Albertification: A Modest Proposal for Continental Reorganization

In the Matter of the Adoption of Texas by Alberta: A Brief on Impossible Jurisprudence

Let's be clear from the outset: there is no legal mechanism for this to happen.

The Canadian Constitution does not contemplate acquiring American states. The United States Constitution does not permit states to join foreign nations. International law does not recognize satirical civic movements as legitimate governmental actors. No court on Earth has jurisdiction to grant what we're about to ask for.

And yet.

Law is not physics. Constitutions can be amended. Treaties can be negotiated. Borders that seemed permanent have moved throughout history—sometimes through war, sometimes through purchase, sometimes through negotiation, and occasionally through sheer audacity combined with favorable circumstances.

This forum examines what would actually be required—legally, constitutionally, diplomatically—for Alberta to adopt Texas. Not because it will happen, but because understanding why it can't happen illuminates how sovereignty, territory, and nationhood actually work.

Also, we're filing adoption papers anyway. Someone has to.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS

United States Constitution:

The US Constitution contains no exit clause. This was settled, definitively and bloodily, between 1861 and 1865. States cannot unilaterally secede.

Relevant provisions:

Article IV, Section 3:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

This permits adding states and reorganizing states—but says nothing about removing them.

Tenth Amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Secession advocates argue this reserves the right to withdraw. The federal government—and the Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1869)—disagrees.

Texas v. White (1869):

"The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union composed of indestructible States."

Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase wrote that Texas never actually left the Union during the Civil War—that secession was legally void from the beginning. The Union is perpetual. States cannot leave.

What would be required:

For Texas to legally depart the United States would require:

1. Constitutional amendment (two-thirds of Congress, three-fourths of states) explicitly permitting secession, OR
2. Constitutional amendment specifically authorizing Texas's departure, OR
3. Revolution that successfully establishes independence through force, OR
4. Mutual agreement via treaty following some process that doesn't currently exist

None of these is plausible. The first would never achieve ratification. The second would be blocked by states unwilling to set precedent. The third would be crushed militarily. The fourth requires both parties to agree to something neither wants.

Canadian Constitution:

Canada's Constitution Act, 1982 establishes amendment procedures for different types of constitutional changes.

Section 42(1)(f): Amendments relating to the extension of existing provinces into the territories require the "7/50 formula"—approval of Parliament plus at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population.

But acquiring a foreign state as a province? This isn't contemplated at all. The Constitution assumes new provinces might be carved from existing territory (as Nunavut was from the Northwest Territories in 1999) or admitted from waiting applicants (as Newfoundland was in 1949). It does not imagine acquiring 30 million Americans.

What would be required:

1. Constitutional amendment establishing a process for admitting non-Canadian territory
2. Parliamentary approval for the specific admission
3. Provincial consent under whatever formula the amendment establishes
4. Negotiation of the terms of admission (representation, taxation, existing obligations)

This is theoretically possible—Canada can amend its Constitution—but would require extraordinary political will and a willing partner.

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Even if both countries' internal legal barriers were overcome, international law governs how territory changes hands.

The Principle of Territorial Integrity:

The UN Charter, Article 2(4), prohibits the "threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state." This doesn't prohibit consensual territorial changes, but it establishes that borders are not to be changed by coercion.

Self-Determination:

UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960) establishes that "all peoples have the right to self-determination." But this right has been interpreted primarily as applying to colonial territories, not to regions of established states seeking to join other countries.

The International Court of Justice, in its 2010 advisory opinion on Kosovo, declined to rule that unilateral declarations of independence are illegal—but also didn't rule them legal. The status is genuinely unclear.

Precedents for Territorial Transfer:

Territory has changed hands through various mechanisms:

The Louisiana/Alaska/Gadsden precedents involved purchase of territory from sovereign owners. Newfoundland involved a referendum of an autonomous territory joining a neighbor. German reunification involved absorption of one state into another's constitutional order. Crimea shows how contested transfers create lasting disputes.

