[End]

Letters from Our Readers
(and replies from XP)

[Skip intro.] Please direct letters intended for this page to our regular email address (XPUS@aol.com) but put "Letters" in the subject line. Letters printed here are subject to editing. We will endeavor to retain the integrity of ideas and the flavor of the piece. Please state your full (real) name and location (city, state/province, country). We will place no identifying information on this site unless a letter writer so desires, but if you'd like your email address shown, we are perfectly willing to display it. More recent letters will be put ahead of older letters, so visitors need not scroll down to see what's new. For diverse readers' views on Canadian-U.S. amalgamation, see the Feedback area of the website of an allied but separate organization, United North America.

For all the ingenuity and sweat, expended in building of the Panama Canal, it would be worth the while to consider having Panama as part of The Union---As a State.

The U.S. will serve as protector and investor of the waterway and the land.

Whether a sea level Canal would be built; or separate and wider locks built--- the U.S.government will be able to supply the necessary funds and know-how to begin and complete any plan necessary to allow the Canal be able to handle the largest vessels now, and the even larger, later on.

Come on now, you in Congress----consider this proposition. Put on your thinking caps! Do not linger. The time is now.

Rupert Small
Ocala, Florida
r.small@att.net
June 5, 2005

After reading XP's take on U.S.-Puerto Rico relations I had to take a deep breath. I am Puerto Rican, I am pro-Statehood, yes. And I agree with most of your good analysis. But it's not easy convincing a stubborn PR of "what's good for them" when they can't even see the harm and blatant disregard for our needs here AT home from those who shamelessly cry for the commonwealth. How can we convince the people to fight against humiliation? This is our dignity in play here! We have been in this disgraceful state of nonsense for more than a 100 years and I wish to end it also.

As I write the PDP (pro-Commonwealth party) is trying to steal the elections away from Dr. Pedro Rossello (pro-Statehood candidate, ex-Governor of PR). What they are doing is so glaringly illegal that I feel the need to punch a wall. Rossello is proposing a clean-cut, unambiguous "Statehood or Independence" referendum, which has the anti-Americans weak at the knees. But there's no fairness in the house of pain. We won this 2004 election and we have no governor to show for it.

The NPP (pro-Statehood) has won all the other positions but the governor one is being messed with. The U.S. has been our "mainland" since 1898 and I consider myself a patriot and my family is known for backing up solid U.S. policy, but I'm alone in this fight. The PDP is horrible and powerful; it's like fighting against an army of endless evil and I am getting tired, and I'm only 21.

I'm a student of Political Science in the Univ. of Puerto Rico and I can suggest so many reasons why this colonial status is killing us. But hardly anyone's listening, I'm preaching to the choir. I would advocate Puerto Rican independence if that was the responsible way to go about. But it's not.

Nikki Ruiz
Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico
November 17, 2004

Chairman Schoonmaker replies:

It is my understanding from the one report I saw that the pro-"Commonwealth" governor won fair and square. If you have other information, please tell me of an online news source that addresses the question. Thank you.

Nikki Ruiz clarifies:

The PDP/"Commonwealth" candidate's victory is not official and is under scrutiny. Apparently, he asked the "independentistas" to give him their vote to defeat Rossello and his Statehood ambitions. But now some 15 plus thousand voters 'damaged' the ballot by voting for four different candidates when obviously you can only vote for two in a two candidate ballot (governor/Resident commissioner). The PDP (Commonwealth) and PIP (Independence) candidates are now fighting each other for their right to have those votes for themselves while the NPP is saying those ballots are not legal because they violate the "one man, one vote" rule. The PDP is arguing that is not a double vote case but clearly a vote for the PDP candidates and so on.

Right now, PDP candidate's lead is only 3,880, or less than 0.5%, meaning instant recount. But first some 30,000 votes are being added to the total tally (absentees, etc)... This has been a mess of an election and the NPP sued in federal and it seems like the federal jurisdiction here in PR will have a say in this.

