Would people move to Texas if it were an independent nation? (Houston: houses, buy)

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

It would still remain a part of the Union.

The idea is that Texas can escape the jurisdiction of the Washington government, have its own foreign policy, and determine its own economy.

In the days of the late 19th century, the Hungarians became so prominent in the Austrian empire that they were able to veto any law passed by the empire within the area of Hungary. They forced the Empire to be renamed "Austria-Hungary", and eventually they broke away completely.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Tends to lend support to the idea that secession would not be accepted, though.

Sure, if we ever go back to the 1850s.

If, on the other hand, we are living in the 21st century, a whole new set of considerations and circumstances apply.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by aceplace

The idea is that Texas can escape the jurisdiction of the Washington government, have its own foreign policy, and determine its own economy.

In the days of the late 19th century, the Hungarians became so prominent in the Austrian empire that they were able to veto any law passed by the empire within the area of Hungary. They forced the Empire to be renamed "Austria-Hungary", and eventually they broke away completely.

Won't happen, even if Texas splits. Constitution is set up so no one state can become that powerful.

We gain Senators but lose Representatives.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by LAnative10

This discussion is moot. Texas isnt going to leave the Union.

How do you know? Were you prescient enough to predict the breakup of the Soviet Union, or the rise of George W Bush?

The idea is that we don't know what will happen...

We do know from history, though, that large empires do eventually fall and split into parts.

Besides, it's my hypothetical.

[getmeoutofhere]

Originally Posted by aceplace

Sure, if we ever go back to the 1850s.

If, on the other hand, we are living in the 21st century, a whole new set of considerations and circumstances apply.

Do they really? How so?

It's still secession from the Union. That hasn't changed at all.

Just bigger guns.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Won't happen, even if Texas splits. Constitution is set up so no one state can become that powerful.

We gain Senators but lose Representatives.

What constitution? The idea is that history has turned in such a way that Texas wants to be an independent government and the United States wants it to go.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere

Do they really? How so?

It's still secession from the Union. That hasn't changed at all.

Just bigger guns.

The same way that Kazakhstan separated from the Soviet Union. The USSR became too weak to control its satellite states and they simply declared themselves out.

In the case of Texas (and other states maybe) disengaging from the United States, I can think of several ways that that could be mutually desirable, a benefit to both sides.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by Lindsey_Mcfarren

The difference here is, Florida is not talking of leaving the Union, at least not that I have heard of.

If the Cap and Trade bill is passed by the Senate, and power starts to be rationed, the costs of air conditioning will skyrocket... that's the point of rationing power, to use less of it.

Florida would be in bad shape if it didn't have the electricity to run its HVAC systems in July and August.

The point is that the decisions made on a Federal level could be ruinous to some states, and make them seriously consider opting out. That's what prompted Perry to raise the issue of Texas secession... the possible cutbacks in electricity that would make Texas uninhabitable in the summer.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather Texas be independent and have air conditioning, than be part of the USA and no air conditioning.

And yes, I see the possibility of secession ans somewhat remote. It's more likely that if the Cap and Trade bill is forced on the nation by the current Democrat majority, and there are serious hardships as a result, the people will either turn against the Democrat party and return the Republicans to power, or a third party will replace the Democrats.

But I'm not trying to predict current affairs. I'm more interested in the economy and social structure of an independent Texas, and whether Americans would like it more than dislike it.

[jdm2008]

Originally Posted by aceplace

I'd like to set some conditions for an independent Texas...

. Texas independence would come about through peaceful means, under UN supervised elections. Texas and the USA would negotiate a division of assets, such as warplanes, aircraft carriers, buildings, Social Security funds, etc., and also current liabilities, such as Texas share of the current national debt.

. Texas would maintain just a small army navy and air force, much smaller than its current share of the US military. It would not have any worldwide commitments, but only have to defend its airspace, its borders and patrol the Gulf of Mexico.

. Texas would join NATO, belong to NAFTA, and participate in other international commitments. It would have a seat in the United Nations. It would join the World Trade Organization, work with the World Bank, and be a member of the group of 20 industrialized countries.

. Texas may or may not be joined by other states, such as Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. In fact, they would be at a disadvantage not to join.

. Federal Texas would have some sort of taxation to replace existing US programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, etc, but the additional level of taxation to support them would be far lower than Texas' current share of the United States budget.

. Texas would continue to subscribe to the existing North American entertainment media, but may enact local content laws to build up its own domestic print and film and music industries.

