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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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).
Your US 2 party system is busted to the extreme, and in other G7 countries your Democratic party would barely be considered "left" let alone "far left", so yeah, pretty lunatic.
As for sanctuary cities, when your state is sitting on territory that was formerly part of Mexico, its major cities still carrying Spanish names, its labour force overwhelmingly dominated by Latinos, it doesn't seem crazy at all to question the rationale of the US immigration system and borders and try to accomodate to the realities of the actual real world demographics.
Not to mention from my understanding sanctuary cities have their origin with the migrant fallout created by the central American wars that the United States was directly involved in.
Meh. Not really. In parliamentary systems, you might have a lot of parties in the mix, but they caucus and forms blocs. Same happens here, just upstream through primaries. Democrats have centrists and progressives and a fringe of anarcho-socialists. Republicans Ave moderates, conservatives, libertarians, Tea Party, and whatever the Alt Right is.
As for "overwhelmingly", you make it sound like we're living in Mexico but have the indecency of calling it the US. As for the current state of population, LA is around 50% Latino at most. That isn't illegal immigrants. Those aren't people that identify as Mexicans in America. Those are Americans. Some even voted for Trump.
All territory was formerly part of someone else's territory. Borders move and people along with them. I feel no moral burden to accommodate previous inhabitants, nor would I expect any if the table was turned. That said, if states truly moved to nullify federal law based on a tenable legal position, I'd listen. However, they'd have to make such an argument, as opposed to a philosophical one (like yours, which I don't agree with).
As for your "understanding" of the origin of sanctuary cities, you've been reading fake news.
> In parliamentary systems, you might have a lot of parties in the mix, but they caucus and forms blocs. Same happens here, just upstream through primaries.
In our two party system, the lesser parties normally never get included in the legislative process. (those primaries effectively exclude them) In a parliamentary system any party that gets enough votes will get some seats.
If we adopted that sort of system you'd immediately see some greens and libertarians involved in the legislative process, and presumably you'd see an end to jokey pseudolibertarians in the Republican party, since everyone would just vote for the real thing. The "you're just throwing your vote away" disincentive would no longer exist. (based purely on how often that topic comes up in conversation during elections, I assume you'd see some big changes in the ideological makeup of the legislature)
> and in other G7 countries your Democratic party would barely be considered "left" let alone "far left", so yeah, pretty lunatic.
True, the Democratic Party is basically a coalition where the two main factions are the dominant center-right neoliberal faction (the "Third Way" that reached its peak under Bill Clinton and his since lost some ground in the party while still remaining dominant, if barely so) and the secondary center-left progressive faction.
Sanctuary cities are absolutely protected under the Constitutional doctrine of anti-commandeering; a direct and obvious and firmly established application of the Tenth Amendment.
The Federal government has to enforce its own laws. The States may voluntarily assist, but the Federal government has no authority to mandate that states, or subdivisions thereof, enforce federal laws.
Well, I personally am not bothered by the concept of a state having the right to ban abortion, but I know that statistically it's stupid decision because exactly the states that would end up banning abortion are the same states that would refuse to give proper sex education to prevent the abortions in the first place.
Also, not allowing abortions desperately increases the tax burden.
> I absolutely love how the left becomes a fan of states rights on immigration, but pretends it isn't a challenge to Roe v Wade.
Indeed, Roe v. Wade or Gay marriage too. I mean, my state voted in gay marriage willingly, but I imagine some more religious states may want to determine the laws in their own state, like California does with weed and immigration
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.
> 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.
I do, however, think sanctuary cities (which are so fuzzily defined legally...) create an incentive for illegal immigration. It sends a message that one need only get through the border to make it permanent. My family immigrated legally. They should too.
If states choose not to enforce federal law, I think they need to clearly establish a legal position as to why.
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.
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.
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.
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.
