Beg your pardon for taking so long to reply! I'm a very busy fellow these days.

Yes I am indeed Raj. It was a few years ago when I first posted and my politics have evolved quite considerable since then. At that time I was a member of the Federal Commonwealth Society, and did not return here again until after I had come to acknowledge America's place as the center of the anglosphere.

The Federal Commonwealth Society eventualy became the United Commonwealth Society, and then subsequently there was a split on bad terms among the members. There is now two societies I believe (or at least there were), one that advocated a vague idea of cooperation between the nations of the entire commonwealth, while the other advocates the original purpose of FCS of a federal union of the 16 realms of the the Queen, naturally with a focus on the big four; Britain, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia. I do not know the names for either of these two groups, nor do I know for certain that both continue.

The forum built up a decent number of members (certainly as many as United North ever had), but the original sociey always sufefred form lacking a concise and coherant message, thus leaving too much to the imagination of each individual member and consequently causing great inviting. There were too many unanswered questions: Who exactly should we unite? The 16 realms of the Queen? What if Australia becomes a republic, do we reject them but continue to include Papua New Guinea? Maybe then just thetraditional inner commonwealth of settler nations regardless of monarchy. But then why not include Ireland. Why not include the largest anglo-celtic created country of all; The United States of America. And are we advocating a full federal union, a confederacy, or a strong alliance of independant states? What kind of constitution are we proposing, where is the capital, how do we include Britain in a federal system when it currently lacks federal divisions? These questions were left unanswered, noone was willing to take a leadership position, and so the society was town about by internal disagreement in much the same way as the original imperial federation movement in the early 20th century.

My reccamendation is remain open minded on all proposals that strengthen the the anglo-celtic nations, help them to work together, and most importantly enshrine and renew our traditional liberties. I believe our best hope for such an arrangement comes from America, not Westminster, but a confederation of the traditional commonwealth nations certainly has its appeal.

That's a shame about the FCS.

My own politics have evolved a little as well. Starting as an unapologetic Amerophile, my views shifted more favorably towards the English roots of our culture in the UK, especially as it seemed America's ascendancy might turn out to be quite ephemeral. But I'm going full-circle in some respects as I now, despite my disgust with American politics, acknowledge that America will play a significant if not dominant role for the rest of this century at the least.

A confederal Commonwealth certainly does have its appeal, and it is still my hope that as America matures in its power, the Anglosphere will bond itself more tightly together.

So you've been travalling in an opposite direction to myslef

I think we will need to be open minded and keep our options open. We need to recognise we have various ties of different sorts with kindred nations. Britain's connection with America is different to Britain's connection to Canada. One is not more morally significant than the other, but they are different. We all have something to offer and we should work to bring as many of our peoples on board as possible, whether in the context of a federal union or a league of independant freedom loving countries. Finally we must also be prepared to go it alone if our friends and cousins overseas ultimately turn from the ideals of liberty we should hold dear. Union of any sort is conditional, not an end in of itself.

No, I'm against this kind of stuff!

Well, if this means giving Europe more power over us without the reverse, I'd be very sceptical. But if it's something like a bigger EU, I'd support it. The US, Canada, Australia, NZ are no less European than the diverse countries of Europe all are; we are of the same heritage.

So I'd vote for it. I need to say, of course, that a precondition to any union involving the US is that we adopt socialised health-care; free movement of people is not compatible with anything else.

Any ideas as to why this guy wants the U.S. to extend citizenship to all Latins (Latin America)?

I'm taking Latin American history so I may be able to answer this question by the end of May for you guys if no one has a plausible answer.

Latins are mostly Christians which works well with Western Ideals, but are their societies free? socialist or capitalist? How do their minds work? I know they have a history with dictators but so does Europe.

The Edict of Caracalla gave citizenship to all free Romans in the empire. It stirred up a great deal of controversy because citizens formerly not subject to the laws of the empire became subjects. People also suspected that this was a ploy for the Romans to increase their tax base.

