Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perfect explanation, thank you! I understand what you mean about being a nation within a nation. This gives clarity regarding the different root causes for these movements.
I also find it very interesting how Canada managed to deal with the situation with the Clarity Act.
The Clarity Act has never been put to the test in a real-life referendum situation, and we don't know if it ever will be.
Regarding the main topic of the thread (recognition), my view is that independence is kind of a "damn the torpedoes" type of thing. You don't generally ask for or wait for the approval of the larger entity. It's something that you "take", not something that you are given. Recognition comes afterwards - and it usually does come eventually from a majority of global actors, except for the most bitterly opposed. Even the most controversial independent entities over time have won some measure of worldwide legitimacy.
Which is all well good, except for the fact that the US' federal government has a history of turning its military on states that attempt to leave unilaterally. There's no reason to think that California wouldn't be kept in the Union via force, especially not with a president in office who just threatened to send American forces into Mexico.
Which is all well good, except for the fact that the US' federal government has a history of turning its military on states that attempt to leave unilaterally. There's no reason to think that California wouldn't be kept in the Union via force, especially not with a president in office who just threatened to send American forces into Mexico.
Two things:
- I am not in California but I would be really surprised if there was widespread public support for the idea of independence from the U.S.
- There have been many cases in history where independence was declared or attempted in spite of the fact that it would make the "big guy" really, really angry. If you're still wiling to do it under those circumstances, that's a pretty good indicator of how seriously we should take you.
Which is all well good, except for the fact that the US' federal government has a history of turning its military on states that attempt to leave unilaterally. There's no reason to think that California wouldn't be kept in the Union via force, especially not with a president in office who just threatened to send American forces into Mexico.
Two things:
- I am not in California but I would be really surprised if there was widespread public support for the idea of independence from the U.S.
- There have been many cases in history where independence was declared or attempted in spite of the fact that it would make the "big guy" really, really angry. If you're still wiling to do it under those circumstances, that's a pretty good indicator of how seriously we should take you.
I think Serbia would openly recognize because they have a major bone to pick with the US over recognizing Kosovo. Russia is weird. The leader of this current movement is currently living in Russia and has attempted, or has actually opened what he called and embassy there.
Maybe but then supporting CA would mean that they would have to give up on keeping Kosovo and recognize it.
Also these maps might help you figure out which countries might or might not recognize CA
Regarding the main topic of the thread (recognition), my view is that independence is kind of a "damn the torpedoes" type of thing. You don't generally ask for or wait for the approval of the larger entity. It's something that you "take", not something that you are given. Recognition comes afterwards - and it usually does come eventually from a majority of global actors, except for the most bitterly opposed. Even the most controversial independent entities over time have won some measure of worldwide legitimacy.
It didn't happen when our southern states tried to secede which is in large part why it failed. No recognition meant no support of any kind. The south was at the mercy of the north.
- I am not in California but I would be really surprised if there was widespread public support for the idea of independence from the U.S.
- There have been many cases in history where independence was declared or attempted in spite of the fact that it would make the "big guy" really, really angry. If you're still wiling to do it under those circumstances, that's a pretty good indicator of how seriously we should take you.
Support for independence in CA is at 32 percent according to the most recent poll which was concluded January 20th of this year. 32 percent is the highest of any state but it also means that 68 percent still oppose. This is a sharp rise however over the 20% it was two years ago. It is predicted that the support will continue to go up as tensions between Sacramento and Washington DC continue to escalate. Trump has vowed to cut federal funding to states that contain and don't stop sanctuary cities. For non Americans, these are cities that don't allow local law enforcement to question or in any way pursue knowledge of a person's immigration status. Such cities exist all over the country and in Florida, some cities were told to comply. In California, our governor who is backed by a friendly legislative body threaten to retaliate by withholding financial transfer payments to Washington DC if the feds keep that promise and the money would be used to offset those CA programs which were no longer receiving federal money. California recently double-down on this and the state government is trying to pass legislation to make the entire state a sanctuary state. It would be the first in the country. It's basically a political dare to the feds. It would be an organized non payer They could recommend non compliance with the US tax code. If this happens, tensions between Sacramento and DC will further increase. All this could see an increase in support some predict.
Washington State has also recently pushed back at Washington DC for the recent immigration ban. There are now at least two states hostile toward Trumps administration and policies.
Support for independence in CA is at 32 percent according to the most recent poll which was concluded January 20th of this year. 32 percent is the highest of any state but it also means that 68 percent still oppose. This is a sharp rise however over the 20% it was two years ago. It is predicted that the support will continue to go up as tensions between Sacramento and Washington DC continue to escalate. Trump has vowed to cut federal funding to states that contain and don't stop sanctuary cities. For non Americans, these are cities that don't allow local law enforcement to question or in any way pursue knowledge of a person's immigration status. Such cities exist all over the country and in Florida, some cities were told to comply. In California, our governor who is backed by a friendly legislative body threaten to retaliate by withholding financial transfer payments to Washington DC if the feds keep that promise and the money would be used to offset those CA programs which were no longer receiving federal money. California recently double-down on this and the state government is trying to pass legislation to make the entire state a sanctuary state. It would be the first in the country. It's basically a political dare to the feds. It would be an organized non payer They could recommend non compliance with the US tax code. If this happens, tensions between Sacramento and DC will further increase. All this could see an increase in support some predict.
Washington State has also recently pushed back at Washington DC for the recent immigration ban. There are now at least two states hostile toward Trumps administration and policies.
