Should the republic of Texas exist

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Fragmenting the US in any way will only benefit its enemies. No good will come from states seceding, whether said state is California, Texas or Hawaii.

Hawaii is a bit small though. And far away. Extremely valuable from a "power projection" point of view. But really a liability from a "defense" point of view.

I mean the US only needs control of the Pacific Ocean for its silly fleet to sail around in. That's just a waste of time, like kids playing with rubber duckies in the bath!

[Kexholm Karelia]

No, Texas is too valuable

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Now the UN should step in, and declare Texas to be the homeland of the ... <rolls dice> ... Romani people!

They'd be a protectorate of the US for ... <rolls dice> ... 20 years.

The US Federal government would provide loans to allow the (mostly poor) Romani people to buy land from the (mostly well-to-do) Texans. Infrastructure like houses, oil-wells, ports, would be first (US) nationalized, then gradually transferred to whatever government the new Romani residents may choose. Former Texans would be allowed to stay, providing they do not have a vote nor own property. This is in recognition that oil-worker skills and aerospace will still be in demand from the new Romani owners.

In another ... <rolls dice> ... 20 years after that, Romanistan may become a US state, or depending on the lay of the land, Mexican state.

[Freiheit Reich]

Mexicans are taking it back as a Mexican-American co-worker from Texas once told me. Soon, Texas will be majority Hispanic.

While I think the chances of this actually happening are vanishingly remote, it would be a great historical irony if Texas, which achieved separation from Mexico and its subsequent annexation to the United States on the basis of white American migration from the United States into Texas, were to subsequently be reunited to Mexico on the basis of Hispanic migration from Mexico to Texas leading to a majority of Texans supporting separation from the United States.

Again, the chances of this happening are vanishingly remote; though stranger things have happened historically.

One could argue that if Texas can't be reunited with Mexico, Mexico will come to Texas. Many places in Texas now look more like Mexico than the United States. However, Mexican-Americans would not want to be reunited with Mexico because it would mean having a weaker passport and much lower wages.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

No, in fact quite a bit of it should be given back to Mexico.

I am fine with Texas going back to Mexico if they also take California with them before California totally ruins the USA.

Mexico: "Nah you can keep that."

[Nobel Hobos 2]

While I think the chances of this actually happening are vanishingly remote, it would be a great historical irony if Texas, which achieved separation from Mexico and its subsequent annexation to the United States on the basis of white American migration from the United States into Texas, were to subsequently be reunited to Mexico on the basis of Hispanic migration from Mexico to Texas leading to a majority of Texans supporting separation from the United States.

Again, the chances of this happening are vanishingly remote; though stranger things have happened historically.

One could argue that if Texas can't be reunited with Mexico, Mexico will come to Texas. Many places in Texas now look more like Mexico than the United States.

That's cosmetic though. The Mexican border states each have half the GDP per capita (PPP) of Texas. If you removed the border, or moved it back a state into Mexico, the lower prices there would go up (Texans would shop there basically) so anyone but service workers would be effectively worse off.

In other words, "half as rich" is only considering lower prices in Mexico (it's PPP), and without that the new Mexican-Americans would be quite poor.

However, Mexican-Americans would not want to be reunited with Mexico because it would mean having a weaker passport and much lower wages.

Meh. They're not that big a voting bloc. I'd be more concerned about getting a majority on the Mexican side of the border. You can see from Puerto Rico which seems to have every reason to join the US, that the popular support is barely a majority.

I point the the reunification of Germany, which has been a huge success. Late capitalist states are bloated with pointless capital (it's why they tend to invest off-shore, in less developed economies) while developing states are typically starving for capital. They've done everything right by the development playbook: educating their citizens, including tertiary education and trades. Built all the roads and ports they can afford, provided all the healthcare they can afford, yet they have low wages. Anyway, that's not East Germany (like Mexico, a mostly-developed country) but my point is that legal union and currency union gives both old countries what they need: investment, and investment opportunities ... low-wage workers tied to the new factories by birth and family, and high-wage consumers likewise tied. And even without the German ancestry in common, it's worked pretty well for the Eurozone too.

It's not even necessary to do this. Eventually NAFTA will do it. If that bothers you, consider kicking Canada out! Canada has basically the same developed economy as the US does, there's no hybrid vigour to be had there. Just more of the same.

[Repubblica Fascista Sociale Italiana]

One could argue that if Texas can't be reunited with Mexico, Mexico will come to Texas. Many places in Texas now look more like Mexico than the United States.

That's cosmetic though. The Mexican border states each have half the GDP per capita (PPP) of Texas. If you removed the border, or moved it back a state into Mexico, the lower prices there would go up (Texans would shop there basically) so anyone but service workers would be effectively worse off.

In other words, "half as rich" is only considering lower prices in Mexico (it's PPP), and without that the new Mexican-Americans would be quite poor.

