cthulu2016 (10,221 posts)
Thought experiment: How good a case does Mexico have to take over Arizona? (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024619226)
The problem with an independence vote for Crimea is not obvious to all (judging from the folks yapping TV machine), so I wanted to see if an analog would help define the problem.
Many hispanics in Arizona speak Spanish and have strong ties to Mexico. Some would identify themselves as Mexican, if asked.
People who speak Spanish and are ethnically Mexican do face violence and discrimination in Arizona.
Crazy neo-nazis who hate Mexicans have, in fact, taken over the government of Arizona.
Now, hypothetically imagine that the USA cannot effectively resist the Mexican military. Like, not at all.
Mexican soldiers take over Arizona (to protect the "Mexicans" there) and establish a vote on whether Arizona wants to be an independent nation, with Mexican troops in full control of all movements and activities in Arizona.
Two points.
1) Another nation cannot come in a hold elections, and elections under occupation are not exactly what we would call elections
2) It is not Arizona's call to make. I live in Virginia. I consider my nation the USA and I believe that Wyoming is as much a part of my nation as Virginia is. And everyone in Wyoming is of a nation that "owns" Virginia. I can move to Wyoming. They can move to Virginia. Each state is part of the shared national wealth of the other state. It is all America, and is the land of all Americans.
We went through this in the 1860s. The acquiescence of the United States would be required for Arizona to become an independent nation, or part of Mexico. And part of the reason for that is that the USA has an interest in its own composition and its own security.
We have a security interest in the shape of our own national borders. (Part of the reason we wouldn't let the Confederacy go is that we figured they would have aligned with England, to our detriment.)
The USA might not want an "independent" Arizona aligned with Mexico effectively extending Mexican military bases hundred of miles further in the USA. What if there was a (hypothetical) body of water in Arizona that California, New Mexico and Texas needed to survive? Or if our huge national solar power grid was in Arizona. What about the ability to drive from Texas to Los Angeles?
The people of Arizona should be free to cross over to Mexico if Mexico is cool with that, but they can't take Arizona with them. (Which is what the USA losing the territory would be, in effect.)
Now, one can say that this is unfair to the people of Arizona, that they don't get to unilaterally determine their own fate.
But is it? Why isn't it just as unfair to the people of Phoenix to not be able to make themselves a nation independent of the rest of Arizona? Eventually you get down to each subdivision voting whether to be a nation.
Some tea-partiers would want to establish "nations" where folks snatched from adjoining "nations" would be slaves.
And so on.
There is nothing magic about the borders of Arizona that means everybody in Arizona has some great commonality. The people in Arizona seem to be at each others throats, judging from their hateful politics.
Would it be fair to Republicans to find themselves suddenly in Mexico because they were outvoted?
Would it be fair to hispanics to be living in the nation of TeaBagsylvania, if the voting went that way?
Simply holding a local referendum does not, in practice, confer nationhood without some sort of consent, or at least acquiescence on the part of the entity that is losing the territory.
Now, if all the world's nations lined up to recognize Arizona that would affect things. If Arizona fought a bloody war of colonial liberation, that would affect things.
But just holding a vote doesn't make Arizona suddenly not part of the USA. And certainly not a vote run by Mexico while occupying Arizona.
Now, granted, Crimea is currently closer to Russia than Arizona is to the old Spanish empire. This post is just talking about concepts, not making a practical case.
Crimea has a decent claim to being independent and a decent claim to being Russian... but it is currently part of Ukraine, and Ukraine has a real interest in whether Crimea is part of Ukraine.
So no, simply forcing a vote in Crimea does not settle the matter.
dlwickham (1,274 posts)
1. give them Texas!
cthulu2016 (10,221 posts)
2. Historically Texas would be the natural analogy, but I used AZ because
the government of Arizona is so F'd up lately that part of me thinks someone should take it over, making it a good topical example.
What about the ability to drive from Texas to Los Angeles?
Frankly, I would think that Mexico would have an easier time annexing California than any other border state, based upon DUmmy logic. Why bother with Arizona when they can have the California progressive booty to steal?
2) It is not Arizona's call to make. I live in Virginia. I consider my nation the USA and I believe that Wyoming is as much a part of my nation as Virginia is. And everyone in Wyoming is of a nation that "owns" Virginia. I can move to Wyoming. They can move to Virginia. Each state is part of the shared national wealth of the other state. It is all America, and is the land of all Americans.
I'm just a fictional spirit-guide. I'm not a geopolitical specialist. Hell, I'm not even a trained historian, but I've got some problems with the above. My biggest problem is that I think the federal government, specifically the dems but also some repubs, really does believe the federal government owns the states.
They don't?
Let me rephrase.
It’s gotten to the point that the federal government owns the states and based on my reading to the Constitution that ain’t the way it’s supposed to be.
I agree. However that was settled 160+ years ago.
People who speak Spanish and are ethnically Mexican do face violence and discrimination in Arizona.
cthulu2016 (10,221 posts)
Thought experiment:(http://dontstepinthepoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/BullShit.jpg)
If mexico annexed Arizona, all the mexicans would pack up and head for Utah.
My experiment is to relocate all the Dummies and liberals to the states and cities that they have destroyed with their bullshit liberal ideas. Once tact task is accomplished, the rest of the country can return to a constitutional republic.
The DUmmies desire communism so much....I say we give it to them. We ship their asses to northern Alaska work camps and work their asses to death.
ANWAR, since they think it's such a pristine paradise...
Polar bears gotta eat, too.
Not sure that many of them would get eaten. The first one would get it, and the word would spread like wildfire amongst the polar bears--stay away! :puke: :runaway:
Piss poor analogy, DUmmy! :loser: :mental:
Not sure that many of them would get eaten. The first one would get it, and the word would spread like wildfire amongst the polar bears--stay away! :puke: :runaway:
Oh, speak of the devil, me and a friend were going to watch this again. It's been several years since we saw it last, and we both like happy endings:Wonder how many democrat votes he mailed in every election?
[youtube=425,350]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWycuaWJFCM[/youtube]
Better plan: Put all DUmmies, liberals, progressives, communist, left wingers, socialist, illegal aliens and fraudulent government tit suckers inside a fence in the state of Rhode Island .....electrify the fence and we'll throw slop to them once a week until such time we can dig a moat around it filled with alligators, crocodiles, piranhas, sharks and other hungry aquatic life.
Don't worry....our smallest state will hold them all. They love living like sardines.