Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatJustice]

So the US (which, again, commits far more human rights violations than Texas is likely to ever be capable of) is right to prevent the people of Texas -or whatever state puts it up to a vote- from seceding because it decides that Texas isn't up to standard? Again, racial profiling isn't unique to Texas.

[Darvi]

If they are allowed to secede, then with the caveat that individual people can migrate back into the States at a later point. Just because a theoretical majority would leave the country doesn't mean that the rest has to be affected too.

Because migrating people out is easy, effective, AND doesn't harm those who are displaced, right?

*cough* trail of tears *cough*

Well yeah, but no worse than living in a place with a new government that is much less inclined to work in their interests. I'd pick the lesser evil.

[kaijyuu]

So the US (which, again, commits far more human rights violations than Texas is likely to ever be capable of)

Quick question: You talking abroad, limited to within our borders, or both?

is right to prevent the people of Texas -or whatever state puts it up to a vote- from seceding because it decides that Texas isn't up to standard? Again, racial profiling isn't unique to Texas.

It's the responsibility of the United States to protect the human rights of the people within its borders (and that includes Texas). That's the moral justification. I don't need a legal one, except to say I'm pretty sure secession is illegal according to the US constitution.

[Nadaka]

So the US (which, again, commits far more human rights violations than Texas is likely to ever be capable of) is right to prevent the people of Texas -or whatever state puts it up to a vote- from seceding because it decides that Texas isn't up to standard? Again, racial profiling isn't unique to Texas.

Texas is a "pioneer" in civil rights violations. They routinely violate civil rights more often than most of the rest of the country. And yes, the US also violates civil rights, in no small part because we have places like texas and arizona leading the way.

[GreatJustice]

So the US (which, again, commits far more human rights violations than Texas is likely to ever be capable of) is right to prevent the people of Texas -or whatever state puts it up to a vote- from seceding because it decides that Texas isn't up to standard? Again, racial profiling isn't unique to Texas.

Texas is a "pioneer" in civil rights violations. They routinely violate civil rights more often than most of the rest of the country. And yes, the US also violates civil rights, in no small part because we have places like texas and arizona leading the way.

Then by that definition, the rest of the US would improve by having Texas leave.

Quick question: You talking abroad, limited to within our borders, or both?

Both. Though in particular, Texas would have a hard time engaging in external aggression compared to the US.

It's the responsibility of the United States to protect the human rights of the people within its borders (and that includes Texas). That's the moral justification. I don't need a legal one, except to say I'm pretty sure secession is illegal according to the US constitution.

Which human rights? Certainly doesn't seem like the US is very good at upholding human rights, what with drone bombing civilians, torture, racial profiling, the PATRIOT act, the NDAA, the NHS, the DHS, etc etc etc. It would be incredibly hypocritical for the US to claim to be preventing Texas from leaving because of "human rights".

[kaijyuu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

You pointing out other human rights violations just points out that there are more than one front for us to fight on. It doesn't discredit this particular one.

[GreatJustice]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

You pointing out other human rights violations just points out that there are more than one front for us to fight on. It doesn't discredit this particular one.

Tu quoque would be correct if I was personally accusing YOU of violating human rights (seeing as how it's basically an extension of an ad hominem). Your argument seems to be that the US can't let Texas leave because it would violate human rights. However, if Texas isn't really capable of being any worse than the US as is, then the US is in no moral position to prevent them from leaving and the argument is invalid. Not to mention, what constitutes "human rights" is, presently, completely up to the people who live in a given area. The overwhelming majority of countries in the UN don't really follow the UN Charter of Rights, and most countries have issues that others could claim constitute "human rights violations".

[GlyphGryph]

Clearly, Texas should not only secede, but we should institute some sort of federally funded national relocation organization, whose sole purpose is to help US Citizens relocate to the state of their choice. Not just ones from states that want to secede, either, but in general!

Really bring market economics into the matter and make states compete for citizens.

[Grek]

I assure you, as a Texan, if Texas left the Union, the number of human rights violations in Texas would go up.

[Nadaka]

The US would be violating human rights less without texas. Texas would also no longer have to US supreme court to act on its citizens behalf, and they would be worse off. Those people are US citizens and abandoning them to Texas would violate their rights.

A torture program began under Bush (Texan).
The patriot act, began under Bush (Texan).
The DHS began under Bush (Texan).
Racial profiling pioneered in Texas (and Arizona and Florida).
Drone bombings began under Bush (Texan).
NDAA codifying the defacto indefinite detainment policy that began under Bush (Texan).

So really, yes a fair bit of the US civil rights violations directly or indirectly came out of Texas.

But that isn't the reason why secession will not happen. "I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination." Abraham Lincoln.

[Mego]

I'm pretty sure secession is illegal according to the US constitution.

Nope. The Constitution says nothing about secession. The result of the Civil War made it de facto illegal, and Texas v. White clarified that. Though Texas v. White cites the "more perfect Union" phrase in the Constitution, the Constitution never explicitly allows or forbids secession.

[Darvi]

Now to be fair, you can't exactly blame everything that Bush did on Texas.

[Nadaka]

Now to be fair, you can't exactly blame everything that Bush did on Texas.

I'm not actually blaming Texas. Though Bush and his policies are are influenced by the politics of the state and have influenced Texas politics in return.

[Darvi]

Just saying, that coulda been interpreted that way.

[misko27]

Just saying, that coulda been interpreted that way.

So you're saying they engaged in group polarization? Less politely known as circle jerk? I am now imaginaing A giant Bush and the entire Texas legislature engaged in a massive circle-jerk, and it is not pretty.