Canadians have voted to merge with the United States of America...

[Sci]

The US has a 14-year residency requirement for presidential candidates.

I was under the impression that someone had to be born in the USA to run for President--and that was the reason Schwarzenegger could never run for the office. Am I mistaken?

Not born in the USA, but born a citizen, yes. I didn't even mention this part because I'm not sure what the historical precedent for citizens of formerly independent countries that become US states, such as Texas and Vermont, was. But if I had to guess, I would indeed say that only individuals of the formerly independent Canada born after its annexation into the US would qualify for the Presidency.

In any case--I have to agree that its very unlikely the USA in its present form would ever annex Canada--especially against the will of the Canadian people.

But, hey--there was a TV miniseries back in the 80s about a Soviet takeover of the USA. So I guess any absurd scenario is allowed, if it brings in ratings.

Except that even the scenerio in Amerika is less absurd than this. The Soviet Union did not not take over the United States because its leadership and populace would have had any particular objection to such an action; it didn't happen because they were never capable of that, and were certainly not capable of it by the late 1980s. By contrast, I'm sure the United States is more than capable of taking over Canada if it wants -- but it would never want to!

 

[Goliath]

Except that even the scenerio in Amerika is less absurd than this. The Soviet Union did not not take over the United States because its leadership and populace would have had any particular objection to such an action; it didn't happen because they were never capable of that, and were certainly not capable of it by the late 1980s. By contrast, I'm sure the United States is more than capable of taking over Canada if it wants -- but it would never want to!

Willing, but not able--able, but not willing.

Sounds like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me.

I wonder if I could be president of the United States of North America? I was born in Nebraska, to an American mother: my Dad was a landed immigrant from Canada, and was actually drafted for Vietnam; luckily, having previously served in the Canadian Army, he was 4AA. They tried to talk him into enlisting anyway, since he was a trained soldeir, and he told them "Hmm--let me think about that--no!"

My older brother actually obtained an American passport at one point. He also played a pretty wild April Fool's joke on my father one year. He told Dad that he'd been contacted by the American IRS about back taxes from the 1960s that, with interest, amounted to more than a hundred thousand dollars. Poor Dad!

 

[Sci]

Except that even the scenerio in Amerika is less absurd than this. The Soviet Union did not not take over the United States because its leadership and populace would have had any particular objection to such an action; it didn't happen because they were never capable of that, and were certainly not capable of it by the late 1980s. By contrast, I'm sure the United States is more than capable of taking over Canada if it wants -- but it would never want to!

Willing, but not able--able, but not willing.

Sounds like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me.

Not to me. To put it another way:

If there's a 5'5" kid who weighs 125 lbs. and doesn't work out but is constantly aggressive and wants to beat you up, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about the possibility that he might act on that desire, even if he's not fully capable of carrying it out, and to think that he therefore poses a potential threat to you. If, on the other hand, there's a 6'5" guy who's 230 lbs and all muscle, but is your friend and has no desire whatsoever to harm you, then I don't think it's reasonable to be concerned about the possibility of him beating you up. Unless you're just constantly convinced that your friends are going to betray you, anyway; but if that's the case, you've got bigger problems on your hands than all that, because you're obviously incapable of trusting people.

In other words:

It's all about the intermingling of cultures. If two cultues have had centuries of peace behind them, are allied, and closely intermingle, then it's really absurd to be worried about one or the other suddenly betraying the other. If, on the other hand, two cultures are hostile and have a history of violent competition, it's not at all unreasonable to be concerned about hostile actions, even if the actual capacity of one or the other hostiles to carry out such intentions is not there.

To put it yet another way:

I trust Canada. I have complete faith in Canadian goodwill and morality, and so I see no reason to defend our side of the border from Canadians. Canada and the United States are and should always be friends, allies, and partners, and to the extent that there should be hostility in our relationship, it should be there only to rebuke one or the other when it starts acting like a boss and not a partner, and then disappear when equality in the relationship is reasserted. I do not, on the other hand, trust the Russian Federation. Its populace has largely grown up regarding the United States as a hostile power, its citizenry resents Russia's loss of international power following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, its leader is an authoritarian dictator who wants to re-assert Russian power, and its government possesses nuclear weapons. I do not trust the Russian Federation and do not have faith in the goodwill and morality of the Russian government. I want a system in place to defend the United States -- and Canada! -- from the potential, however far-fetched, for Russian aggression.

