The UK and the US are not structured similarly: Scotland is a country, Texas is not.
But the main point here is that all of America belongs to all Americans. The people living in Texas don’t have some special right to the land of Texas and the people of California don’t have some special right to the land of California.
Texas seceding and becoming its own country because the people currently squatting on it want to leave America makes as little as your neighbor doing the same. If people living in America no longer want to live in America they are free to leave but they are not free to take part of America with them when they go.
I was confused because I assume any state can have a referendum and decide if they want to become a country similar to what Quebec was looking for.
While it make sense legally if you say Texas belong to America, I still feel that if the majority of people who currently lives there decided they want to be their own country, it doesn’t make sense to force them to be part of the states.
Even if we set aside Scotland as a special case, how is your argument against Texas secession inapplicable to the secession of the thirteen colonies in 1776? Or to the secession of Texas from Mexico? Doesn’t it imply that the USA should give Texas back?
They were colonies. Does that really need to elaborated on? If a territory of the US like Puerto Rico wants to vote for independence more power to them.
Or to the secession of Texas from Mexico? Doesn’t it imply that the USA should give Texas back?
If we were having this conversation between 1836 and 1848, yeah, probably. But since Mexico conceded the land that contains Texas to America as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that’s since been settled.
The colonies seceding wasn’t legal. There was a war about it, and the very people who fought that war didn’t encode a right to secede into the constitution.
The UK and the US are not structured similarly: Scotland is a country, Texas is not.
But the main point here is that all of America belongs to all Americans. The people living in Texas don’t have some special right to the land of Texas and the people of California don’t have some special right to the land of California.
Texas seceding and becoming its own country because the people currently squatting on it want to leave America makes as little as your neighbor doing the same. If people living in America no longer want to live in America they are free to leave but they are not free to take part of America with them when they go.
I was confused because I assume any state can have a referendum and decide if they want to become a country similar to what Quebec was looking for.
While it make sense legally if you say Texas belong to America, I still feel that if the majority of people who currently lives there decided they want to be their own country, it doesn’t make sense to force them to be part of the states.
What about Taiwan?
You think that Taiwan should be forced to stick with China?
Your question doesn’t make any sense; the People’s Republic of China has never had control of Taiwan.
Even if we set aside Scotland as a special case, how is your argument against Texas secession inapplicable to the secession of the thirteen colonies in 1776? Or to the secession of Texas from Mexico? Doesn’t it imply that the USA should give Texas back?
They were colonies. Does that really need to elaborated on? If a territory of the US like Puerto Rico wants to vote for independence more power to them.
If we were having this conversation between 1836 and 1848, yeah, probably. But since Mexico conceded the land that contains Texas to America as part of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that’s since been settled.
The colonies seceding wasn’t legal. There was a war about it, and the very people who fought that war didn’t encode a right to secede into the constitution.