Should Texas secede?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Zachary Amaranth:

Mr.Mattress:
Nope, and if they ever tried, you can be sure we'd attack/invade/reunionize them. We'd do the same if Hawaii tried to leave the Union or if Puerto Rico tried to Violently leave the Union (They could peacefully leave it, since they're simply a Commonwealth with the US and not a Colony or state, but if they tried Violence we'd definitely go in there).

I'm not entirely sure what you say about Puerto Rico is true.

Puerto Rico is currently in the middle of Voting on whether or not they will secede or become a state. Their was a vote as of last year, in which the Commonwealth overwhelmingly voted on two things: 1) To end it's current Political Status as a Commonwealth (By 51%), and 2) To be admitted to the Union as a state (By 63% of that 51%). From what I understand, the Governor of Puerto Rico is currently drafting a Constitution for Puerto Rican statehood that would be sent to Congress where they would have to vote on. However, there was an option for Puerto Rico in that referendum to gain independence from the United State (Thus, they could have peacefully left the Union as of last year). There is no way we would have accepted their independence if they took up arms and assaulted American Institutions for said Independence.

Trek1701a:
Puerto Rico as a "Commonwealth", Same as Guam and American Samoa, has the right to self determination. With the current situation, "Commonwealth" territories have 1 non-voting member in the House of Representatives, the citizens pay US taxes and are covered by Federal and local laws. As for self determination, they can vote, via referendum, to become independent, or as Puerto Rico just voted to, look into, start or continue the process to become a state of the union.

You forgot that Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts are also considered Commonwealth states. Though considering their locations in the US, I doubt they would have an easy time leaving the Union.

Mr.Mattress:

Puerto Rico is currently in the middle of Voting on whether or not they will secede or become a state.

Everything you say here is nice and all, but it doesn't actually demonstrate they can. A bunch of US states believe they can, too, yet you yourself believe they cannot do so without repercussions. I have seen no evidence, including your own claims that backs up any notion that they would be allowed to leave. ESPECIALLY under the definition of "commonwealth," as I explained above:

Zachary Amaranth:

That wasn't the point. The issue of its status as a commonwealth allowing peaceful secession.

Let me elaborate: 'commonwealth' in itself doesn't have an official meaning to the US Government. The term is used interchangeably with "state" and there are several states officially named "Commonwealth of...." This includes Massachusetts. Puerto Rico's status is one of territory, and I see nothing allowing for the secession of territories, even unincorporated ones. That last line may be moot, as a 2008 decision labeled PR an incorporated territory, though it's still being challenged.

Since I can find no evidence of the right of a "commonwealth" or even a territory to secede, I doubt his claim.

Literally everything I'm reading about territory status indicates nothing specific on this argument. I see little here that's different from US states attempting to secede, save that there's a petition for potential statehood as well. In short, saying you can secede is different from successfully doing so.

Trek1701a:
As for self determination, they can vote, via referendum, to become independent, or as Puerto Rico just voted to, look into, start or continue the process to become a state of the union.

I'll include you in this, too.

I guess what I'm saying, in a less succinct way, is [citation needed]

Church185:

You forgot that Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts are also considered Commonwealth states. Though considering their locations in the US, I doubt they would have an easy time leaving the Union.

The problem is, commonwealth has no official US term. Mass and company are all considered states. Guam, Puerto Rico, etc, are considered territories.

I still think they're wrong, but their confusion comes from the same useless term yours seems to come from.

Zachary Amaranth:
The problem is, commonwealth has no official US term. Mass and company are all considered states. Guam, Puerto Rico, etc, are considered territories.

I still think they're wrong, but their confusion comes from the same useless term yours seems to come from.

You are right the term doesn't make any difference. Any state could leave if it was attempted in a peaceful manner. In this day and age military action against a state that tried to secede would be frowned upon by the rest of the world. If it got out of hand and there were casualties, who is to say that the rest of the world wouldn't start treating the US like Syria.

It would be difficult, especially if you were a landlocked state, because it would make trade nearly impossible.

Church185:

You forgot that Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts are also considered Commonwealth states. Though considering their locations in the US, I doubt they would have an easy time leaving the Union.