I wonder if I could be president of the United States of North America?

Is the United States of North America the same state as the United States of America, just re-named, or is it a new polity?

I was born in Nebraska, to an American mother: my Dad was a landed immigrant from Canada, and was actually drafted for Vietnam; luckily, having previously served in the Canadian Army, he was 4AA. They tried to talk him into enlisting anyway, since he was a trained soldeir, and he told them "Hmm--let me think about that--no!"

My older brother actually obtained an American passport at one point. He also played a pretty wild April Fool's joke on my father one year. He told Dad that he'd been contacted by the American IRS about back taxes from the 1960s that, with interest, amounted to more than a hundred thousand dollars. Poor Dad!

Hehehe. But, yeah, under US law, if you move to the United States and live there for 14 years and, at the end of those 14 years, are above the age of 35, you would fulfill the Constitutional requirements for the presidency.

 

[Goliath]

Is the United States of North America the same state as the United States of America, just re-named, or is it a new polity?

I was assuming that just the name had changed, along with the number of stars on the flag.

 

[Skywalker]

Would the name change to the United States of North America with the addition of Canada, though? Better to keep it as the United States of America, since if you ask the rest of the world, both North and South America will be living under the Stars and Stripes eventually.

 

[Goliath]

Would the name change to the United States of North America with the addition of Canada, though? Better to keep it as the United States of America, since if you ask the rest of the world, both North and South America will be living under the Stars and Stripes eventually.

Hmm. I didn't think of that.

I've just seen that name used so often in SF, that it came naturally.

But if every country in the Western hemisphere eventually becomes a state of the union, where will you put all the stars on the flag?

It'll be the "stars and stubs".

 

[Sci]

But if every country in the Western hemisphere eventually becomes a state of the union, where will you put all the stars on the flag?

It'll be the "stars and stubs".

Actually, after playing with MS Paint for a bit, I figured out that at the current size of the stars, the US Flag's star field could encompass a maximum of 108 stars. So there'd be more than enough room for every country in the Western hemisphere to become a state on the US flag.

 

[Skywalker]

But if every country in the Western hemisphere eventually becomes a state of the union, where will you put all the stars on the flag?

It'll be the "stars and stubs".

Actually, after playing with MS Paint for a bit, I figured out that at the current size of the stars, the US Flag's star field could encompass a maximum of 108 stars. So there'd be more than enough room for every country in the Western hemisphere to become a state on the US flag.

What about countries like Mexico, which are made up of separate states under one federal government, like the USA? Would there just be one star for Mexico, or one star for each Mexican state that joins the Union?

Same deal for Canada, which has ten provinces and three territories. Each of the provinces should get a star, making sixty stars. Mexico has thirty-one states, giving the flag ninety-one. All of the other countries are divided into states and provinces, too.

Honestly, it would probably be easier to drop the "one star per state" idea and make it "one star per country." The flag would have twenty-two stars, then.

 

[Sci]

But if every country in the Western hemisphere eventually becomes a state of the union, where will you put all the stars on the flag?

It'll be the "stars and stubs".

Actually, after playing with MS Paint for a bit, I figured out that at the current size of the stars, the US Flag's star field could encompass a maximum of 108 stars. So there'd be more than enough room for every country in the Western hemisphere to become a state on the US flag.

What about countries like Mexico, which are made up of separate states under one federal government, like the USA?

The question was whether or not each country in the Western hemisphere could fit onto the US flag as a single US state, not whether or not their states could become US states.

 

[Skywalker]

Yeah, I know, but I'm just thinking if it would be fair to only include one star for all of those countries when each individual American state gets a star of its own. But I'm putting way more thought into it than it deserves, since it's never going to happen, so don't mind me.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

And you only get six states in the bargain, silly hosers...

 

[mrcoaster]

Canada's application is approved with the following condition:

Celine Dion is deported and dropped off in the North Atlantic in a tiny rowboat. Beyond that? Welcome aboard!

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Canada's application is approved with the following condition:

Celine Dion is deported and dropped off in the North Atlantic in a tiny rowboat. Beyond that? Welcome aboard!

