The idea that the government would allow citizens of this new people’s republic of California to retain their American citizenship is bizarre to me. It’s like if California and the United States were married and got a divorce and California thought they could still expect the US to sleep with them.
It wouldn’t work. Because even if a few petulant whiners think Balkanization of the US would be a good idea the reality is it would be terribly unproductive. And at some point would lead to shooting.
I respectfully suggest that you’re splitting some sort of hair that is so fine that I cannot track what the disagreement is. California has lots of high income earners – whether billionaires or people making $150k or more – and Mississippi does not. That means that California sends a lot of tax revenue to the IRS, more than many other states where there aren’t as many wealthy people.
And when a state sends a lot of tax revenue to the IRS, and doesn’t have a large percentage of its population receiving Social Security and Medicare (which make up what, 60% of Federal spending?) then that state is going to be a donor state.
I literally have no idea what the basis for disagreement is on these points.
Some retirees move there, but I believe an awful lot of retirees simply don’t leave the state. I believe more retirees leave California and the Northeastern states generally in pursuit of both better weather and lower cost of living.
That semi-autonomous recognition was supposed to be federalism, where the states were left to largely govern themselves, with a few key areas managed by the federal government. That way, if California wants to do things largely different from the way other states do, it’s ok. Unfortunately (and I largely blame liberals for this), that’s been eroded over the years so that the federal government does more and more things, and has squeezed out room for individual states to do things their own way. This is what conservatives have been worrying about when they’ve been complaining about the growth and overreach of the federal government. States rights / leave it to the states, is exactly the solution to this problem.
I still think at least a few of them believe “California is a net contributor” is equivalent to “California could be self-sufficient tomorrow.”
I strongly doubt that CalExit will happen (although I didn’t think TrumPotus would happen either :eek:). If it did happen it would be very bad for the U.S.A., bad for the world and, at least in the short term, extremely bad for California — civil war would break out. The idea of voting for CalExit is the same sort of irrational emotional voting that led to Brexit and TrumPotus.
But it might be fun to speculate about a CalExit. To begin with, I think we should assume that Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and Nevada also secede to form West America. New York and most of New England may as well join while we’re fantasizing. Nevada might not want to come along, but they are as dependent on California for tourism dollars as California is dependent on them for water. Perhaps they’d agree to become an independent buffer state between West America and the Leftover.
There are two scenarios to consider: amicable and unamicable secession. Since I don’t think either is going to happen, I won’t guess which is more likely, but most of the comments are compatible with neither: Dopers seem to assume that California will become some sort of protectorate, still paying money into SocSec etc, but no longer allowed to vote in federal elections — the worst of both worlds for West America.
In an amicable separation, West America gets the “federal land” in its territory, just as in an amicable divorce, Husband gets to keep the souvenirs in his man-cave. In an unamicable separation, Western troops would dismiss any federal rangers who refused to take an oath to their new government. (Instead, what comments seem to envision is that West America ends up like Puerto Rico — in the U.S. but no longer represented in Congress. :smack: Most of the military would probably remain loyal to the Leftover, which is why New York joining the rebellion may be essential; Leftover may be forced to negotiate if they can’t reconquer Lower Manhattan quickly.)
Today’s danger may be from terrorism, but tomorrow’s danger, after CalExit, will be civil war, or the Feds coming to subdue the rebellion. West America will certainly need its own military.
Tax dollars and economic benefits? Is that what CalExit is about? The economic collapse associated with CalExit will make those dollars seem picayune.
As for Washington continuing to send out SocSec checks (and presumably happy not to collect income tax from Western citizens to help it pay down the debt), this is all too absurd for words. To begin with, it assumes, again, that West America ends up in a status like Puerto Rico. (Most Puerto Ricans do not pay income tax.)
I don’t want to hijack this thread into another Financial Theory for Laymen, but West America, if truly independent, would have its own central bank, and send out its own SocSec checks.
Why would marriage law be applicable in the case of a state seceding? If there was an amicable separation (which I can’t imagine there would be, but let’s just say there was), then I suspect there would be a protracted negotiation and the feds might end up keeping some land and some might be sold to CA in exchange for something. Or, the feds would negotiate access to some of the land. Or who knows what. But divorce law isn’t applicable, unless you have some cite that says it is. In the more likely case of a non-amicable separation, all bets are off and the feds would probably not differentiate much between federal and state land-- it all belongs in the US.