Ah, but you see, Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not simply considered Commonwealths, but states! Their constitutions were ratified by Congress and by the Constitution and have since become "Commonwealth States", not Commonwealths. Puerto Rico does not have a Constitution that was accepted by Congress for Statehood, and thus is simply a Commonwealth because they are governed by the United States, but are also governed by themselves and are considered Semi-Autonomous to the United States. If Puerto Rico were to become America's 51st state, it wouldn't be a Commonwealth anymore, but a Commonwealth State, and would loose any Autonomy it had.

Do I have to mention America's Politics are weird again?

Zachary Amaranth:
SNIP

The Proposed Political Status of Puerto Rico is all you'll need to understand why Puerto Rico could choose to secede from the United States, while other states cannot.

Also, I was wrong on the numbers; it was 54% Want to change Puerto Rico's current position as a Territory/Commonwealth, and 61% of those want Puerto Rico as a State.

VG_Addict:
There are some people who want Texas to secede. In your opinion, should it? People say that the national debt would improve if Texas left the union. What makes this true or untrue?

Even though I'm not from your country I've been seeing this secessionist nonsense since the late 1980s. If the majority of the people of Texas are unhappy being a part of the United States then it's my personal opinion that Texas should just be given back to Mexico. You know, the country your forefathers STOLE it from.

As someone who isn't from Texas, but who lives and works here for the past several years, would I then get a work visa or something? How would that even work?

Chemical Alia:
As someone who isn't from Texas, but who lives and works here for the past several years, would I then get a work visa or something? How would that even work?

Either that or you'd be a dirty foreigner taking their jawbs, and thus be kicked out.

Chemical Alia:
As someone who isn't from Texas, but who lives and works here for the past several years, would I then get a work visa or something? How would that even work?

As a resident of Texas, I expect you would automatically be given Texan citizenship upon secession. Perhaps you'd be permitted to opt out and refuse it. Presumably you'd be able retain your US citizenship if you wished, as well as or instead of Texas.

Presuming Texas managed to secede peacefully and in good faith on both sides, given the massively extensive economic and political links that would remain between it and the USA, they'd almost certainly arrange an open border policy for each others' citizens with freedom of movement and labour. At least in the short term.

Agema:

Chemical Alia:
As someone who isn't from Texas, but who lives and works here for the past several years, would I then get a work visa or something? How would that even work?

As a resident of Texas, I expect you would automatically be given Texan citizenship upon secession. Perhaps you'd be permitted to opt out and refuse it. Presumably you'd be able retain your US citizenship if you wished, as well as or instead of Texas.

Presuming Texas managed to secede peacefully and in good faith on both sides, given the massively extensive economic and political links that would remain between it and the USA, they'd almost certainly arrange an open border policy for each others' citizens with freedom of movement and labour. At least in the short term.

No matter how amicable the secession was, I think allowing Texans to retain their US citizenship would be viewed as "having their cake and eating it too". There would probably be a serious backlash against allowing them to have dual citizenship and Texan residents would have to choose which citizenship to accept.

Nielas:

Agema:

Chemical Alia:
As someone who isn't from Texas, but who lives and works here for the past several years, would I then get a work visa or something? How would that even work?

As a resident of Texas, I expect you would automatically be given Texan citizenship upon secession. Perhaps you'd be permitted to opt out and refuse it. Presumably you'd be able retain your US citizenship if you wished, as well as or instead of Texas.

Presuming Texas managed to secede peacefully and in good faith on both sides, given the massively extensive economic and political links that would remain between it and the USA, they'd almost certainly arrange an open border policy for each others' citizens with freedom of movement and labour. At least in the short term.

No matter how amicable the secession was, I think allowing Texans to retain their US citizenship would be viewed as "having their cake and eating it too". There would probably be a serious backlash against allowing them to have dual citizenship and Texan residents would have to choose which citizenship to accept.

If I had to become a "Texas citizen" I would be out of here so fast, like you wouldn't even know.

Chemical Alia:
If I had to become a "Texas citizen" I would be out of here so fast, like you wouldn't even know.

You and probably half the state, mostly from the urban centers.

The Gentleman:

Chemical Alia:
If I had to become a "Texas citizen" I would be out of here so fast, like you wouldn't even know.