However, Mexican-Americans would not want to be reunited with Mexico because it would mean having a weaker passport and much lower wages.

Meh. They're not that big a voting bloc. I'd be more concerned about getting a majority on the Mexican side of the border. You can see from Puerto Rico which seems to have every reason to join the US, that the popular support is barely a majority.

I point the the reunification of Germany, which has been a huge success. Late capitalist states are bloated with pointless capital (it's why they tend to invest off-shore, in less developed economies) while developing states are typically starving for capital. They've done everything right by the development playbook: educating their citizens, including tertiary education and trades. Built all the roads and ports they can afford, provided all the healthcare they can afford, yet they have low wages. Anyway, that's not East Germany (like Mexico, a mostly-developed country) but my point is that legal union and currency union gives both old countries what they need: investment, and investment opportunities ... low-wage workers tied to the new factories by birth and family, and high-wage consumers likewise tied. And even without the German ancestry in common, it's worked pretty well for the Eurozone too.

It's not even necessary to do this. Eventually NAFTA will do it. If that bothers you, consider kicking Canada out! Canada has basically the same developed economy as the US does, there's no hybrid vigour to be had there. Just more of the same.

Puerto Rico is in the US, it’s just not a state

The reason for Puerto Rican hesitance for statehood is that there are many who want full independence, which is much easier to do as a US territory (See: Phillipines) than a US state (in which case, it counts as secession and begins a civil war)

[Nobel Hobos 2]

That's cosmetic though. The Mexican border states each have half the GDP per capita (PPP) of Texas. If you removed the border, or moved it back a state into Mexico, the lower prices there would go up (Texans would shop there basically) so anyone but service workers would be effectively worse off.

In other words, "half as rich" is only considering lower prices in Mexico (it's PPP), and without that the new Mexican-Americans would be quite poor.



Meh. They're not that big a voting bloc. I'd be more concerned about getting a majority on the Mexican side of the border. You can see from Puerto Rico which seems to have every reason to join the US, that the popular support is barely a majority.

I point the the reunification of Germany, which has been a huge success. Late capitalist states are bloated with pointless capital (it's why they tend to invest off-shore, in less developed economies) while developing states are typically starving for capital. They've done everything right by the development playbook: educating their citizens, including tertiary education and trades. Built all the roads and ports they can afford, provided all the healthcare they can afford, yet they have low wages. Anyway, that's not East Germany (like Mexico, a mostly-developed country) but my point is that legal union and currency union gives both old countries what they need: investment, and investment opportunities ... low-wage workers tied to the new factories by birth and family, and high-wage consumers likewise tied. And even without the German ancestry in common, it's worked pretty well for the Eurozone too.

It's not even necessary to do this. Eventually NAFTA will do it. If that bothers you, consider kicking Canada out! Canada has basically the same developed economy as the US does, there's no hybrid vigour to be had there. Just more of the same.

Puerto Rico is in the US, it’s just not a state

The reason for Puerto Rican hesitance for statehood is that there are many who want full independence, which is much easier to do as a US territory (See: Phillipines) than a US state (in which case, it counts as secession and begins a civil war)

Nah. I've seen the referendums. Not many US Puerto Ricans do want Independence.

I do value you opinion on market unification between rich and middling economies. I think it benefits the people on both sides of the deal, but I admit to only being sure about the citizens of the poorer country. On the richer side, it might be only capitalists who benefit.

[Freiheit Reich]

That's cosmetic though. The Mexican border states each have half the GDP per capita (PPP) of Texas. If you removed the border, or moved it back a state into Mexico, the lower prices there would go up (Texans would shop there basically) so anyone but service workers would be effectively worse off.

In other words, "half as rich" is only considering lower prices in Mexico (it's PPP), and without that the new Mexican-Americans would be quite poor.



Meh. They're not that big a voting bloc. I'd be more concerned about getting a majority on the Mexican side of the border. You can see from Puerto Rico which seems to have every reason to join the US, that the popular support is barely a majority.

I point the the reunification of Germany, which has been a huge success. Late capitalist states are bloated with pointless capital (it's why they tend to invest off-shore, in less developed economies) while developing states are typically starving for capital. They've done everything right by the development playbook: educating their citizens, including tertiary education and trades. Built all the roads and ports they can afford, provided all the healthcare they can afford, yet they have low wages. Anyway, that's not East Germany (like Mexico, a mostly-developed country) but my point is that legal union and currency union gives both old countries what they need: investment, and investment opportunities ... low-wage workers tied to the new factories by birth and family, and high-wage consumers likewise tied. And even without the German ancestry in common, it's worked pretty well for the Eurozone too.

It's not even necessary to do this. Eventually NAFTA will do it. If that bothers you, consider kicking Canada out! Canada has basically the same developed economy as the US does, there's no hybrid vigour to be had there. Just more of the same.

