything-but-Clark-County Nevada would round it all out.

        And when Alberta comes along, after a couple years, maybe we can peal off British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Yukon and the Northwest Territories.

        My biggest worry would be Mexican states all the way down to Nayarit and San Luis Potosi wanted to join up, too. They’ve gone for generations where the government hasn’t worked for the people, and the people have adapted to live in the environment of pernicious corruption. They join up, and it’s going to be like occupying Iraq for thirty years until they can have a working civic society again, actually finalize their accession as states. Although, frankly the prospect of not marinating in the ‘government’ that comes from Mexico City in thirty years might be appealing.

        • I actually approached the Greater Idaho people about including NV without Clark County. Some of their coalition is suffering under the delusion that NV is a swing state and they don’t want to upset that applecart. I think the next few elections will disabuse them of that as Clark has an infinite supply of fake votes.

        • My negative opinion to the greater Idaho project. Is only because it’s more of the way people except problems. Rather than cure them.
          Moving to Coos Bay will prove my point. ALL of So. Oregon is lost to the worse of humanity.
          The good people have been overrun by the junkie hoards and their enablers.
          And the police are paid to just watch it all happen for fun and profit. (Not yours, by the way.)
          It’s a good training ground. Cause what you have there. You’ll have to fight to keep.
          I know, as I was born in that area, lived and worked there much of my life. And witnessed first hand the systemic destruction.
          I want greater Idaho too. But not until were allowed to truly fight for it.

  6. It used to be a joke that Trudeau was so bad he was going to get Alberta & Saskatchewan to do what Quebec has been threatening for years, and secede…

    …Not laughing anymore.

  7. Under the current paradigm….here and in Canada, there will never be any “peaceful secession”. The people running things simply will not allow it. To allow secession means giving up power. Something people addicted to power can NEVER tolerate. The only “seceding” that is going to happen will be as a part of a bloody, violent civil war. And most of us learned about the last time that happened when we were in school.

    • The bloody, violent civil war was a choice and not an inevitable outcome of secession. There have been examples of secession without violence or without much violence.

  8. Alberta can hold all the referendums it likes. As I learned in the 1990s with Quebec and a subsequent Canadian Supreme Court ruling on the matter, no province may leave Confederation (what Canadians call the equivalent of the Union in the USA) without the consent of the other provinces and territories. The matter was settled legally almost 30 years ago.

    The decision itself is actually a pretty good read on how and when new countries can be formed and recognized under international law. It is one of the big reasons you don’t hear much about Quebec separatism today. But trust me, back then there were many of us willing to take up arms on the matter. Most Americans have no idea just how close Canada came to civil war with that Quebec referendum vote.

    This is Alberta’s version of the Oregon split votes. Great to signal political angst with current conditions but ultimately just virtue signaling writ large.

    • What does “international law” have to do with that case? Canadian law, sure. The only thing I can think of is the international law notion that a country is a spot on the map with a government. That works for pretty much any place that wants to call itself a country, with the notable exception of Taiwan.
      Of course, speaking of Taiwan, it’s interesting how 99% of US reporting gets the US “One China Policy” wrong. They tend to quote it as “the US agrees that there is only one China”. Not so. The actual policy is “the US agrees that it is Red China’s view that there is only one China”. In other words, we don’t agree with the commies, we only say “we hear you”. (Think of it as the difference between “wilco” and “roger”.)

Comments are closed.