this post was submitted on 28 Jan 2024
448 points (98.3% liked)

politics

19107 readers
3058 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A clash between Texas and the Biden administration over who controls the Texas-Mexico border continues to escalate this week as federal officials once again demanded the state give Border Patrol agents access to a park that is a popular corridor for migrants to enter the United States illegally.

This comes in response to a recent Supreme Court decision, where the court allowed federal officials to dismantle a wire barrier along the border, prompting a legal battle initiated by Texas. Texas argued that this action, aimed at aiding migrants, infringes on state sovereignty and damages Texas security measures.

In response to this decision, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott released a letter arguing that Texas has a right to control the border and that it supersedes federal government control. Abbott’s accusation that the federal government has breached the Constitution by having “broken the compact between the United States and the States” is almost identical to South Carolina’s 1860 declaration of secession.

Furthermore, Abbott’s letter espouses the fringe theory of constitutional law known as “compact theory,” popularized by Confederate states during the Civil War era and supported by Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 5 points 9 months ago (3 children)

Which is too bad, because I’d love “Texit” to happen

[–] eek2121@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

You really do not, here is why in no particular order:

  • When Texas does, other red states will follow.
  • Once that happens, forget human rights for anyone other than white men. Arrests/executions of trans folks, for example, will be a thing.
  • Blue folks in the red area will be trapped and unable to get back home.
  • War will break out, millions if lives will be lost.
  • Don’t count on the military. Much of it id in red states and many members of the military are republicans.

Less likely, but far worse scenario could happen in addition to the above: Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and other countries take advantage and attack parts of europe and possibly parts of the US. The US is a large part of NATO, so NATO will struggle to respond to the combined threat.

I understand wanting to see it happen, but much of what I said is very likely to play out if TX follows through.

You don’t need to believe me, but just think it through.

[–] Assman@sh.itjust.works 13 points 9 months ago

Gotta disagree with the last two bullets. I think it's pretty unlikely any active duty military switches sides. So you're left with the largest military arsenal on the planet and one of the largest standing armies vs the Texas rangers, which likely would just haul ass to the US. I mean why wouldn't they? They don't have infinite weapons and personnel on their side.

They'd have it over in an afternoon if there was an armed conflict at all.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Eh, fuck that. Let's let them try it and round up all the racists and criminals. Why should we all lose land over this? Plus, there are plenty sane people in Texas... They should inherit the land for putting up with all those fucking crazy people.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago (2 children)

It wouldn't happen in the sense that they would never succeed, but it would be amusing to see them try.

[–] NoStressyJessie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Texas can’t even keep its own electric grid up because of their isolationist attitude. I’d honestly love to see how it would go if all the tax and federal aid were to suddenly dry up. That’s not even getting into having a passport to leave the state, tariff on imports, taxes on exports, then getting retaxed to come into the United States.

I wonder how firearms legislation would wind up.

Texas also most likely would be unable to produce its own ammunition and would have one fuck of a time establishing trade routes that would be forced to go through the Gulf of Mexico, an easy target with only one way out between two corridors. Given that the whole thing was over Mexico border enforcement, something tells me land trade wouldn’t be very reliable if it were feasible.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Texas has a lot of farmland, but do they even have enough to successfully feed their population on their own? And with enough diversity to keep the population satisfied? And they would be totally on their own because the U.S. would blockade them on every side except the Mexican border and there's no way in hell Mexico would make a deal with them.

[–] quaddo@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Just wanted to throw something else into the discussion.

I’ll preface this that a) I’m no economist, and b) I’m Canadian.

Let’s harken back to circa 1996 when the Quebec separatists were once again threatening to leave. Also, they were going to keep the Canadian dollar as their currency.

I was having a chat with a coworker, who did have a minor in finance. He pointed out that if Quebec separated and kept the Cdn dollar, their fiscal policy would be dictated by Canada.

So reframing this for Texas: if they seceded, would they keep the USD? If not, how quickly would they be able to design their own currency and mint it? What exchange rate would they use for their citizens and how quickly could they get the new currency into the hands of everyone, including out in the boonies?

I’m completely glossing over any considerations around what might happen if they kept the USD.

[–] norbert@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

Lets be honest if Gov. Abbot really tried to secede he'd likely find himself facing his very own "home grown" insurrection one way or another

Say what you want about the U.S., they have a lot of experience quietly funding local "freedom fighters" and I doubt this would be any different.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

The whole thing would be a massive shitshow and would not get Abbott anything he wanted.

I also doubt that his corporate masters would allow him to tank the stock market like that, because that's what would happen. Something tells me ExxonMobil and AT&T (both headquartered in Texas) would allow it to happen. They'd put a bullet in the back of Abbott's head before he could sign the articles of secession if they had to.