Puerto Rico is in the US, it’s just not a state

The reason for Puerto Rican hesitance for statehood is that there are many who want full independence, which is much easier to do as a US territory (See: Phillipines) than a US state (in which case, it counts as secession and begins a civil war)

Puerto Rico would have to be pretty stupid to declare independence. If they did that, they would become another weak island nation with a lot of crime and poverty like Jamaica or The Dominican Republic.

[Echellia]

Texas native here. I think it should remain a part of the USA. Also, as someone that was born in Texas and has spent most of his 35 years of life here, I can tell you the overwhelming majority of Texans do NOT want to secede. You may find that attitude in a few scattered trailer parks, but not in most of Texas.

[The Two Jerseys]

2. The only relevance I can see is that the NFAC has the word "fucking" in the title and you find that funny.

But Negligently Firing At Comrades is calling dibs on independent Texas, Mexico had better recognize this claim or someone probably on their own side is going to get shot most likely unintentionally.

[Land Without Shrimp]

Please no. I live in Texas (not a native though), and there's no good reason for Texas to secede. So just...no. You hear people joking about it all the time, but I've never heard one person seriously in favor of it.

[Auze]

The lack of spacing between "of" and "Texas" in OP's name worries me.

[Galloism]

Why not? It could join up with the 10 Mexican states threatening to secede and form the Republic of Tex-Mex...

Boooooooooooo

[Novus America]

It already does. Texas is a Republic. I suppose the could change their seal to say Republic instead of State, sure. But what difference does that make?

Should it secede from the US? Definitely not. It would massively weaken the free world, leaving it completely open to the rising tide of authoritarianism, cause economic and transportation chaos, and for what? Better just reduce federal over reach on local issues.

The US is a union of republics. Not a single entity. So Texas already exists as sovereign (within the constraints of the US Constitution) republic.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Nah.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Secession is treason. Texas is America.

/thread

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Why not? It could join up with the 10 Mexican states threatening to secede and form the Republic of Tex-Mex...

Boooooooooooo

"Texico" would be a better name, let's be honest.

[Nihon no Tengoku]

It should exist so I don't have to live in the same country as Texans

[Saralonia]

As a semi pragmatic person I see this as an absolute win if it splits, if it doesn't it's ok

[Dominioan]

Let me give you a timeline of how this would go

-Texas secedes
-USA gets pissed
-USA annexes Texas

[The Two Jerseys]

Boooooooooooo

"Texico" would be a better name, let's be honest.

Chevron Corporation would like a word...

[Nejii]

1. No it shouldn’t.

2. The NFAC has other plans. Mexico better get in line.

1. What do I say next? Should I expand on my own opinion? Ask you to expand on yours? Should I just say "yes it should" and see if you and I can waste a whole page that way?

2. The only relevance I can see is that the NFAC has the word "fucking" in the title and you find that funny.

Look into the NFAC. They’re an armed black extremist group who’s focal agenda is black segregation/sovereignty. The “Grandmaster” in fact has proposed either annexing Texas or petitioning Washington to hand it over and establish it as a pro-black sovereign state. So I see it as relevant in the whimsicalness that Mexico will have “competition” in seizing the state of Texas.

I wouldn’t expect you to know much of them (the NFAC) however as they’re a radical non-white racial supremacy faction and from what I see in the 2020 election thread your too busy harping on white supremacy and other far right extremes. Friendly advice; don’t double standard and expand your views.

Now back to the topic at hand.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

1. What do I say next? Should I expand on my own opinion? Ask you to expand on yours? Should I just say "yes it should" and see if you and I can waste a whole page that way?

2. The only relevance I can see is that the NFAC has the word "fucking" in the title and you find that funny.

Look into the NFAC. They’re an armed black extremist group who’s focal agenda is black segregation/sovereignty. The “Grandmaster” in fact has proposed either annexing Texas or petitioning Washington to hand it over and establish it as a pro-black sovereign state. So I see it as relevant in the whimsicalness that Mexico will have “competition” in seizing the state of Texas.

I wouldn’t expect you to know much of them (the NFAC) however as they’re a radical non-white racial supremacy faction and from what I see in the 2020 election thread your too busy harping on white supremacy and other far right extremes. Friendly advice; don’t double standard and expand your views.

Now back to the topic at hand.

So I should know more about NFAC ... OK, they protest, might have damaged a statue one time, but have never killed anyone, I'm now briefed ... because if I don't acknowledge the existence of black supremacy groups then I'm a hypocrite for criticizing white supremacy groups.

And having made that deranged "point" you'd like to return to the topic ...

OK, I said Texas should be given back to Mexico. That's obviously pretty damn unlikely, but you chose to take it seriously. You then presented the comprehensive counter-argument "no it shouldn't". I have nothing to add. How about you?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Let me give you a timeline of how this would go

-Texas secedes
-USA gets pissed
-USA annexes Texas

More like:

-Texas secedes
-US goes "meh"