What would apply to Albertification:

Texas is not for sale (the US doesn't sell territory). Texas is not a colony seeking self-determination. Texas has not successfully seceded. Therefore:

1. Bilateral treaty between Canada and the United States, negotiated like any international agreement, OR
2. Successful Texas independence followed by application to join Canada, OR
3. Constitutional dissolution of the United States followed by state-by-state negotiations (this is the post-apocalyptic scenario), OR
4. Something unprecedented that we're inventing here

THE ADOPTION FRAMEWORK

Since no legal mechanism exists, we're creating one. The "adoption" framing isn't legally accurate—adoption is a family law concept—but it's evocative and serves the satirical purpose.

What an "Adoption Petition" would need to establish:

1. Standing: Who has authority to petition on Texas's behalf?
2. Consent: Has Texas consented to this adoption?
3. Fitness: Is Alberta a fit "parent" for Texas?
4. Best interests: Is adoption in Texas's best interests?
5. Terms: What are the conditions of the adoption?
6. Process: What tribunal has jurisdiction to grant it?

Obviously, no real court will hear this. But the exercise of drafting the petition forces us to articulate what we're actually proposing—and why.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF TEXAS

PETITION FOR ADOPTION

Filed with the Court of Civic Imagination South Alberta Independence Movement, Petitioner

I. PARTIES

Petitioner: The Province of Alberta, acting through the South Alberta Independence Movement (SAIM), a grassroots civic organization incorporated under the satirical laws of democratic hope.

Adoptee: The State of Texas, a sovereign state of the United States of America, population approximately 30 million, area approximately 695,662 km², possessed of significant oil reserves, cattle, and opinions.

Interested Parties:

• The Government of Canada (potential receiving nation)
• The Government of the United States (current custodial nation)
• The People of Texas (whose consent is ultimately required)
• The People of Alberta (who would receive new neighbors)
• The People of Oklahoma (who would become very confused about their geography)

II. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

This Court derives its jurisdiction from Article I of the Universal Declaration of Civic Audacity, which provides that "when existing legal frameworks prove inadequate to the aspirations of peoples, new frameworks may be imagined into existence through collective action and good-faith satire."

Alternatively, this Court has jurisdiction because we said so and no one has objected yet.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The State of Texas has, since its annexation by the United States in 1845, maintained a distinctive cultural identity characterized by: independence mythology, cattle ranching, petroleum extraction, large belt buckles, and a persistent belief that it could survive as an independent nation.
2. The Province of Alberta has, since its creation in 1905, maintained a distinctive cultural identity characterized by: independence mythology, cattle ranching, petroleum extraction, Stampede celebrations, and a persistent belief that Ottawa doesn't understand it.
3. The cultural, economic, and psychological similarities between Texas and Alberta are extensive and well-documented. (See: Exhibit A, "The Brisket Poutine Manifesto"; Exhibit B, "Comparative Analysis of Pickup Truck Preferences"; Exhibit C, "Why Both Regions Are Mad at Their Federal Governments: A Statistical Overview")
4. The existing custody arrangement—Texas as a state of the United States, Alberta as a province of Canada—has resulted in the separation of these natural siblings by approximately 2,800 kilometers of foreign territory.
5. Multiple attempts by Texas to assert independence (1836, symbolically ever since) and by Alberta to express dissatisfaction with federal arrangements (Wexit, equalization complaints, 2024 sovereignty act) suggest that current custody arrangements are not serving the best interests of either region.
6. Denmark has filed a competing petition for California under the "Denmarkification" proceeding. Alberta's petition is more substantive, better argued, and comes with actual democratic infrastructure rather than merely a website.