. Texas would print its own money, and it would float relative to the US dollar.

. Houston would continue to dominate the North American energy supply and Dallas would retain ownership and control of its national industries. Military suppliers in DFW, such as Raytheon and General Dynamics, Bell, etc., would now be free to sell aircraft to third world countries.

These conditions are completely unfeasible. That never happened. Even conceding that Texas could become and independent state without war which isn't likely. The US wouldn't allow Texas to have a portion of the military, thats crazy. Why would the US allow this? What advantage is it to America? To be nice? For 126 billion in US debt? These are ridiculous concessions. There really isn't much advantage to the US allowing Texas to secede, so there would be no concessions. At best Texas would secede with no war, and get its share of social security.

At least initially. An influx of refugees would swell Texas' population over time, perhaps to 50 or 60 millions. DFW and Houston would be the size of cities such as London or Paris, and have commensurate levels of urban glamour.

Also what would be the advantage of letting Texas into NATO, for anybody but Texas? Maybe they'd let them, since they let everyone in this days.

[quote=aceplace;10069669]. As a nation, Texas would be more populous than Australia, but smaller than Canada. At least initially. An influx of refugees would swell Texas' population over time, perhaps to 50 or 60 millions. DFW and Houston would be the size of cities such as London or Paris, and have commensurate levels of urban glamour.[quote=aceplace;10069669]

Refugees from where? America? That's pretty far fetched.

To answer the question personally, no I would never move to Texas if it seceded, not in a million years. Maybe I would consider working there with a work permit for the short term, if relations with the US were good but I would never become a citizen.

[aceplace]

Originally Posted by jdm2008

These conditions are completely unfeasible. That never happened. Even conceding that Texas could become and independent state without war which isn't likely. The US wouldn't allow Texas to have a portion of the military, thats crazy. Why would the US allow this? What advantage is it to America? To be nice? For 126 billion in US debt? These are ridiculous concessions. There really isn't much advantage to the US allowing Texas to secede, so there would be no concessions. At best Texas would secede with no war, and get its share of social security.

Also what would be the advantage of letting Texas into NATO, for anybody but Texas? Maybe they'd let them, since they let everyone in this days.

Refugees from where? America? That's pretty far fetched.

To answer the question personally, no I would never move to Texas if it seceded, not in a million years. Maybe I would consider working there with a work permit for the short term, if relations with the US were good but I would never become a citizen.

Thanks for getting into the spirit of the game, JDM. It's only a hypothetical, after all.

Yes, I'd imagine that Texas would have a guest-worker program for the ragged, albeit skilled, refugees from the USA. It would be in Texas' interest to build up its population from the current 25 million to 50 or 75 million or so, about the population of Germany or France. Both DFW and Houston would have a metro population the size of the current New York metro, about 20 million each.

One possible scenario to develop this outcome involves the military defeat of the United States by a power such as China. The US Federal government would be severely weakened, to the point that portions of its territory on the periphery could force independence, in much the same way that Kosovo was split off from Serbia, or Czechoslovakia was separated from Germany after WWII. The de-facto independence of the Kurdistan region of Iraq after the first Iraq war is another example.

What would be different about Texas that would attract refugees from the remainder of the former USA? Primarily, its economic environment... it's people would have a higher standard of living. In fact, that's probably the factor that attracts inmigration to Texas now... the pocketbook.

Why would there be a negotiation instead of some sort of armed conflict? Because men and women of good will would realize that talking is better than fighting, given that the outcome seems inevitable. After Germany was defeated by the USA and USSR in WWII, the Germans had no more stomach for fighting and would have been unwilling to wage war to prevent the Russians from creating an independent East Germany.

In this scenario, the US Federal government is slowly turning toward de-facto socialism, which is more and more odious to free-market Libertarian areas such as Texas. China has expanded its economy, rejected any sort of Global Warming economic restrictions on energy, and basically is to The USA as the USA was to Europe immediately after WWII, including support for an independent Texas. Texas continues to expand its economy (and its production of power from fossil fuels) while the main US economy continues to contract, with ever-increasing nationalization of its basic industries, and a lowering standard of living.

Why would the US accept this arrangement? It's to the advantage of a socialist state with a contracting (or only slightly expanding) economic base to export as much of its population as possible, especially those who cause trouble by agitating for change. The possibility of shipping them off to an independent Texas, getting rid of the troublemakers, would be the motive. This would be a concession Texas would offer, willingness to accept people that a socialist USA cannot feed and house and clothe.