The United States like Rome does need to expand their tax base. Best "immigrants" and why they do need to Annex Canada. Besides tax base good public works projects in bringing in Canada. I.e: California has agreed to improve and upgrade the I5 and highway 99 corridor with Oregon, Washington State and British Columbia. Sharing the costs for materials and providing labor. They are also laying the ground work for high speed rail from San Diego to Vancouver. Americans are more likely to accept by a majority Canadians. Speaking from having lived in both countries on and off for nearly 30 years. I have to say I'm Canadian for anybody to know. And when I do tell Americans, they have a surprised really look on their faces!

I agree that Latin America do have family values in that despite some cultural differences they are 1950's Norman Rockwell American in a lot of ways. But most of those places have a street smart cheat to survive mentality. Its really easy to get a legal Hispanic identity for illegals to work, even pass as legal if raided by ICE. Its also inexpensive because of ease. Majority of illegals soon learn that as Jose they can have a full time job. As Juan they can collect worker comp insurance and as Migual they get welfare. Biggest reason California is going broke a large percent have no problem "cheating" the social safety net.

Ah, the real id act becomes clearer. The real reason they are testing and encouraging enhanced drivers licenses. The US tried mandatory social security cards from birth. But immigration, etcetera still makes it easy to get bogus real ones. Enhanced real id will make it easy to bust illegal aliens and also get the ones cheating the social safety net! Canadians are one of the few aliens that are exempted from carrying proof of legal admittance into the U.S. Real id act and enhanced drivers licenses or needing passports instead of verbal declarations. Well that ensures actual Canadians get some of our unique privileges we enjoy in The United States.

I actually do think BC is the test province for eventual open border. Having an Enhanced drivers license will be like having NEXUS. Video technology already in place to scan license plates and run them in motor vehicle databases. Both provinces and states have auto toll cameras systems in place. That also can track drivers. U.S law enforcement can and know work with Canadian counter parts. British Columbian Canadians will be able to cross freely and live work, etcetera in the Pacific Coast jurisdictions. All these pieces add up that BC will be the test case and good case evidence this open border for Canadians is safe and good economics. All of Canada will follow and eventual only piece left is full citizen rights. Since Americans out number Canadians the only viable winning solution will be adoption of the U.S Constitution. BC is also the most disconnected from Ottawa and probably the easiest to silently errode the border!

Canada could become several states, Guyana could become a state, Puerto Rico could gain statehood, and the North Mariana Islands and Guam (probably combined) could become a state/s. However everything after that gets more tricky if not impossible. The U.S. would have a much better chance of getting the Philippines to become a state then South Korea or Japan, I'd even go so far to say New Zealand and Australia as well. In fact I could see Australia and New Zealand merging together to be honest over becoming states. The UK is a possiblity but I don't see it as likely with in my life time. Not saying that's impossible just unlikely. There is no way in fucking hell we should take in every single continental european country. I'm sorry but there are just way to many differences to work out there. Being honest here we would be better off letting mexico join as several states vs. having continental europe.

I'm not sure where I stand on the USW but as far as I can see it there is going to be more push for this kind of thing over the next 50 years. Think about it 1800's to early 1900's (and a little before Amarican revolution 1776) there were revolutions around the world. Many goverments that changed and repositioned.

1900's there were more splintered countries around the world the Balkins couldn't make up thier minds on what were the counties. The fall of the soviet union. And meny other changes Not to mention two huge wars over dominance in Europe.

in the later 1900's and starting the 2000's Unions have formed. Most notable the European Union, but also the start of the African Union and South America is doing the same, South Asia.

Heck Porta Rico has been sitting on the edge of statehood for sometime now with no movement either way really. The 2000's is the century of unity. This is our time and as America, a country and people that have prided themselves on being #1 (If we are or not really doesn't matter) We are watching the EU group to a point of being a bigger economy then us and more influence then us. China is moving up and will rival us as well.