IV. GROUNDS FOR ADOPTION

A. Shared Cultural Heritage

Texas and Alberta share a cultural heritage rooted in:

• Frontier settlement patterns establishing self-reliance as a core value
• Cattle ranching as both economy and identity
• Petroleum extraction as economic foundation and political flashpoint
• Rodeo culture with compatible event structures and competitive formats
• Skepticism toward distant federal authority
• Truck-based transportation preferences
• A fondness for beef that borders on spiritual practice

These commonalities exceed the cultural connections Texas maintains with, for example, Massachusetts or Vermont. The adoption would unite peoples who already understand each other.

B. Economic Complementarity

The Alberta and Texas economies are structurally aligned:

• Both rely substantially on oil and gas extraction
• Both possess significant cattle industries
• Both have energy infrastructure requiring coordinated policy
• Both face similar challenges in energy transition
• Combined GDP would create a significant economic unit

Adoption would enable unified resource management, coordinated energy policy, and combined bargaining power in international trade negotiations.

C. Mutual Benefit

Benefits to Texas:

• Universal healthcare system (18% uninsured rate becomes 0%)
• Parliamentary democracy with functional coalition-building
• Metric system competency (eventually)
• Access to Canadian trade relationships and international reputation
• Escape from US federal dysfunction (to Canadian federal dysfunction, which is different)

Benefits to Alberta:

• Population increase from 4.5 million to 34+ million
• Warm-weather vacation options within national borders
• Year-round hockey arenas
• Access to Gulf Coast port facilities
• Friends who understand why oil patch work matters

D. Best Interests of the Child

Texas, despite its size and bluster, remains in some sense a child—a young state (admitted 1845) that has never fully reconciled its independence period with its American identity. Alberta, similarly, has struggled to find its place in Confederation.

Together, they might finally grow up. Or at least commiserate about their parents while enjoying brisket.

V. PROPOSED TERMS OF ADOPTION

Upon granting of this petition, the following terms shall apply:

1. Name: The combined territory shall be known as "South Alberta" or, in moments of enthusiasm, "the Greatest Landmass in the Western Hemisphere That Isn't Brazil."
2. Governance: South Alberta shall be governed as an autonomous region with its own parliament, taxation authority, healthcare system, and hockey league. Details to be negotiated during constitutional convention.
3. Capital: To be determined via referendum. (See: Capital City Selection forum, where this fight is already underway.)
4. Currency: To be determined. (See: Currency forum, where this fight is also underway.)
5. Official Languages: English primarily. French status preserved from Alberta's Canadian heritage. Spanish status to be negotiated given Texas demographics. "Y'all" and "eh" both recognized as official interjections.
6. Official Dish: To be determined via binding referendum. Current candidates include BBQ Brisket Poutine, The Stampede (pizza), The Prairie Thunder (bison burger), The Sweet North (maple-bourbon short ribs), and The Saskatoon Kolache.
7. Healthcare: Universal coverage extended to all residents within 10 years, with immediate emergency care coverage upon adoption finalization.
8. Firearms: Regional autonomy during 25-year harmonization period. Neither side is happy about this. That's how you know it's fair.
9. Transportation: Transit corridor negotiations with the United States to commence immediately. If negotiations fail, we're not above buying Oklahoma.
10. Hockey: Continental Hockey League established with franchises in Calgary, Edmonton, Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio. The Edmonton Oilers and Dallas Stars will develop a rivalry. The Calgary Flames will still be mad about something.

VI. CONSENT

This petition acknowledges that valid adoption requires consent of the adoptee.

The People of Texas have not yet consented to this adoption. A referendum would be required. We propose the following ballot question:

"Should Texas leave the United States of America and join with Alberta to form the autonomous nation of South Alberta, with universal healthcare, no provincial sales tax, an independent hockey league, and BBQ Brisket Poutine as a candidate for official dish?"

☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ What the hell is poutine? ☐ Y'all are weird, but... maybe?

We anticipate vigorous debate.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:

1. Accept this Petition for filing in the docket of Civic Imagination;
2. Order the Government of the United States to show cause why Texas should not be placed for adoption;
3. Order the Government of Canada to demonstrate fitness as a receiving nation;
4. Schedule a hearing at which evidence of cultural compatibility may be presented (brisket samples welcomed);
5. Grant the adoption upon satisfaction of consent requirements;
6. Issue such other and further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and amusing.

