9 ms·

Calexit would allow California to bring in anyone they want though, and SF wouldn't have to worry about the US immigration policy screwing up it's tech scene. I

Calexit would allow California to bring in anyone they want though, and SF wouldn't have to worry about the US immigration policy screwing up it's tech scene. I'm looking forward to the Calexit proposition vote.

komali2 10y ago
The obvious question is will the US government allow one of its most profitable states to leave? Highly doubtful. Great way to start another civil war, though!
- immigraway 10y ago
  I think a red government will let a blue state leave (permanent electoral majority). I don't think the same would be true the other way around, because progressive values are more, shall we say, evangelical than those of the nationalists.
  - illumin8 10y ago
    It actually doesn't matter what California voters want, or what a red federal government wants, a constitutional amendment would require 2/3rds of both the house and senate, as well as 75% of all the US state legislatures to approve Calexit. I think it's a good idea, and would probably move there if they did exit, but it's practically impossible for it to happen.
  - caf 10y ago
    (permanent electoral majority) That's not how a two-party system works. Over time, the positions of the parties would adjust until a new equilibrium was reached.
  - dang 10y ago
    You can't do single-purpose political accounts here. Also, trolling with a username is trolling. We've banned this account.
- fixxer 10y ago
  I hear a lot of people in my area (West burbs of Chicago) joke about building the wall up to cut off California. Sure, they're joking, but I don't think the average citizen outside CA gives a damn about the state as a tax revenue base. They do, however, get tired of the far left rhetoric. Nobody thinks more highly about California than Californians. Personally, I am ambivalent (and technically I am a Californian).
  - cmrdporcupine 10y ago
    Only in the US could middle of the road Keynesian economics with a touch of social liberalism be called "far left" Good grief.
    - fixxer 10y ago
      The flip side of that sentiment is calling fascism on anyone who thinks sanctuary cities are bullshit. The lunacy is bipartisan.
      - komali2 10y ago
        I could make a strong argument, however, that a government seeking to strip the ability of states (cities) to have "sanctuary status" is fascist, or at the very least not very republican.
        fixxer 10y ago
        International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, but I'll play this game... So, you support states rights? Tell me why abortion is a federal issue then?
        lazyasciiart 10y ago
        > International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, Sanctuary cities don't change anything about international borders or who can enter the country, because international borders are federal issues with federal staff. Sanctuary cities refuse to make their local staff spend time and money reporting on immigration status every time they issue a parking ticket. It's not even a states rights question - nobody even suggests that city officials should check if you have paid your federal taxes every time you take to them, but that's not because (normal) people are objecting to a federally run tax system.
- kolbe 10y ago
  I'm sure Cali would be able to leave, they just wouldn't be able to take their assets with them.
  - komali2 10y ago
    Outside oil and crops, California assets are people, yea? Engineers.
    - tropo 10y ago
      Here: You get the entire Los Angeles basin. You get most of the Bay Area: the area served by BART, Berkeley, things west of Berkeley, and Marin County. You also get everything in the middle. Generally the border runs along the ridge of the coastal mountains. The USA keeps San Diego, Eureka, Davis, Fresno, etc. You get exclusive rights to the "California" name. The USA will split the leftover bits into at least 3 states.
    - kolbe 10y ago
      sure. you keep the engineers, we'll add all of the stock owned by Californian's in US companies to the Fed's balance sheet. We'll keep the infrastructure and apply tolls liberally. Obviously National Park/Forrest and even state parks will stay. You can visit for a fee, of course.
- bbarn 10y ago
  The better question is would the rest of the world allow the remaining US to do a damn thing about it? The US itself has a history of supporting states that leave other states in civil wars.
nl 10y ago
Obviously this is a joke. In case it isn't: the war that would follow an attempted Calexit might be slightly detrimental to startups in the Bay Area.
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  Why would there be a war? Large parts of the country seem very resentful towards California. Seems like both sides would be happier without each other. Edit: I obviously don't think a Calexit will happen but I'm just curious why you think it would result in a war.
  - vkou 10y ago
    Barring an Ecotopia-MAD-civil-war, the federal government will never give up the naval bases in California.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    > Why would there be a war? There'd be a war because of ports, military facilities, oil, and, because, politically California may on average be more slightly liberal than the rest of the US, but overall it looks a lot like the US as a whole, with very liberal coastal enclaves and an ultraconservative inland agricultural heartland, and much of the latter would revolt from California to stay in the US in the event of an attempted Calexit.
  - logfromblammo 10y ago
    Because warmongering is profitable, and California has money.
  - nerfhammer 10y ago
    Even if there wouldn't be a physical war, there would be no reason to expect free trade, free movement, shared currency or a stable replacement currency.
  - nl 10y ago
    A number of reasons: The legality of California seceding is dubious[1] There is a history in the US of attempted secession leading to war Around the world attempts are at secession are often associated with violence There's probably more, but I don't think any of these are particularly controversial. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Dubious_legality_of_unilateral_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States...
refurb 10y ago
Calexit is a dead in the water idea. It's a waste of breath to even comment on it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Calexit would allow California to bring in anyone they want though In the same way that secession allowed the Confederacy to do that. The US has no equivalent of the EU's Article 50, and until it does, "Calexit" means a war that California is in no position to win.
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  War is coming anyway so it's just a question of how it manifests.
- astrodust 10y ago
  It might not mean war if the country itself has given up on sticking it out. Maybe it'll be an ugly divorce instead.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    It would be a war within California. The Central Valley isn't going to willingly leave the U.S. to be ruled by what they see as liberal coastal elites with no counterweight. And because of that (and the leverage the central government would have because of that), there'll be no peaceful divorce of California from the Union.
    - astrodust 10y ago
      Considering the demographics of California, nobody really lives there, so that "war" would be short if such a thing were to occur. If California does split it'll probably just employ a live-and-let-live policy with their wild eastern frontier. Leave the hillbillies alone and they'll leave you alone.
    - MarkMc 10y ago
      The simple solution is to let the eastern part of California stay in the union. The western part suceeds.
- bbarn 10y ago
  Well, the thing about laws, is if a state decides it isn't bound by them and secedes, who enforces them? I can't see any soldier being willing to go to war with California. We've been taught the horror of civil war since we were in grade school. This generation is also much more open to new ideas in the world than those of the past. If California seceded, it would meet very little physical resistance I suspect.

komali2 10y ago

The obvious question is will the US government allow one of its most profitable states to leave? Highly doubtful. Great way to start another civil war, though!

immigraway 10y ago
I think a red government will let a blue state leave (permanent electoral majority). I don't think the same would be true the other way around, because progressive values are more, shall we say, evangelical than those of the nationalists.
- illumin8 10y ago
  It actually doesn't matter what California voters want, or what a red federal government wants, a constitutional amendment would require 2/3rds of both the house and senate, as well as 75% of all the US state legislatures to approve Calexit. I think it's a good idea, and would probably move there if they did exit, but it's practically impossible for it to happen.
- caf 10y ago
  (permanent electoral majority) That's not how a two-party system works. Over time, the positions of the parties would adjust until a new equilibrium was reached.
- dang 10y ago
  You can't do single-purpose political accounts here. Also, trolling with a username is trolling. We've banned this account.
fixxer 10y ago
I hear a lot of people in my area (West burbs of Chicago) joke about building the wall up to cut off California. Sure, they're joking, but I don't think the average citizen outside CA gives a damn about the state as a tax revenue base. They do, however, get tired of the far left rhetoric. Nobody thinks more highly about California than Californians. Personally, I am ambivalent (and technically I am a Californian).
- cmrdporcupine 10y ago
  Only in the US could middle of the road Keynesian economics with a touch of social liberalism be called "far left" Good grief.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    The flip side of that sentiment is calling fascism on anyone who thinks sanctuary cities are bullshit. The lunacy is bipartisan.
    - komali2 10y ago
      I could make a strong argument, however, that a government seeking to strip the ability of states (cities) to have "sanctuary status" is fascist, or at the very least not very republican.
      - fixxer 10y ago
        International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, but I'll play this game... So, you support states rights? Tell me why abortion is a federal issue then?
        lazyasciiart 10y ago
        > International borders fall under federal jurisdiction, so I don't think your point is as strong as you think, Sanctuary cities don't change anything about international borders or who can enter the country, because international borders are federal issues with federal staff. Sanctuary cities refuse to make their local staff spend time and money reporting on immigration status every time they issue a parking ticket. It's not even a states rights question - nobody even suggests that city officials should check if you have paid your federal taxes every time you take to them, but that's not because (normal) people are objecting to a federally run tax system.
kolbe 10y ago
I'm sure Cali would be able to leave, they just wouldn't be able to take their assets with them.
- komali2 10y ago
  Outside oil and crops, California assets are people, yea? Engineers.
  - tropo 10y ago
    Here: You get the entire Los Angeles basin. You get most of the Bay Area: the area served by BART, Berkeley, things west of Berkeley, and Marin County. You also get everything in the middle. Generally the border runs along the ridge of the coastal mountains. The USA keeps San Diego, Eureka, Davis, Fresno, etc. You get exclusive rights to the "California" name. The USA will split the leftover bits into at least 3 states.
  - kolbe 10y ago
    sure. you keep the engineers, we'll add all of the stock owned by Californian's in US companies to the Fed's balance sheet. We'll keep the infrastructure and apply tolls liberally. Obviously National Park/Forrest and even state parks will stay. You can visit for a fee, of course.
bbarn 10y ago
The better question is would the rest of the world allow the remaining US to do a damn thing about it? The US itself has a history of supporting states that leave other states in civil wars.

nl 10y ago

Obviously this is a joke. In case it isn't: the war that would follow an attempted Calexit might be slightly detrimental to startups in the Bay Area.

ajmurmann 10y ago
Why would there be a war? Large parts of the country seem very resentful towards California. Seems like both sides would be happier without each other. Edit: I obviously don't think a Calexit will happen but I'm just curious why you think it would result in a war.
- vkou 10y ago
  Barring an Ecotopia-MAD-civil-war, the federal government will never give up the naval bases in California.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Why would there be a war? There'd be a war because of ports, military facilities, oil, and, because, politically California may on average be more slightly liberal than the rest of the US, but overall it looks a lot like the US as a whole, with very liberal coastal enclaves and an ultraconservative inland agricultural heartland, and much of the latter would revolt from California to stay in the US in the event of an attempted Calexit.
- logfromblammo 10y ago
  Because warmongering is profitable, and California has money.
- nerfhammer 10y ago
  Even if there wouldn't be a physical war, there would be no reason to expect free trade, free movement, shared currency or a stable replacement currency.
- nl 10y ago
  A number of reasons: The legality of California seceding is dubious[1] There is a history in the US of attempted secession leading to war Around the world attempts are at secession are often associated with violence There's probably more, but I don't think any of these are particularly controversial. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States#Dubious_legality_of_unilateral_secession https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States...

refurb 10y ago

Calexit is a dead in the water idea. It's a waste of breath to even comment on it.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Calexit would allow California to bring in anyone they want though In the same way that secession allowed the Confederacy to do that. The US has no equivalent of the EU's Article 50, and until it does, "Calexit" means a war that California is in no position to win.

anigbrowl 10y ago
War is coming anyway so it's just a question of how it manifests.
astrodust 10y ago
It might not mean war if the country itself has given up on sticking it out. Maybe it'll be an ugly divorce instead.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  It would be a war within California. The Central Valley isn't going to willingly leave the U.S. to be ruled by what they see as liberal coastal elites with no counterweight. And because of that (and the leverage the central government would have because of that), there'll be no peaceful divorce of California from the Union.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    Considering the demographics of California, nobody really lives there, so that "war" would be short if such a thing were to occur. If California does split it'll probably just employ a live-and-let-live policy with their wild eastern frontier. Leave the hillbillies alone and they'll leave you alone.
  - MarkMc 10y ago
    The simple solution is to let the eastern part of California stay in the union. The western part suceeds.
bbarn 10y ago
Well, the thing about laws, is if a state decides it isn't bound by them and secedes, who enforces them? I can't see any soldier being willing to go to war with California. We've been taught the horror of civil war since we were in grade school. This generation is also much more open to new ideas in the world than those of the past. If California seceded, it would meet very little physical resistance I suspect.