Americans won't take this lightly. It will be a hit to our pride and the only way will we be able to compete with the EU is to be accept more culture. To beat the Chinese we need more people. We can follow europes example which of course we wouldn't want to do because we prefer not to let them lead us and we want to be a step ahead. The best way to do this is to go beyond a union and just be one country one people.

For that we will need new states. Porta Rico, and the "States" of Canada. Eventually the rest of the island nations off of Florada, Guam maybe even Mexico eventually. A completely united north america could be the end results of it.

Now can this spread Even further. That is where we come in. If people can spread the word and get people on both sideds of the boarder excited about it and pushing for it then we could have a good bed of support and when the world sees an effort on both sides to push for it and it goes well Aussi and NZ might be in favor of it.

Canada, yes. Caribbean, yes. Mexico and Central America, eventually. As for Australian and New Zealand, if we can swing it, why not. Just to throw out my own, how about Britain and Albania, Britain dose not like the EU much, and Albania is as pro American as any state, if not more then some.
Oh, and Puerto Rico, lets hope that comes in the next two years, 112 years as a territory is way to long.

Yeah Albania did hold a referandum for applying to become a U.S. state however due to geography I can't see it happening.

Oh yeah I forgot to throw in Ireland as well. Why being fully intergrated in the EU and unlikely to become a state it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

It's the 21st century, how would Albania's geography stop it from at least becoming a US territory? It is not in the EU, so why not?
As for the UK and Ireland, that'll come when the EU tries to become the United States of Europe, I promise you, it will.

Albania is not an island nation it is immediately surrounded by Serbia, Macedonia, Greece, and Montenegro which could throw ridiculous tariffs on Albania if it became a state. Not to mention there could be huge illegal immigration problems as well. If Albania was an island nation it would be possible however due to the above problems and them applying to join the EU I don't see it happening.

I tried and could not find Albanian referendum for statehood although I attest -through reading on the web- that Albania is very pro-American. Where did you read about this referendum?

Be careful not to fall into the trappings of all out expansion. This guy believes we should extend U.S. citizenship to a significant portion of the world whither they like it or not. This is likely to cause another world war in protest if the U.S. is willing to back up its declaration and Europe / South America is willing to fight for their sovereignty.

Overall, this plan I'd say is a wee bit too radical I just wish the U.S. wasn't on the opposite side of this topic by not opening talks to any other countries.

Yeah it is unfortunatle that America is so agenst the idea of joining up with others or allowing others to come in to the fold but again I do see this as something that will change in this century. As America starts to fall from being the top military, the tope economy and when the people realize we are the end all be all big brother of the world they are going to want to gain some of that standing back. To do that we will have to expand.

I do not ever remember once saying that America should annex the whole of the free world. I get carried away from time to time, but we all do. I was just saying, an ocean and a few other countries bordering it wouldn't take Albania out of the running for statehood. Personally, I am opposed to a one world government, and would be a member of a group to brake it up.
As for Europe and South America, there is one country in S. America I would give statehood, and four countries in Europe.

I wasn't aiming my post at any particular person. I felt that the topic was growing off topic by considering all the potential states but without considering their reaction to a U.S. edict of Caracalla and reminding people where this originated from. An idea to, essentially, undemocratically annex swaths of the world.

Meaning my point in posting was to say that if you are going to consider which countries would be more open minded to joining the United States, to also take into consideration the way it was done. Would any country mentioned thus far actually welcome the edict?

Canada, for all intents and purposes, wouldn't. As I see it, Canadians would view this as the American invasion they have been fearing since America's inception.

I think that it would be important for people to somehow earn citizenship under such a system.

Read StarShip Troopers for more understanding of the reasoning.

Hi Roughneck55,

And welcome to the forums. Didn't the states originally require a payment of a significant amount of money for the privilege to vote at some point in the genuinely American past? I'm saying this because I've had discussions with a retired soldier from Arizona (on these forums some time ago) who was referring to this starship trooper concept of the "citizen soldier".

I'm just putting on the table, the idea that there might be a plurality of ways to earn that privilege perhaps?

The key word in that is "read". The movie makes a joke out of a serious book.