Would people move to Texas if it were an independent nation? (Texarkana: camp, live)

[theloneranger]

Originally Posted by aceplace

The cost of Federal Texas would be far less than Texas current share of the US Federal budget. The agencies and bureaucracies that survive would be funded by a value-added tax, rather than a tax on income. This would reduce Texas' cost of living advantage, but not eliminate it entirely, and housing would still be far cheaper.

The current government of the State of Texas would cease to exist, since it is a subdivision of the United States. The state programs that would be retained would be under some sort of "ministry of the Interior", similar to what you have in a European country.

The distribution of property would be negotiated between the parties. The assumption is that the negotiation to seperate would be the consequence of 80% to 90% of the Texas population wanting to be an independent nation.

It would be no more drastic (or violent) than the separation between the United Kingdom and Australia and Canada. Perhaps Texas and the former United States would still be members of a sort of "American Commonwealth", similar to the British Commonwealth. The US President could still be the "head of state" for Texas, but with no real power. Texas would have an independent government, headed by a prime minister, and with its own supreme court and parliament. Dallas and Houston would be co-capitals of this national state, splitting the new Federal bureaucracy. The new Interior Ministry would be located in Austin.

I view this as a "friendly divorce", where both parties would simply be bowing to the inevitable, and accommodating to it in the most practical way possible.

Why on earth would be adopt the Westminster system when we have no experience with it whatsover? Yeah, that's real practical. If Texas did gain independence, it would not adopt an entirely different and less efficient system of government for no reason whatsoever--regardless of how you want to think in your fairy world it would happen, if it did happen the state government would transition into the national government with little change to government structures.

And if you honestly believe that the US government is going to allow Texas to secede and quit paying taxes, but retain nominal soverignty, at any point in the future, your beliefs show a severe lack of intelligent thought.

Canada and Australia are entirely different situations: for starters, both were about 10,000 miles away from the home islands, and neither was a constituent part of the United Kingdom--both were colonies which were under the reign of the United Kingdom, not actually a part of the United Kingdom. The Canada/Australia example might work for Puerto Rico, but a comparable example of UK secession would be if Scotland and Wales seceded from the UK, which is a more ridiculous thought, hard as though it may be, than Texas seceding from the Union.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by theloneranger

Why on earth would be adopt the Westminster system when we have no experience with it whatsover? Yeah, that's real practical. If Texas did gain independence, it would not adopt an entirely different and less efficient system of government for no reason whatsoever--regardless of how you want to think in your fairy world it would happen, if it did happen the state government would transition into the national government with little change to government structures.

And if you honestly believe that the US government is going to allow Texas to secede and quit paying taxes, but retain nominal soverignty, at any point in the future, your beliefs show a severe lack of intelligent thought.

Canada and Australia are entirely different situations: for starters, both were about 10,000 miles away from the home islands, and neither was a constituent part of the United Kingdom--both were colonies which were under the reign of the United Kingdom, not actually a part of the United Kingdom. The Canada/Australia example might work for Puerto Rico, but a comparable example of UK secession would be if Scotland and Wales seceded from the UK, which is a more ridiculous thought, hard as though it may be, than Texas seceding from the Union.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, Ranger. I can see several evolutionary paths by which a severely weakened Federal Washington government would come into existence as such and be forced to negotiate with major outlying regions such as Texas.

But however it got to that point, the real question is what effect this independence would have... on migration into Texas and Texas future position in the world.

[adbmon]

YouTube - Texas Secession & Independence

[adbmon]

YouTube - Why Texas and other states are considering Secession

[mrsclark]

Personally, my hubby and I plan to move to TX in 3 yrs when he retires anyway, and have already discussed moving sooner if the situation in the US; i.e. economy collapse, etc... deteriorates. Because of the mere fact that if it were EVER to happen anywhere, it would be TX.

I find it funny and also quite sad that some people cannot understand what "hypothetical" means. This isn't a thread about "will it", "could it", "should it" or "would it". It is a question of a what if this were to happen under these specific conditions... that's all.... It matters not if you think that situation is possible.

