this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
491 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19089 readers
3961 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

This week, Republican governors across the country escalated their conflict with the Biden administration over the southern border by invoking the same legal theory that slave states wielded to justify secession before the Civil War.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, joined by 25 other GOP governors, now argues that the Biden administration has violated the federal government’s “compact” with the states—an abdication that justifies state usurpation of federal authority at the border.

This language embraces the Confederacy’s conception of the Constitution as a mere compact that states may exit when they feel it has been broken. It’s dangerous rhetoric that transcends partisan grandstanding. And as before, it’s being used to legitimize both nullification and dehumanization.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 20 points 9 months ago (4 children)

If they really did secede, I think it's a bit presumptuous to assume you would still have travel rights in the US. Better get out before it happens.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's literally never going to happen.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Doesn't mean they won't try. Last time someone tried, the civil war happened. Lack of success doesn't mean lack of associated problems or consequences. The real questions would be how far would they get and how bad would it get. Sure, there's a good chance they would never actually try, but the chances they will aren't zero.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Pretty damn close to zero.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

Then we can just have the U.S.A. Union, which gives a unified visa, currency, and unified government.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Like everything else, it's a risk trade-off calculation. On the one hand, I'd love to leave now, but If we leave before 2029, it could cost us potentially $1-3million in teacher retirement pension. (spread across 20-30+ years as my wife can retire quite early because she started so young)

So one must balance the risk of Texas really seceding vs the financial cost of leaving early.

At this stage, while it's a 'fun' (I use that term very loosely) thought experiment, I think the likelihood of Texas actually seceding is pretty low. If at some point it starts to look like it's actually likely, then we'll reevaluate if it makes sense to let go of that much money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

If Texas actually leaves the union, they are no longer a part of the United States and will not be bound by American rule of law. Closed borders may be the least of your problems by that point. Keep your head on a swivel so that the point of no return doesn't suddenly sail past you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

It really sucks to think how many people may be held hostage in Gilead states just like you seem to be.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago

That's a tough spot to be in, good luck to you.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm vaguely curious, though not enough to go look it up, how issues of citizenship have been handled in other peaceful separations, like that of Czechoslovakia.

The answer I would find most reasonable, though not necessarily most likely, is to give everyone a certain amount of time to declare which citizenship they choose to retain.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Per Wikipedia.

  • Czechoslovakia

On January 1, 1993, all Czechoslovak citizens automatically became citizens either of the Czech Republic or the Slovak Republic, based on their previous citizenship, permanent residence address, birthplace, family ties, job and other criteria. Additionally, people had one year's time to claim the other citizenship under certain conditions.

I think things were a LOT uglier in the breakup of Yugoslavia, as well as the partition of India and Pakistan.

So it could go either way.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Well that's because Yugoslavia was an administrative hodgepodge of actual countries. Oh wait that's not good Texas is home to several district cultural and regional identities. Okay but at least it's not a religious thing right?

Fuck.