Respectfully submitted,

SOUTH ALBERTA INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT

Per: ___________________________ Authorized Representative Duly Empowered by Enthusiasm and Hope

Date: January 2026

VIII. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that copies of this Petition have been served upon:

• The White House (via Twitter, which they seem to monitor)
• The Prime Minister's Office (via polite letter with proper postage)
• The Governor of Texas (via certified mail and barbecue invitation)
• The Premier of Alberta (via text message, probably)
• The United Nations (via hopeful email to their general inbox)
• The International Court of Justice (via formal submission they will ignore)
• Reddit (via crosspost to r/texas and r/alberta)
• The People of Earth (via this forum)

Dated this _____ day of January, 2026

WHAT HAPPENS NOW

Nothing. Legally, nothing happens.

This petition will not be heard by any real court. The United States will not negotiate Texas's departure. Canada will not amend its Constitution to receive an American state. International law provides no mechanism for what we're proposing.

But the petition exists. It's filed here, in this forum, as a statement of aspiration. And aspirations have a way of becoming movements, and movements have a way of becoming history.

Every nation that exists was once impossible. Every border that seems permanent was once negotiated. Every constitution was once drafted by people who had no authority to draft constitutions until they did it anyway.

Albertification is satire. It's a thought experiment. It's an excuse to have substantive conversations about healthcare and taxation and firearms and culture disguised as a ridiculous premise.

But it's also a question: What would it take?

Not what's legal today. What would it take—what circumstances, what shifts, what crises, what opportunities—for something like this to become thinkable?

History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes. The Louisiana Purchase was unthinkable until Napoleon needed money. German reunification was a fantasy until the Wall fell. Brexit was a joke until it wasn't.

We're not predicting that Texas will join Alberta. We're asking what world would have to exist for that to be possible—and in doing so, we're illuminating the world we actually live in.

QUESTIONS FOR THE FORUM:

On legal mechanisms:

• What constitutional pathway, however improbable, could you imagine for territorial transfer?
• Are there historical precedents we've overlooked?
• What would trigger US willingness to negotiate—crisis? exhaustion? mutual benefit?

On consent:

• What would actual Texas consent look like? Referendum? Legislature? Constitutional convention?
• What percentage threshold should be required for such a fundamental change?
• How do you protect minority interests (those who vote "no" but are outvoted)?

On international law:

• How would the international community respond to such a transfer?
• Would South Alberta be recognized? By whom first?
• What role would the UN, OAS, NATO, or other international bodies play?

On the petition:

• Should we amend the petition based on forum feedback?
• What exhibits should be attached?
• Who else should be served with copies?

On the real question:

• What would the world have to look like for Albertification to be thinkable?
• Is that world more or less desirable than the one we have?
• What does this thought experiment reveal about sovereignty, identity, and belonging?

THE SERIOUS NOTE

Beneath the satire, there's something real here.

People in both Texas and Alberta feel, rightly or wrongly, that their federal governments don't understand them. Both regions have separatist movements—marginal but persistent—rooted in genuine grievance. Both regions share cultural values that transcend their national borders.

Albertification won't happen. But the desire for it—the sense that maybe you're in the wrong country, that maybe your neighbors across an arbitrary line understand you better than your compatriots across the continent—that desire is real.

Nations are imagined communities. We believe we belong together because we've agreed to believe it. If that agreement ever breaks down—if enough people stop believing—then everything becomes negotiable.

This forum exists to imagine one version of what might come next. Not as prediction. Not as advocacy. As exploration.

What do we owe our nations? What do our nations owe us? And if those obligations aren't being met, what right do we have to imagine something different?

These questions don't have legal answers. They have human answers, worked out over generations through argument and compromise and, occasionally, upheaval.

We're just getting started.