Depends on how you define “needs”. The US might not “need” CA, per se, if it were certain CA would be the only state wanting to leave. But, it might not want to allow a precedent to be set and have the whole country fall apart. This issue goes well beyond who needs whom in the equation.
Honestly, talk of CA Sessionism might be a bit premature, not necessarily on its face but because the main impetus that will drive the majority into support hasn’t yet (or won’t) occurred yet.
If Trump (or more likely one of his nuttier goons) sends jackboots into CA, public opinion might rapidly shift. Remember Syria was relatively peaceful until the shooting started.
My fear is:
–Many Anti-Trump protests are centered in CA, and we all know Trump is not a fan of criticism. If Trump (or more importantly his goons) get free reign to piss on everything these protestors care about when they’re already protesting, it’s very unlikely these protests will go away - rather, they’ll get bigger and much, much worse. What happens if Jackboots get sent in to break up the protests? Even if they’re doing their job like saints, it can still rapidly spiral out of control.
–Many sanctuary cities are in CA. Trump has already said he intends to inflict some nondescript form of harm to them. What happens when they give him the finger? Jackboots again?
–Many illegal residents live in CA’s major cities. How is he going to flush them out without the proverbial door to door jackboots?
I see Jackboots in CA’s future, and the problem with Jackboots is that it rarely ends well. Any of the three above can be the spark that turns public opinion from “haha, session what a cooky idea” to “fuck this, fuck you, I’m out.”
If public opinion shifts, exactly what causes that shift will determine the approach California takes. If it really is jackboots, and if whatever reason the national guard gets a call and if they/the governor happen to be on board with the FTFYIO crowd…
I think, both sides need to treat this delicately and not underestimate the power of a flashpoint.
Did you seriously think I was making this connection? That the comparison with divorce wasn’t just tongue-in-cheek?
You’d get more respect here if you could manage not to assume every other Doper is an idiot.
Wow. suddenly it’s 1995 again.
Not leftists. Weenies.
It’s beyond ironic that liberals suddenly “discover” states’ rights, checks and balances, and limited judges when they lose an election.
Even if the entire CA NG were united in defense of a free and independent California (which almost certainly would NOT be the case), WTF are they going to do?
You’ve got one company of the 19th SFG (which happens to be headquartered here in Utah, only a few miles from me), some MPs, an infantry brigade, and 21 of the USAF’s ~250 F-15s. Did I miss anything?
That’s not a serious opposition force for the rest of the US military. That’s a speedbump.
I just looked it up - Californians get about $6 billion in Social Security benefits per month. If leaving the union would result in the cut-off of those benefits, which I think would be likely, that self-sufficiency math gets altered real quick.
Why is Lower Manhattan relevant to a discussion about the military conquest of secessionists in California?
And who cares about reconquering an urban center? Cut the power. Cut the water. Block the roads from food and supplies. See how self-sufficient these cities are.
That’s certainly one easy way to do it. The hypothetical opposition in this scenario is made up of these people.
I’m going to go slow here.
Think of it this way…
A scammer calls you on the phone and offers to sell you a coupon book with 10 dollars worth of coupons in it for a mere 12 dollars.
You do the math and decide that it would be a waste of 2 dollars, ASSUMING you could use all the coupons. His reason, because you can afford to may more.
Now, that scammer calls someone else and offers them the same coupon book for 8 dollars. They do the math and decide it’s a good deal. His reason is that they can’t afford to pay as much.
Now, those coupon books are government benefits. CA pays more in taxes than it receives in benefits.
California is a net contributor, a donor state. Obviously, if CA pays more for benefits than those benefits cost, CA could easily afford to provide the very same benefits, AND save money doing it, IF we were not subsidizing the recipient states.
Shodan.
I asked for a cite on your statement that voting for succession would result in losing citizenship. I didn’t see your response to that.
For like the fourth or fifth time that I’ve posted on this point: if Californians wish to leave the United States, I believe it is likely that the US Congress will change the relevant laws such that people who seek to live in a country that is splitting off from the US, will no longer receive the benefits of being a US citizen.
This is not a fact that can be cited, but I think it’s a pretty predictable response to people who no longer wish to have the same rights and responsibilities as Americans.