This is all getting quite intense, I read that Washington state is suing the federal government.
I've noticed that southern Brazilians have been bringing separation up again often, especially after all of the political unrest and corruption scandals in Brazil. The states of Paraná, Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul have a logo and even created a little flag, the logo is "the south is my country."
Although it seems obvious, major political unrest sparks these movements to gain momentum again and again.
- I am not in California but I would be really surprised if there was widespread public support for the idea of independence from the U.S.
Agreed. It's unlikely to ever push into the majority of residents. At least once a year you hear about some harebrained idea for some state to split into smaller states, for a state to secede, etc.
Quote:
- There have been many cases in history where independence was declared or attempted in spite of the fact that it would make the "big guy" really, really angry. If you're still wiling to do it under those circumstances, that's a pretty good indicator of how seriously we should take you.
True, but I just can't see it being successful in the United States. The states have less control than they did earlier in America's history, and America could easily bring a rogue state back into the fold by force. Am I saying I think this is likely to happen? No, not at all. I don't think any state will actually move forward with a formal attempt to leave. On the off chance that one does, I don't think they'll decide to turn to revolution when the feds and the rest of the states decide to not allow them to leave.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
Support for independence in CA is at 32 percent according to the most recent poll which was concluded January 20th of this year. 32 percent is the highest of any state but it also means that 68 percent still oppose. This is a sharp rise however over the 20% it was two years ago. It is predicted that the support will continue to go up as tensions between Sacramento and Washington DC continue to escalate. Trump has vowed to cut federal funding to states that contain and don't stop sanctuary cities. For non Americans, these are cities that don't allow local law enforcement to question or in any way pursue knowledge of a person's immigration status. Such cities exist all over the country and in Florida, some cities were told to comply. In California, our governor who is backed by a friendly legislative body threaten to retaliate by withholding financial transfer payments to Washington DC if the feds keep that promise and the money would be used to offset those CA programs which were no longer receiving federal money. California recently double-down on this and the state government is trying to pass legislation to make the entire state a sanctuary state. It would be the first in the country. It's basically a political dare to the feds. It would be an organized non payer They could recommend non compliance with the US tax code. If this happens, tensions between Sacramento and DC will further increase. All this could see an increase in support some predict.
This is political grand standing. If the feds want their pound of flesh in terms of tax money, then they're going to get it. The state will be sued in the federal courts, and it would likely lose. California could continue to resist, but then the state could be found to be in contempt, which would make matters worse. Hell, Congress could even abrogate California's sovereign immunity (the doctrine that gives states sovereign immunity in court from lawsuits not brought by other states or the feds), which could open the state up to even more lawsuits. Things in general just aren't this simple.
All of that being said though, experts currently believe Trump's sanctuary city funding order may be nothing more than political grand standing. He can block some monies from being transferred, but full action would likely require Congressional action. This also doesn't take into account any potential lawsuits springing from this.
I'm by no means a Trump supporter as I was for Hillary since day 1, but this is all nothing but bluster. Trump is dangerous and completely ignorant as to how a government functions versus a business, but we have a system of checks and balances for a reason. He doesn't get to lead the country by executive order alone. California's efforts are better spent challenging these orders in court, and helping Democrats to rally in 2018. Taking Congress away from Trump would take him out at the knees, and the public might be more than ready to hand it over to the Dems if his presidency is full of one disaster after another.
Quote:
Washington State has also recently pushed back at Washington DC for the recent immigration ban. There are now at least two states hostile toward Trumps administration and policies.
There's certainly more than two states. Hell, several Republican governors are in positions to lose in 2018 thanks to Trump.
Agreed. It's unlikely to ever push into the majority of residents. At least once a year you hear about some harebrained idea for some state to split into smaller states, for a state to secede, etc.
True, but I just can't see it being successful in the United States. The states have less control than they did earlier in America's history, and America could easily bring a rogue state back into the fold by force. Am I saying I think this is likely to happen? No, not at all. I don't think any state will actually move forward with a formal attempt to leave. On the off chance that one does, I don't think they'll decide to turn to revolution when the feds and the rest of the states decide to not allow them to leave.
This is political grand standing. If the feds want their pound of flesh in terms of tax money, then they're going to get it. The state will be sued in the federal courts, and it would likely lose. California could continue to resist, but then the state could be found to be in contempt, which would make matters worse. Hell, Congress could even abrogate California's sovereign immunity (the doctrine that gives states sovereign immunity in court from lawsuits not brought by other states or the feds), which could open the state up to even more lawsuits. Things in general just aren't this simple.
All of that being said though, experts currently believe Trump's sanctuary city funding order may be nothing more than political grand standing. He can block some monies from being transferred, but full action would likely require Congressional action. This also doesn't take into account any potential lawsuits springing from this.
I'm by no means a Trump supporter as I was for Hillary since day 1, but this is all nothing but bluster. Trump is dangerous and completely ignorant as to how a government functions versus a business, but we have a system of checks and balances for a reason. He doesn't get to lead the country by executive order alone. California's efforts are better spent challenging these orders in court, and helping Democrats to rally in 2018. Taking Congress away from Trump would take him out at the knees, and the public might be more than ready to hand it over to the Dems if his presidency is full of one disaster after another.
There's certainly more than two states. Hell, several Republican governors are in positions to lose in 2018 thanks to Trump.
You can dismiss it as political grandstanding all you want but when our president threatens a peaceful neighbor with military action, you prepare to protect your people. That's what California has been doing. Better to be wrong while prepared than wrong about the threat.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