You and probably half the state, mostly from the urban centers.

Yeah, I live in the DFW area, and judging by my old job, A LOT of people who work here are originally from elsewhere. I don't like living here, mostly because the utter lack of nature or anything interesting at all to look at is slowly driving me insane, and the thought of spending another five years here is too painful to consider. Many of my friends, both from this area and from other states feel the same way, unless they have already settled down with a house and kids.

Chemical Alia:

The Gentleman:

Chemical Alia:
If I had to become a "Texas citizen" I would be out of here so fast, like you wouldn't even know.

You and probably half the state, mostly from the urban centers.

Yeah, I live in the DFW area, and judging by my old job, A LOT of people who work here are originally from elsewhere. I don't like living here, mostly because the utter lack of nature or anything interesting at all to look at is slowly driving me insane, and the thought of spending another five years here is too painful to consider. Many of my friends, both from this area and from other states feel the same way, unless they have already settled down with a house and kids.

Try Seattle for a few years. Plenty of green, but the gray of the fall and winter months will drive you a different kind of mad.

Texas seems to have a lot of blowhards. They talk a big game but tend to not back it up when it comes to the leaving the union deal. It comes up more often than i'd like and sure, several people take it seriously but most don't. Most think it's terrible idea that will never happen and tend to distance themselves from those that take is serious. I've grown up in Texas and still live here and every time someone brings up the idea of seceding, there's a huge groan followed with massive amounts of eye rolling.

DANGER- MUST SILENCE:
I don't want Texas to secede, but not because of anything special about Texas. I'm in general opposed to radical, untested, experimental change and a large state seceding from a modern western nation would be the epitome of that.

Does seem like the sort of thing that could touch off further foolishness, doesn't it? That kind of "all bets are off" thinking can lead to some bad places pretty quickly.

But that said, we don't need Texas as much as they need us. They wanna talk big about going on their own? I say don't let the door hit all y'all on the ass on your way out.

Hm. Well now I'm torn. Dropping Texas might be as good a chance as we'd ever get to dismantle the military industrial complex. Think of all the money we'd free up for social programs, infrastructure, etc., not to mention the enormous gains in foreign policy when we suddenly stop bombing the crap out of everyone who looks at us cross ways.

The Gentleman:

Chemical Alia:

The Gentleman:
You and probably half the state, mostly from the urban centers.

Yeah, I live in the DFW area, and judging by my old job, A LOT of people who work here are originally from elsewhere. I don't like living here, mostly because the utter lack of nature or anything interesting at all to look at is slowly driving me insane, and the thought of spending another five years here is too painful to consider. Many of my friends, both from this area and from other states feel the same way, unless they have already settled down with a house and kids.

Try Seattle for a few years. Plenty of green, but the gray of the fall and winter months will drive you a different kind of mad.

That's actually the eventual plan. I'm from Pennsylvania, and I'm pretty familiar with half of the year being dark and shitty, but at least there's hills, trees, cute towns and stuff (also family). Here the weather is better overall if you don't count the summers which prove that humans should never have come here, but it's basically just strip malls and smelly highways (with at least a 4 hour drive to any better place), so harder to appreciate when it is nice.

Chemical Alia:

The Gentleman:

Chemical Alia:

Yeah, I live in the DFW area, and judging by my old job, A LOT of people who work here are originally from elsewhere. I don't like living here, mostly because the utter lack of nature or anything interesting at all to look at is slowly driving me insane, and the thought of spending another five years here is too painful to consider. Many of my friends, both from this area and from other states feel the same way, unless they have already settled down with a house and kids.

Try Seattle for a few years. Plenty of green, but the gray of the fall and winter months will drive you a different kind of mad.

That's actually the eventual plan. I'm from Pennsylvania, and I'm pretty familiar with half of the year being dark and shitty, but at least there's hills, trees, cute towns and stuff (also family). Here the weather is better overall if you don't count the summers which prove that humans should never have come here, but it's basically just strip malls and smelly highways (with at least a 4 hour drive to any better place), so harder to appreciate when it is nice.

Also, I don't like brisket, and they insist on not putting beans in their chili.

