To prevent the Balkanization of the US? Absolutely.
Which perfectly highlights the problem with #CalExit’s insistence on non-violence: your opponents can veto that plan.
I haven’t seen anybody say they want it. I have seen a lot of people saying that it is inevitable. The arguments offered to counter this are vague claims of having evolved beyond the use of violence and the insistence that negotiations will be peaceful despite the weight of evidence of world history, precedent within the United States, and the nature of humanity generally. Support violence, yep lots of people do and would. We like the US. A lot of us gave up a good portion of our lives serving the nation and would rather not see that service wasted because some people had what amounts (based on the arguments given in this thread so far in support of breaking up the union) to a temper tantrum and whining because they don’t think they are getting treated fairly and want a more dystopian political situation straight from a fictional story in a movie.
If I, as a US citizen drawing SS RETIREMENT benefits, decide to move to Canada, for example, and decide, after following all the protocol, to relinquish my US citizenship, I do believe the SS administration would continue to pay my earned benefits. I doubt I could get Medicare insurance, though. The permutations of what might happen to folks who don’t want to be Californians, and their children, their property, etc. are almost endless.
I am reminded of the Ukraine situation, and others, where areas of a total state seek more local self governance as opposed to complete independence. That seems, under our already debatable ‘State’s Rights’ situation, to be a lot more likely in a negotiation than independence, and could be gained with less threat of drastic actions, military and otherwise. It could be gained simply by gradually refusing to support the central government, resisting Federal dominance, particularly in the form of taxation, at every turn.
I’m not sure what you mean by bringing up that example. You know they are shooting at each other in Ukraine, right? Or did you mean when the USSR split up? That was pretty different than a regular independence movement.
Don’t pay your federal taxes and let us know how that goes.
I just came across this study: State Smart: Federal Funds in California
It concludes that everyone has the whole “donor state” thing wrong. Why? Because those calculations that show that California pays more in taxes than receives in funding do not include Federal salaries earned in California.
Once adjusted, the study finds that Californians send $331 billion to the Feds, and receive $350 billion in spending.
Yes I can, and so can history. Read the thread, I’ve already pointed out the law with respect to those with dual citizenship.
We both know Federal salaries benefit the federal government, not the state. This is why your study fails. Cal is, and remains in the simplest terms, a donor state.
Keep looking, you’ll find “proof” the moon landing never happened too.
Kind of like a prison gang right? They let you in, make you commit crimes and when you had enough and want out, they kill you and your family.
They would continue to pay the benefits. Sometimes there is a 25% tax imposed on payment to foreigners, however, that tax is not uniform and even eliminated by treaty with respect to some countries.
Yes, you earned SS, and you’re entitled to it just as any other bilateral contract would require performance by the parties.
This is not in any way, shape, or form, true. While a great many people believe it is the case, the federal government is under no obligation to provide Social Security, nor any specific form of it. While they like to pretend that you’re “earning” a certain amount of retirement, that’s not actually required by law and is an administrative convention that may be reduced or amended at any time with no recourse.
If California left the United States, any recipients who already live there might receive it, but even that would be a huge uphill climb. Without repudiating the new “California,” it’s politically very likely that these would not longer be offered to anyone. Further, no further benefits would be offered except to actual United States citizens who pay into the program - and your… belief… that the rest of the U.S. would recognize that dual-citizenship is, well, debatable.
And by “debatable,” I mean demonstrably wrong. We have precedent for how the U.S. handles people who declare independence from it, and also from when we declared a revolution against Great Britain. In neither case was “dual citizenship” on offer.
What does your response even mean? How bout responding to his argument.
His argument has been rebuffed countless times in this thread. I’m considering assigning numbers to rebuffed arguments and just posting that number from now on.
CA will not use violence and neither will others. That will, from this point on, be answered with the number 1.
1
I assert it, therefore it is true!
I predict it, therefore it will happen!
No legal expert agrees with me, but I can assure you I am correct!
One of your more honest posts.
As for me, I’ve provided proof and links so many times I’m tired of doing it for all the late comers. It’s all here through.
I have yet to see any of these. 
Perhaps you should look.
That’s the law today. California is lawfully part of the US today. You’re seeking to change one law, but maintaining that other laws will not change during the process of secession? That’s facile.
I have literally no clue what leads you to this idea. If an FBI agent lives in Los Angeles, how does his salary not benefit California in the same way that a Social Security payment benefits California? I eagerly await your answer, and am preparing for a good belly laugh.
A widely respected liberal think tank says otherwise.
There is no contract between the government and Social Security recipients. The payment of benefits is based on law, which can be changed by Congress and the President. Without California’s large representation in Congress, it is naive to believe that the remaining 49 states would want to send about $90 billion in Social Security benefits to Californians who want the benefits of being Americans without any of the responsibilities.
I don’t think that you actually realize that you think that 3/4th of states will sign up to a deal in which the US loses something north of $4 trillion in revenue, and agrees to support more than $1 trillion in retirement benefits (over the next ten years, thatbis), in order to allow California to become independent. What is the incentive for any state to take you up on your proposal?
While you spew paragraph after paragraph of opinions and guesses, we’re busy collecting signatures. Carry on, we will.
You really have no idea what the citizenship/dual citizenship thing is do you?