Isn't she in Las Vegas, why wait?

 

[mrcoaster]

You're right. Grab your torches and pitchforks, people! We're off to Vegas for an old-fashioned celebrity deportment!

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

I drink your water! I drink it right up! *SLUUUUUUUURP*

Before today I wouldn't have even gotten that joke.

DRAINAGE!!!

 

[Stormrage]

Canada's application is approved with the following condition:

Celine Dion is deported and dropped off in the North Atlantic in a tiny rowboat. Beyond that? Welcome aboard!

The then Royal Navy would come to pick her up and fight off the French if they try to get her. I'm not generally into her kinda of music. But God damn it she's good.

 

[sportzkid]

The US has a 14-year residency requirement for presidential candidates.

I was under the impression that someone had to be born in the USA to run for President--and that was the reason Schwarzenegger could never run for the office. Am I mistaken?

Not born in the USA, but born a citizen, yes. I didn't even mention this part because I'm not sure what the historical precedent for citizens of formerly independent countries that become US states, such as Texas and Vermont, was. But if I had to guess, I would indeed say that only individuals of the formerly independent Canada born after its annexation into the US would qualify for the Presidency.

In any case--I have to agree that its very unlikely the USA in its present form would ever annex Canada--especially against the will of the Canadian people.

But, hey--there was a TV miniseries back in the 80s about a Soviet takeover of the USA. So I guess any absurd scenario is allowed, if it brings in ratings.

Here is what the constitution says on the matter who is eligible:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

I think the natural born part is generally considered the US states or territories. But there is some question as to whether US military bases qualify under that.

 

[Sci]

I was under the impression that someone had to be born in the USA to run for President--and that was the reason Schwarzenegger could never run for the office. Am I mistaken?

Not born in the USA, but born a citizen, yes. I didn't even mention this part because I'm not sure what the historical precedent for citizens of formerly independent countries that become US states, such as Texas and Vermont, was. But if I had to guess, I would indeed say that only individuals of the formerly independent Canada born after its annexation into the US would qualify for the Presidency.

In any case--I have to agree that its very unlikely the USA in its present form would ever annex Canada--especially against the will of the Canadian people.

But, hey--there was a TV miniseries back in the 80s about a Soviet takeover of the USA. So I guess any absurd scenario is allowed, if it brings in ratings.

Here is what the constitution says on the matter who is eligible:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Yes, I believe that that's what I said above. Though, again, I don't know what the historical precedent is for interpreting the "natural-born citizen" requirement with regards to people who were previously citizens of a sovereign country that later became a US state. The best example I can think of would be Vermont, which joined the Union after the Constitution was adopted but had never been part of the Union under the Articles of Confederation. I don't know if the question of whether or not citizens of the formerly independent Vermont, who not been U.S. citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, were retroactively interpreted to have actually been US citizens by virtue of Vermont having been covered under the Declaration of Independence or not.

I think the natural born part is generally considered the US states or territories.

Not generally considered. Always considered. Any individual born on US soil is a US citizen; that's the law.

But there is some question as to whether US military bases qualify under that.

No serious question. US law also regards anyone born to two US citizens overseas as being a natural-born citizen.

 

[mrcoaster]

So basically, we're assured that Celine Dion can never become president here then?

 

[Canadave]

Not born in the USA, but born a citizen, yes. I didn't even mention this part because I'm not sure what the historical precedent for citizens of formerly independent countries that become US states, such as Texas and Vermont, was. But if I had to guess, I would indeed say that only individuals of the formerly independent Canada born after its annexation into the US would qualify for the Presidency.

Here is what the constitution says on the matter who is eligible:

"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

Yes, I believe that that's what I said above. Though, again, I don't know what the historical precedent is for interpreting the "natural-born citizen" requirement with regards to people who were previously citizens of a sovereign country that later became a US state. The best example I can think of would be Vermont, which joined the Union after the Constitution was adopted but had never been part of the Union under the Articles of Confederation. I don't know if the question of whether or not citizens of the formerly independent Vermont, who not been U.S. citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, were retroactively interpreted to have actually been US citizens by virtue of Vermont having been covered under the Declaration of Independence or not.

In the first part of the miniseries, they explained it was allowed due to a clause in the treaty that oversaw the merger.