Nielas:

No matter how amicable the secession was, I think allowing Texans to retain their US citizenship would be viewed as "having their cake and eating it too". There would probably be a serious backlash against allowing them to have dual citizenship and Texan residents would have to choose which citizenship to accept.

It wouldn't have to be all Texan residents who could automatically claim dual US-Texan citizenship, only the ones born in the other 49 states of the USA. After all, if you're born in the USA, you qualify for citizenship.

You could argue that all Texans born pre-secession were technically born in the USA. However, as a legitimate successor state to the old USA, Texas should "inherit" its relevant share of place of birth claims along with its territory and sovereignty.

Of course, the USA could arrange citizenship it any way it pleased. It might, for instance, prefer all Texans to retain US citizenship because lots of US citizens with ties to the US might make Texas more pliable to US interests. Think, for instance, how much Canada, Aus and NZ helped the UK out in the first half of the 20th century long after they had any national need to. They did so because so many of the people of those nations continued to think of themselves as (at least in part) British.

Mr.Mattress:

Ah, but you see, Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts are not simply considered Commonwealths, but states!

Because "commonwealth" has no real meaning in terms of legality. Commonwealth is used interchangeably with states and also with territories. Since you used Wikipedia, go look this up on Wikipedia. The "they're also states" thing is kind of moot because they're states, period. And PR is a territory, period.

The Proposed Political Status of Puerto Rico is all you'll need to understand why Puerto Rico could choose to secede from the United States, while other states cannot.[/quote]

Except it doesn't. It talks about different political ideologies about what could happen. It doesn't actually dictate precedent for or any real grounds that it can happen.

If Texas had a large enough secessionist referendum, we would see the same sort of Wikipedia page. In fact, Texans argue similar arguments to those of PR.

Zachary Amaranth:
SNIP

Not in America. In America, a Commonwealth is a Territory and a Commonwealth State is a state. Again, American Politics is weird.

And if you had read, you would see that we put laws in place to allow Puerto Rico to actually succeed peacefully. We don't have any kinds of laws in place for some state like Texas to succeed. Only Puerto Rico.

Mr.Mattress:

Not in America. In America, a Commonwealth is a Territory and a Commonwealth State is a state. Again, American Politics is weird.

In fact, the word "commonwealth" is completely redundant here and you could have left it out. I'm glad you're agreeing with me now.

And if you had read, you would see that we put laws in place to allow Puerto Rico to actually succeed peacefully. We don't have any kinds of laws in place for some state like Texas to succeed. Only Puerto Rico.

No need to pull an attitude. I did read. It's a long, rather dense article that doesn't get to the point you want it to handily.

what you could have done, if what you claim is true, is simply quote the relevant part. You know, something useful.

But then, by the same argument, if you'd read up on what a "commonwealth" is on Wikipedia, you'd say the opposite of what you've been saying:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_%28U.S._state%29

This designation, which has no legal impact[...]

The State of Vermont, for instance, uses the term "Commonwealth" three times in its constitution, interchangeably with the term "State".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_%28U.S._insular_area%29

The definition of "Commonwealth" according to current U.S. State Department policy (as codified in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual) reads: "The term 'Commonwealth' does not describe or provide for any specific political status or relationship. It has, for example, been applied to both states and territories.

see? Pertinent useful information.

Agema:

It wouldn't have to be all Texan residents who could automatically claim dual US-Texan citizenship, only the ones born in the other 49 states of the USA. After all, if you're born in the USA, you qualify for citizenship.

You could argue that all Texans born pre-secession were technically born in the USA. However, as a legitimate successor state to the old USA, Texas should "inherit" its relevant share of place of birth claims along with its territory and sovereignty.

Of course, the USA could arrange citizenship it any way it pleased. It might, for instance, prefer all Texans to retain US citizenship because lots of US citizens with ties to the US might make Texas more pliable to US interests. Think, for instance, how much Canada, Aus and NZ helped the UK out in the first half of the 20th century long after they had any national need to. They did so because so many of the people of those nations continued to think of themselves as (at least in part) British.

I just want to point out that American citizenship is already pretty effed up to begin with, with some dodgy notions of what, for example, constitutes a natural born citizen.

I'm pretty sure, though I could be wrong, The US is going to have to make it up as they go along whatever route they take in this hypothetical scenario.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked