> So now there is land in CA that is not federal or native-American land, but it is not subject to CA laws. That's the part that doesn't seem logical in this.

> So now there is land in CA that is not federal or native-American land, but it is not subject to CA laws. That's the part that doesn't seem logical in this. Just wanted to point out that this kind of arrangement exists already for things like embassies. > Also maybe how CA could end this situation: pass a law that all current property rights are guaranteed, but only rights recognized under current CA law are conveyed at sale. Or maybe it needs to be a US law--or a treaty amendment with Mexico. I don't sympathize with Khosla and admit that I haven't fully researched the impacts of the treaty but it does seem like something most easily resolved by the federal government.