Here's the fun part, they didn't have to ask the tribals, because the treaties signed are null, they have been violated time and time again, only truly upheld in a symbolic sense.
Alberta also doesn't need the approval of the courts, it can make a Unilateral Declaration of Independence, the same way the US colonies did when they broke away from the British Empire.
Alberta possesses the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explicitly championed Alberta as a "natural partner" due to its massive natural resources, and shared frustration over pipeline restrictions under Ottawa.
Adding Alberta to the US would give the US direct, uninterrupted control over the critical mid-continent energy corridor, feeding right into dozens of refineries.
Right-wing US talking heads and politicians view Alberta's conservative, independent political landscape as a natural cultural fit for the current American administration.
However, just taking in Alberta would go against what the US wants.
The US relies heavily on a unified, stable Canada to secure North American airspace, and the Arctic.
If Canada fractures into pieces, CSIS notes that joint defense frameworks like NORAD would face severe, and unpredictable disruptions.
This would leave the northern border highly vulnerable to foreign adversaries like Russia or China.
If the US moves to absorb Alberta, it destroys its relationship with the rest of Canada, Ottawa and British Columbia would immediately cut off, or heavily tax all rail, road, and pipeline transit from Alberta to the coast.
The US would find itself babysitting an isolated inland territory cut off from global shipping lanes, for a time at least, as the US and Alberta would move to reroute shipping lanes through the US.
This is why I suggest the US annex the entire nation, and while this would add 26 seats, I can assuage concerns of a leftward shift.
The common international stereotype of Canada as a uniformly progressive nation obscures a deeply rooted, highly influential conservative core.
The reality is, that Canada is secretly conservative is backed up by voting data and public opinion.
In multiple federal elections, the Conservative Party of Canada won the highest share of the total vote, even if the seat distribution allowed the Liberal Party to form a government.
This means more Canadians voted for conservative representation than for any other single party.
The massive popularity of conservatism across Canada shows that Canadians feel alienated by Ottawa's focus on progressive social policies.
Millions of Canadians prioritize economic survival, lower taxes, and personal freedom over the federal government's agenda, and it has been this way for decades.
While the federal leadership in Ottawa projects a progressive image to the world, the day-to-day governance of Canada tells a completely different story.
The vast majority of Canadians live under provincial governments led by conservative, or right-leaning premiers.
Provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario are governed by strong conservative majorities.
These provincial governments frequently team up to legally, and politically fight federal policies, such as the carbon tax, environmental regulations, and firearms legislation, proving that a massive portion of the country's institutional power is actively right-wing.
Canada's progressive leadership relies almost entirely on concentrated urban ridings in downtown Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.
Outside of these three major cities, in the suburban communities, small towns, and rural areas, Canadian culture is deeply traditional, self-reliant, and aligned with right-wing principles.
Treating the values of downtown Toronto as "the values of all Canadians" is precisely what has caused decades of intense political resentment.
Recent polling shows that even on issues traditionally seen as "progressive consensus" in Canada, the public has moved sharply to the right.
Due to severe housing shortages, a strained healthcare system, and rising costs, a clear majority of Canadians now believe that immigration levels have been too high for too long, and that the government's policies have broken the country's financial stability.
If you were to integrate Canada into the United States federal framework, the structural design of the system would heavily penalise urban progressives, and in turn structurally protect right-wing power.
In Canada's First Past The Post system, votes are not pooled nationally, they are locked within geographic boundaries, this produces a few distortions.
Left-wing voters are heavily concentrated in dense urban cores, winning a city riding with 85% of the vote is an "inefficient" use of votes, because any vote over 50% is essentially wasted.
Right-wing votes are spread out more evenly across rural and suburban ridings, allowing them to win more seats with fewer total votes.
If Canada were absorbed into the US system, the progressive monolith stereotype would completely dissolve.
The US legislative architecture is explicitly built to prevent densely populated, progressive urban areas from dominating the federal government.
The US Senate gives exactly two seats to every state, regardless of population, for instance, California has approx. 39 million people, yet has the same voting power in the Senate as Wyoming who have approx. 580'000 people.
If Canada's provinces became US states, right-wing strongholds like Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba would get 6 US Senators combined.
Less populated Atlantic provinces, which hold deep conservative streaks would add more right-leaning senators.
The US Senate has a built-in structural advantage for Republicans because conservative voters are spread out across a higher number of smaller, rural states.
This system gives proportional power to smaller, rural states so they aren't overwhelmed by urban coastal states.
Leftist voters in massive cities like Toronto, Vancouver, or New York can't use their high numbers to overwhelm the rest of the continent, because votes are trapped within state lines.
A candidate could win 90% of Toronto, but they still only get Ontario's fixed electoral votes.
Unlike the American system, which protects rural areas by giving every state two Senate seats regardless of population, Canada’s system is designed so that seats in the House of Commons closely track where the majority of people live.
Because Canada has urbanized rapidly, cities have naturally accumulated the vast majority of political power.
Because nearly 82% of Canadians live in urban areas, cities automatically receive the overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament.
Rural areas have massive amounts of land, but because they have very few people, their riding boundaries have to stretch for thousands of kilometres just to match the population of a few city blocks in Toronto.
Elections in Canada are not won or lost across the vast rural expanses of the country, they are decided in the dense suburban and urban "belts" surrounding major cities.
The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area contains 55-60 seats in the House of Commons.
Greater Vancouver holds nearly 30 seats.
To form a majority government in Canada, a party needs 170 seats total, a political party can completely sweep rural Canada, but if they lose the cities and suburbs of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, they cannot legally form a government.
By subjecting Canada to the US system, I am repeating myself, I know, but I'm hammering the point home, you effectively neuter the urban areas, equalizing voting power across the nation, making Canada a nation that is deeply right-wing.
This has been my 27th bid to convince Americans to Annex Canada.