Anyway, Ace... I think if your situation happened that TX could survive under those conditions. It is energy independent. Not currently having a state tax would, as you state, entice people to move to TX, especially if there was not a federal tax, but a VAT or as already exists, sales taxes.

Of course those who wanted to continue to receive their entitlements such as SS, medicare, etc. would likely not stay in TX. Even though I have paid into these my whole life, I would walk away from that in a heart beat if it meant a choice between freedom in a conservative "country" as opposed to a socialist US.

If the US were to become a socialist country, then to me, it is no longer the US. I think the patriotism is for our History, our freedom, our Founding fathers, our Constitution and the ideals that made our country what it is today. When it is no longer what our founding fathers created, there is no longer that patriotism. And if all that is or must be retained in one location or state in the US because it is being eliminated by the current administration, it is not traitorous, it is trying to retain our patriotism and freedom.

I could see the US allowing for TX to retain some military as there would be the need to protect the borders of Mexico/Texas or else Mexico probably would attempt to retake TX and then possibly endanger additional US borders. Allowing TX to protect its borders would be necessary because the US would wish to purchase TX oil.

I would disagree with TX retaining use of the US dollar because of the fear of the devaluation of the dollar with skyrocketing inflation, printing money, bad economic policies. There would need to be an exchange rate just as with any other foreign country. People who wanted to make purchases in TX with US dollars could exchange their money, just as people do in Mexico.

Also consider that people who moved to TX would open businesses, industry would continue to flourish. My husband plans to open a hot rod shop, so there will be some pretty cool cars to drive at least!!

So now I expect a bunch of personal attacks on me...have at it....

[Boompa]

Before or after "Shock and Awe"
Secession is Treason and Secessionist are Traitors
I'd leave Ron Pauls house standing but that's about it.

[mrsclark]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Before or after "Shock and Awe"
Secession is Treason and Secessionist are Traitors
I'd leave Ron Pauls house standing but that's about it.

In Ace's scenario, it isnt a succession so much as a separation that is approved by the Federal government.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

There being no help to a foreign government to overthrow, war, or injury to the US, it would not be treason.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by mrsclark

In Ace's scenario, it isnt a succession so much as a separation that is approved by the Federal government.

Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as: "...[a]...citizen's actions to help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

The Constitution: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

There being no help to a foreign government to overthrow, war, or injury to the US, it would not be treason.

XIV Amendment

We settled this in 1865

[mrsclark]

Originally Posted by Boompa

XIV Amendment

We settled this in 1865

I'll say it again, in HIS scenario, it isn't secessation.

[aceplace]

Secession would be a state government attempting to become independent of the Federal government. That is legally impossible, since a state is basically a province of the Federal government. That's not what we would have. In fact, the State of Texas as a government could very well still exist, as a legal fiction, even though it no longer covers the actual territory of Texas. It would merely exist as a bunch of documents in Washington.

A constitutional convention could easily reform the current Federal-State system in order to allow vast tracts of land to effectively form their own Federal system, either as an autonomous political entity, or as a fully soverign international government, seat in the United Nations, etc. Such a convention would be called for and driven entirely by the states. Washington would have no role in its decisions, other than to comply with them.

I'm not claiming that this is likely in the near future, merely mentioning it as one of many plausible paths to consider a potentially independent Texas. As you study history, you discover that anything is possible, there is no such thing as "this could never happen, etc." Major events in history are caused by minor, even insignificant occurrences. For example, what if Oswald had become distracted and missed Kennedy's head? Basically, history is what is called a "chaotic system", which means that minor changes have major and unpredictable results, like a butterfly flapping its wings on one side of Earth causing a hurricane on the other.

Is talking about the independence of Texas a seditious act? No. Each citizen has a constitutional right to petition its government on any matter, even toward requesting that government to divest itself of territory under its jurisdiction.