Sorry; I meant to say "except Quebec" in the "95% identical" line, but it somehow got omitted.

When annexation happens I do not expect the US to be interested in Quebec because of language. I suppose that means that sovereignists ought to be in favor of US annexation.

That’s a giant if. How can you be so sure the US would have no interest in Québec? We’re not just a bunch of loser people. We have incredible talent in multiple high-investment fields, we’re the bedrock of hydro power on the continent, and we have the cool city all the Yankees want to see to pretend they went somewhere exotic.

The Americans know as much as me that quick and painful assimilation is possible. Why wouldn’t they wish to impose it on my nation?

Puerto Rico is still 100% Spanish-speaking, 125 years after annexation by the US.

It's possible that the US would annex Quebec and similarly keep it as a territory, but more likely is the US not bothering with it at all; why bring within itself an ethnic conflict that has bedeviled Canada for 250 years?

Your negative bias towards my people is showing; most raw raw Canadian federalists insist the mixture of both nations benefited the country, not made it more difficult to manage.

I'm an American, so have no brief for either side. I'm happy to believe that Quebec + TROC = greater than the sum of its parts. Maybe that would be true for the US; maybe that means Quebec as territory would be the best solution to satisfy both parties.

But even setting aside the unlikelihood of Quebecois used to having so much say in governing Canada being happy with no longer having voting delegates in the national legislature, surely any such benefit for the US would be a lot less, relatively speaking. And, again, why would we bring in yet another ethnic conflict into our country?