If parts of Canada secedes and is annexed by the US, I'm thinking it's more likely that they would keep the northern provinces as territories instead of granting statehood due to the tiny, mostly Indian populations that north. If anything, it's more likely that Alberta and the like might be broken further down because of their existing size.
It's really not a difficult problem, since you would basically have to run a census of people right off the bat anyways.
Just a simple
1: Are you a Canadian Citizen?
2: Have you maintained residency in Alberta for more than 1 year?
3: Have you resided in Canada longer than 5 (or 10) years?
Numbers may have to be tweaked, however just 1 and 3 would be enough to filter out 80% for deportation, and 2 stops cross-province shenanigans.
This would however be a bad idea from an economic perspective considering the incredible resources that are there. Also, assuming that Trump opens up the North for oil production and exploration, some of these territories might be needed as transit territories for pipelines, roads, and even rail. Last thing to consider is the global security profile of the region. Russia has already stated in the past that they believe the northern passage is an internationally navigable waterway, and they already working to open up the north transit lanes with their icebreakers (they have a huge fleet of 45 icebreakers) the United States will need military base is along this corridor. True, they could have bases in a "territory," but the argument that they are defending sovereign American territory is less compelling without these territories being actual parts of the United States, along with Greenland.
This is why the normies are so stupid, thinking that Trump is being a buffoon and overreaching about Greenland. No. The strategy is to cap and close the Arctic passage under one global security umbrella, headed of course by the United States.
True, they could have bases in a "territory," but the argument that they are defending sovereign American territory is less compelling without these territories being actual parts of the United States
I do believe there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, I am referring to the Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories as Article IV territories. An attack on these territories would be no different than the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, given Hawaii wasn't granted statehood until 1959.
If parts of Canada secedes and is annexed by the US, I'm thinking it's more likely that they would keep the northern provinces as territories instead of granting statehood due to the tiny, mostly Indian populations that north. If anything, it's more likely that Alberta and the like might be broken further down because of their existing size.
What about tossing out the pajeets?
This should be an automatic yes
It's really not a difficult problem, since you would basically have to run a census of people right off the bat anyways.
Just a simple 1: Are you a Canadian Citizen? 2: Have you maintained residency in Alberta for more than 1 year? 3: Have you resided in Canada longer than 5 (or 10) years?
Numbers may have to be tweaked, however just 1 and 3 would be enough to filter out 80% for deportation, and 2 stops cross-province shenanigans.
This would however be a bad idea from an economic perspective considering the incredible resources that are there. Also, assuming that Trump opens up the North for oil production and exploration, some of these territories might be needed as transit territories for pipelines, roads, and even rail. Last thing to consider is the global security profile of the region. Russia has already stated in the past that they believe the northern passage is an internationally navigable waterway, and they already working to open up the north transit lanes with their icebreakers (they have a huge fleet of 45 icebreakers) the United States will need military base is along this corridor. True, they could have bases in a "territory," but the argument that they are defending sovereign American territory is less compelling without these territories being actual parts of the United States, along with Greenland.
This is why the normies are so stupid, thinking that Trump is being a buffoon and overreaching about Greenland. No. The strategy is to cap and close the Arctic passage under one global security umbrella, headed of course by the United States.
I do believe there is a bit of a misunderstanding here, I am referring to the Yukon, Nunavut, and Northwest Territories as Article IV territories. An attack on these territories would be no different than the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, given Hawaii wasn't granted statehood until 1959.