There is absolutely no way you can guarantee that. It’s not something that Californians are in charge of.
Sure can.
U.S.’s “loss of nationality” statute. Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
For instance.
Becoming a naturalized citizen of another country after age 18 would result in your losing your citizenship -IF-
The person who becomes a foreign citizen does so “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." Wiggle room.
Yes, you’ll keep both if you intended to keep both.
You’re not getting it. The law can be changed by the 49 states that may be pissed off at California. I would think it is likely.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here, the fact that the dollar is an international currency doesn’t change the fact that, if California citizens remain US citizens they’ll be responsible for paying US income tax and social security, and that if California banks want to do business with the US they’ll be required to report on the finances of US citizens to the US. This isn’t even new law.
You have said that you expect social security and US citizenship. Others expect free trade agreements, open borders, and water rights just to name a few. You don’t get this stuff without negotiating it, and you’ll be negotiating with the same people you just pissed off and snidely bragged about how they’re going to go bankrupt while you live in a land of paradise.
That’s a law and it’s based on their not being a chunk of the US that recently seceded. That law can be changed by a simple majority in a congress that suddenly doesn’t have 53 California reps or 2 California senators to worry about. And it would too, the idea that the US is going to let an entire breakaway country remain US citizens is simply crazy. Plus it doesn’t even need much change, a simple ‘becoming a citizen of a seceding state constitutes intent to renounce US citizenship’ might be an acceptable interpretation, and could certainly be added as a law.
There are already conditions where Department of State can revoke citizenship (See “Potentially Expatriating Acts”) Any Republic of CA government employees or military probably lose their citizenship under those terms. Since that part is law that doesn’t conflict with broader Jus Soli notion of having been granted citizenship for being born in the US the post secession congress can change it to be more strict.
Oh and US citizens living abroad still need to file income taxes in the US for income earned elsewhere. You think you’re a donor state now? 
I’d bet there’d be wave of giving up citizenship after the first time tax season rolled around.
You might want to look at the problem of US expats getting foreign banking accounts based on the US using it’s power to require foreign banks to report to the IRS. Do CA banks continue reporting? Do they do what many international banks have done and just stop accepting accounts from US citizens? You’ll also have to deal with the fact that some Californians accounts are now with foreign banks that aren’t based in the new Republic.
It is. How much of it is with other states that will be a part of a foreign country after secession? How much is with Canada and Mexico covered under NAFTA (the US’s first and third largest trading partners? How much is with coutnries that might not be willing to give the same deal to CA as the current US has? Have you seen any analysis of the effects of relatively normal tariff rates on your economy? Maybe we negotiate in a friendly fashion and you face the same structure as a country we’re friendly with like the UK. CA has abetter trade deal now. Thinking things stay the same seems like a wildly optimistic assumption.
Keep dreaming. If states need a lesson in federal supremacy again then I suppose California would make a fine example.
And how come you never address that secession might split California as well. Look at a political map. The LA Times has one right here. California neighborhood election results: Did your precinct vote to elect Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump? - Los Angeles Times
You won’t keep the red territory.
Already answered upthread.
it wasn’t “answered,” it was responded to with an overly generous and optimistic interpretation. Deliberately removing your state from the union could easily be interpreted by the US as “intentionally relinquishing US citizenship” and as such you would lose it.
No it wasn’t, you just linked to current immigration policy, which is based on law and tradition, but not actually required by the constitution. You didn’t provide any cite for what part of the constitution would be violated by stripping citizenship from people who choose to swear loyalty to another country set up to deliberately oppose US interests and possibly considered in rebellion by the US.
And, again, if all of your Calexitians are going to retain US citizenship, then you lose that big benefit of getting out of your ‘bad deal’ on income tax because us citizens are still liable for paying federal income tax.
Of course it can be taken away, and it would be if CA tries to secede.
And as DinoR mentions, if you try to retain US citizenship, you will continue to pay US income tax. Don’t you think that will affect this “donor state” thing you keep talking about?
Bingo. You don’t get the benefits of US law unless you are also bound by its obligations.
Regards,
Shodan
I think it’s a fantastic idea. I hope those signing the pledge make a very generous donation to the cause. Dig deep, folks, because this is win-win, as has been thoroughly demonstrated in this thread! You get to leave the USA but retain all the benefits of citizenship. If anyone disputes that, you can show them to the UN and watch Trump cower at the Sec Gen.'s proclamations. We might even get Han Blix to write Trump a nasty letter. Genius! One wonders why no one has thought of this before!!
The red territory - please. California is the bluest state in the US. Interestingly enough, the founder of Hyperloop has offered to finance the succession effort. Silicon Valley is blue too. Silicon valley is so blue they are thinking about renaming royal blue to California blue. One CA legislator is considering introducing succession legislation at this time.
See the 10th Amendment. See the part about the states keeping all rights not specifically given the US by the Constitution. The right to leave not mentioned in the Constitution. It remains a state right.
The vote is whether California leaves, not whether California splits. They are welcome to vote on that if they like.
The US might get pissed off at California and change trade and such? You’re ignoring the international shipping ports on the West coast and the fact that the US needs California more than California needs the US.
We’re tired of 98 senators, and 350 something representatives making laws that don’t benefit California. We’re going to vote to change that.
If it US goes and gets all pissy about this, as suggested above, we’ll probably just laugh, just as the world laughs now. That’ one of the problems, the US thinks force and intimidation is the answer to far too many problems. We have never learned the better way might be to get along and listen but keep your distance.
Income tax? Not.
US citizens who live in work in foreign countries for periods of time pay no US income tax. They remain citizens. Benefits of US law are what we’re trying to avoid. Canada doesn’t receive benefit under US law. France doesn’t receive benefit under US law. England doesn’t receive benefits under US law. They seem to do just fine. We will too. It’s many of the “benefits” we’re trying to avoid.
Are you brave enough to travel through the middle east on an American passport? Why not?
Cite please.
Again, isn’t witnessing supposed to be in GD? 
This has already been explained to you several times. Unilateral secession is not a “right” of the states.
The rights contemplated in the Tenth Amendment do not include any random thing a state might like to do.
Forget red and blue. Almost half the land in CA is federally owned. Perhaps the Bundys will come and save the day for the CalExiters.
I see two factions in favor of CalExit: Liberals in California, and conservatives in the other 49 states who would suddenly have an electoral advantage due to the Democrats no longer having California’s 55 EVs in a presidential election.
The ones opposed would mainly be liberals in the 49 states, although undoubtedly some of them would immigrate to the new Californian nation too. And conservatives in California might immigrate back into the 49 states. So California would become increasingly liberal while the remaining USA got more and more right-wing.
Is a mere 50%+1 majority enough to pass the referendum?
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to deal with nationality issues. Congress can change the law any time it wants.
It’s really bizarre that you apparently think that such laws can’t change when you are arguing for a change in law to make California independent. In fact, laws on nationality are far more fluid, historically speaking, than states’ membership in the United States.