[As of November 28, 2004, the governorship has still not been decided, but the statehooders have won the legislature. — LCS]

Just a suggestion for Canada. . . combine PEI and Nova Scotia for a state, then admit each other province as a state, making 9 total.

add Yukon to Alaska, split NWT between Alberta and Sasketchewan. Make all arctic islands part of Nunavut Territory--which could become a state when it reaches a high enough population. Add Greenland to nunavut to increase the population.

Anyway, all of these new Canadian states have a larger population than wyoming, i don't think its necessary to combine any more than that. Thanks,

Harry Nelson
Madison, Mississippi
May 31, 2004

Chairman Schoonmaker responds:

You are too generous, literally. Representation in the U.S. Senate is by state, with each state getting two Senators, regardless of its population. People in large states are already underrepresented relative to small states, but at least these are old states, and some of them formed the Union. Texas and Hawaii gave up their separate sovereignties to join the Nation, and we can recognize that with equal treatment in the Senate. Besides, they joined a very long time ago, over 150 years in the case of Texas; 106 years in the case of Hawaii.

By contrast, none of the provinces of Canada was ever sovereign, and the whole of Canada does not equal the population of the one State of California. It would be unjust to reward people who refused to join the United States for, in some cases, more than two centuries, with disproportionately high representation in the Senate. The Articles of Confederation offered Canada admission to the Union on a basis of equality with the original Thirteen States, without negotiations, in 1787. Canada didn't take up the offer. Now, we must be fair to the big states, old and new, and refuse gross over-representation to small new states. Canadians themselves in the States of Ontario, Quebec, and BC might very well reject equal representation with themselves for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland. I'd agree. And Nunavut is NEVER going to have millions of people unless "global warming" reaches very high into the Arctic. But I am pleased to show your suggestion for our visitors to evaluate on their own.

Why would anyone want to be included in a USA on the progressive track to tyranny?

The present government of our nation has been a whitewashed dictatorship of the Presidency all our lives!! You don't believe me? Do the search yourself... Look for "Senate Report 93-549".

The most pressing need right now is for the return to constitutional rule in America.

Others may not know the truth either, as I didn't until a few days ago, but all know that SOMETHING IS WRONG.

Having others join us in this tyranny from the shadows is a bad idea until we get a few things straightened out.

The tenth amendment is of the utmost importance, with powers not delegated to the Federals being reserved to the states and individuals.

There are lots of high priorities, but let's go for the gold...Return to the constitution!

Leif Palmer
Kamuela, Hawaii, USA
March 17, 2004

Chairman Schoonmaker responds:

XP is a staunch defender of federalism -- strong states make a strong Union -- and it is precisely by annexing other areas defensive of their own rights that we can strengthen federalism. (I make no comment on "Senate Report 93-549", because my search produced no webpage from what I regard as a dispassionate, authoritative site, such as a university.)

The Nation changes as its shape and demographics change. If, for instance, the U.S. were only the South, it would be much more conservative than a U.S. that embraces the North and West as well. By annexing any area, we change the national dynamics, in some measure. In annexing countries that have a proud history of their own which they are not content to see vanish into a homogenized mass dominated from Washington, but who will want real power to remain in places like Quebec City and London, we revitalize federalism by showing the existing states that they don't have to lie down and take dictation from the center but can demand that Washington unhand state responsibilities and give back the resources those responsibilities require. In demanding that Washington back off from state areas of jurisdiction like education AND cut federal taxes now taken OUT of the states and given back only with strings attached, then, new states militant about preserving their perquisites would immensely empower the older states to handle their responsibilities effectively, strengthening federalism and defending everyone against federal overreaching.

Came across your website after reading about it in Playboy magazine. As I read through (and printed) many of your pages, I found many areas that I hadn't thought about in depth, and others where I outright disagreed. However, the main point, that the U.S. should expand by inviting others to join as states (perhaps after some type of transition period) was right on! The issue of changing boundaries, such as those suggested for Canada, are immaterial. Let them come in as they are. There are so many larger pressing issues. For example, the recent events in Haiti make for a prime candidate for an invitation. It would bring in a stable government, boost the economy, and create an example for others. Why try, as they have for 200 years, to go it alone when they can have a more powerful voice as a member of the U.S.? Troubles in Central America present opportunities. Even post-NAFTA Mexico presents opportunities. (Even Mexicans are hearing the sucking sounds of jobs moving to Asia.) Don't like Hugo Chavez? Create a referendum and join the U.S. Some may call this "the new imperialism", but with the potential benefits for all concerned, I call it common sense. Keep up the good work.

Peter Winston
Westlake Village, California
pawins@adelphia.net
March 3, 2004

I AM a Canada citizen, and was naturalized when I was young. I grew up as a Canadian in Mississauga, Ontario with Canadian values only to realize certain things. I realized that everything Canada has and every value Canada attempts to portray derives from the United States.

All the movies I watched, shows I enjoyed, and democratic values I learned come from the US. I knew what the US constitution was before I even thought about whether Canada had one. I watched US elections with more interest than Canadian elections. Kids in Canada don't say "I want to be Prime Minister" when I grow up. They say "I want to be President".

Every aspect of my education and beliefs come from the United States. I have many American friends who have long returned home. The music I listen to, the TV shows I watch, all comes from the United States. But this isn't all. I was raised as an American.

The problem is that I can't even return home. I'm not even wanted where I want to be, with the national family I grew up with, and with the friends I know. Canada has been my home all my life, but I was raised as an American. I can't even be in my own country.

So this message is simply to show my appreciation for people like you who have realized that locking Canadians within a country that doesn't really exist is not the answer. There are more of us than people think! To me, this parallels South and North Korea. If Canada united with America, it would be the greatest example of national family in history. But this day doesn't seem to be coming.

Is there anything that can be done? I am tired of being treated like a foreigner in the place where I belong. One way or another, if Canada will not return home, I will. This is not simply an attempt to immigrate and naturalize. It is a return home. But I would much rather bring Canada with me.

Again, I appreciate the effort of those dedicated to the union. Whatever support you need, please let me know how to help. I do, however, feel it will be a long time.

(Name Withheld), Mississauga, Ontario
Canada-US Union Supporter.

I WAS pleased to find your site for the Expansionist Party, especially with regard to the annexation of Canada into the USA. Instinctively you recognize the benefits of such a union, and this must be supported.

After reading through your site, I was struck with several impressions, which I shall share with you.

The first thing I noted was that it took me about 25 tries to find any (your) site regarding this topic using the web browser. I don't usually have this problem, so it may be indicative of a poor choice of key words or a poor number of hits on the site.

My impression reading the site is that the XP is still a small organization, because I still detect a few rough edges that suggest it does not stick handle many general public concerns effectively. The public reacts to ideas, sometimes constructively, and sometimes negatively, out of fear or emotion. There is a need for polling and research before the framework proposed by the XP can be implemented as policy. Without this kind of research, a large segment of the public will feel alienated by arrogant ideologues. Now I know you are not such a person, but people need to feel understood in subtle ways.

There are technical issues regarding the plan that interest me. For example, the division of the landmass into political units. I suggest that the inclusion of the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut into statehood with Alaska might not really be in the best interests of the residents. These territories are too sparsely populated for economic, self-sustaining provincial or state government. They would not welcome amalgamation with a distant government (at a state level) but in fact recently fought to break up the North West Territories to achieve a more responsive local government. These areas can only flourish as territories, within the union, financed by the central government. Politically, they are the adolescent wards, and would want to remain so.

If these areas were annexed at a state level, it would make more sense in my opinion to merge with their southern border areas. These are the lines of commercial trade — north to south — not east to west. For example, the Yukon could merge with Alaska, the North West Territories with Alberta, and Nunavut with Quebec or Ontario. These are the lines of trade, albeit not culture. To me this would be cultural imperialism, so I still favor keeping them as territories, with their own elected government institutions.

People often talk about merging the Prairie Provinces into one. Having lived there, I sometimes wonder if it makes sense to the natural flow of commerce and people. Many people think the boundaries need to be redrawn in the West to serve people better. Many in southeastern BC desire to join Alberta, since their links with Calgary are so strong, and the government in Victoria seems so remote to their interests. They also have the same time zone as Alberta. Likewise, people in northwestern Ontario feel more affinity to Winnipeg, and would want to join it in a bigger Manitoba. Saskatchewan is an in-between land. It is too weak for a state government, so must merge with either the east or west. Or both. I suggest that the north half, including Saskatoon, is best affiliated with a government in Edmonton, and the south half, including Regina, is best affiliated with a government in Winnipeg.

I fully support merging the Atlantic Provinces into one unit.

I can't ever see a one-to-one currency conversion being accepted by Americans. I suggest, however, that a more reasonable conversion might be at the purchasing power parity, somewhere near 80 to 85 cents to the dollar. A still better route to go might be to let the financial markets decide. Create a transition period for the elimination of the currency, where the futures market decides what price contracts get converted at. At this point the national debts are merged, and a host of other transactions occur.

As much as I support political union, I don't think it will happen without taking small steps first. The most important agenda should be the free movement of people and services between borders. A common customs and immigration border. To a large extent this is the case in Australia and New Zealand already. If they can do it, surely it can happen here in North America. This is essential for free trade, since the inflexibility of labor movements is inefficient and leads to shortages in the USA and surpluses in Canada. This limits economic expansion on both sides of the border.

I remain interested in your cause, and would like to know of like minded people or sources.

Lionel Berry
Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
apple314159@hotmail.com
March 25, 2001

XP's Chairman responds:

DISPOSITION of the Canadian territories is a topic we address as being open to settlement by Canadians before annexation or by the U.S. Federal Government afterward. Since no one has polled the locals as to what they want, we don't know what they would opt for. It makes no difference to me how the territories are eliminated; I just don't want colonies, be they called "territories", "wards", "commonwealths", or any other euphemism. Citizens of the United States are citizens of a superpower and must be willing to assume the responsibilities of citizenship, one of which is participating fully in our federal Union by fulfilling the responsibilities of statehood.

[Lionel has drawn a map to show his preferred alignment of Canada's new states, which XP offers for consideration, along with another seven-state alignment, at Canstatemap.html. His map prompted another member of the XP/USI "inner circle" on Canadian issues to offer a DIFFERENT map, which we have incorporated into a "Comments" page that also shows the present boundaries of Canada and the radical redrawing of the map foreseen by Joel Garreau in his famous book, The Nine Nations of North America.]

Naturally if we are redrawing the map of North America, we can shift current provincial boundaries when drawing new state boundaries. As to whether there is any significant sentiment in Saskatchewan, BC, or Ontario for splitting as you suggest, I cannot say, inasmuch as I have never before heard anyone discuss any such realignment. Jonathan, the webmaster of the United North America site (http://www.unitednorthamerica.org), is located in Winnipeg but has never mentioned such realignments to us.

Devising keywords is of course a problem, since we don't know what people would search for. We have put terms such as "statehood", "annexation", "Canada" (and each of the provinces' names) and "expansionism" in our meta tags and used them in our various pages, but don't know what search terms you used. Had you searched for "expansionist party", it would have come up very high in the search results, often at No. 1 in major search engines.

I don't know how much of our site(s) you have looked at, but wonder if you saw and have responded to our notice about an Ontario statehood group forming. The organizer, Marcus Mayer, is in Hamilton, which, alas, is quite some distance from you. Still, you might want to communicate with him directly.

Have you voted in the poll of Canadian public opinion at our allied site, United States International? If not, you might want to express yourself there: http://www.geocities.com/us_int/USI-Canada.html.

I cannot agree that we should essentially give away the store in order to draw others into our Union. If Canadians, for example, have full access to our jobs and capital, and can live here and take jobs away from Americans without ever bringing their province into the Union, why on Earth would they assume the responsibilities of U.S. citizenship when they get all the benefits without doing so? It's the old, "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?" dynamic. Some things of enormous importance must remain closed to all but citizens.

(This is the end of this area.) [Return to the top of this page.] [Go to the Expansionist Party home page]