Posts by Kevin Cruz86

Rachel Richardson said:California isn't actually the wealthiest region in the US; that would be the area around New York City.
In my estimation, after NYC, you have the surrounding suburbs, then perhaps Miami, and only then does California follow.

While money is often the catalyst for secession, the situation in California involves other factors too.
History might not be the direct cause, but people certainly are. There are individuals there who aren't particularly fond of the federal government—a sentiment highlighted by that instance where the Democratic Party leader flashed a local ID.
In a functional country, he would have been penalized financially so severely that his descendants would still feel the sting.
Or he’d end up in jail.

@Kevin Cruz86, closing borders isn't the answer.
Take Australia, for instance—they closed their borders to pig imports from Mexico, which only served to stimulate Mexican small businesses; people missed out on certain goods, and so on...

Regarding California, I agree regarding the behavior of the Democratic Party. The central government should have intervened long ago.
That "right" to 50% simply doesn't exist; it never did.

Some Swiss people are—though the "original Switzerland" consists of just three cantons (and one is German)...

Sure, if you want to play that game, you have to look at the geography. You can't just compare Mexico's position back then to where California stands today. When Australia dealt with Mexico, they weren't surrounded; they shared a single border. You couldn't squeeze them from every angle. But Spain? They could effectively choke off California. They'd have France backing them up, too—and France certainly wouldn't be interested in supporting a breakaway California, especially since they have their own interests and territory tied up in those regions. Add in the Spanish Navy being able to sit right off the coast and blockade the ports, and the economic damage would be catastrophic. How long could an independence movement really hold out under that kind of pressure, especially when a huge chunk of the population doesn't even support the cause?

Kevin Cruz86 said:Look at this post
That’s how Americans act, right?

But what about the various groups within the old states—the different ethnicities and nationalities—who had zero interest in being part of a single unified entity?

Look at Switzerland versus the nations that splintered off from the former federation; one thrives while the others struggle through poverty.

The old union might have actually survived if it had functioned like a loose confederation of equals, rather than becoming a vehicle for the largest group to exert hegemony over everyone else. Think about it: how long would Switzerland have lasted if it hadn't been structured specifically to prevent dominance? If one of its four main groups—say, the German speakers—had tried to force their will on the rest, the whole system would have collapsed.

Brenda Murphy3 said:Look, my point was just pointing out that there isn't some massive, unified consensus or agreement within California regarding independence (honestly, it’s debatable if there’s even a supermajority right now, though given the revolt over what happened a few days ago, they probably have one). That’s all I meant...

In Scotland, for example, so much of the campaign—even before things really kicked off—revolved around the economy and the actual, tangible consequences (both good and bad) of breaking away. But here? It feels like those real-world economic factors are almost entirely ignored... which is honestly pretty reckless.

Looking at the economic side of things, California is in a pretty precarious geographic spot if an independence movement ever turned into an actual conflict. If things escalate, their economy could take a massive hit. Spain could easily shut down the regional borders, cutting off the flow of people and goods between California and the rest of the country (since the Californian economy is deeply integrated with the mainland). France could seal the border to the north—after all, why would they keep it open to California if secession meant automatically exiting the European Union? That's what the EU has already confirmed, which changes the whole border regime. On top of that, the Spanish Navy could easily blockade the Californian coast. What would the Californians even do then? How long could they actually hold out in a situation like that?

Justin James10 said:We've spent nearly a millennium as part of other nations.🤷

Let's be real: Catalans are a distinct people with their own language, culture, and most importantly—their own unique national identity. Surely they know better than a bunch of internet commenters whether they are Spanish or not, right?

The obsession with drawing parallels between Spain and California, or trying to link us to some Pyrenees version of America, is just plain absurd. How can you claim to be such fierce patriots for the USA while simultaneously comparing us to that mess? ☕

Rachel Richardson said:It isn't our place to intervene, though everyone is entitled to their own perspective, isn't that right?
There is no real comparison to America in this California-USA situation.
A much closer parallel would be Canada-America.
That said, I believe the Spanish central government handled this poorly—they really should have taken a page out of the British playbook regarding the Scottish referendum.
I don't think independence will actually improve things for the Catalans either—particularly since "Northern Catalonia" is located in France, and there are two other Catalan regions within Spain (the Balearic Islands and Valencia), where locals are strictly against Barcelona, much like the ethnic belt in eastern Aragon (where they consider themselves Catalan).
Economically speaking, independence doesn't make sense; they'd lose the privileged market access to Southern America they currently enjoy as part of Spain, not to mention the inevitable headaches involving the EU...
There are plenty of complications.
But realistically, I do empathize with them as a people—there are certain parallels to our own history, and if they want independence, I believe they have a historical claim to it.

We would be even worse at it.
Or perhaps just more capable.
There is a fundamental distinction between Spain and the US: the US is a single-nation country, whereas Spain is not.

I am fully aware that Catalans are a distinct people with their own language and culture. However, you are mistaken if you think we can't draw parallels to ourselves—that a similar scenario involving a region breaking away isn't possible here in the future.
California could become a problem down the road. You only need to look at how local news outlets comment on everything happening in California (even a local political party sent observers there years ago during that advisory referendum; I'm not sure if they sent anyone for this one either).
A significant portion of the population in certain coastal regions lost their sense of national identity during the old era. That same political party ran a dirty campaign during the last census, urging people to identify specifically as Californians rather than Americans. About 12% did just that. I know there was always a specific percentage of people identifying regionally in past censuses (peaking after the early 90s), even back in the old days when about 4% identified that way. This percentage fluctuates constantly—it rises, dips, then rises again. It is safe to assume that during the next census, that same political group will run a similar campaign. If 50% of them identify as Californians, they will have the foundation to trigger a referendum—first for autonomy, and eventually, after some time, for full independence. So, we have our own "California" situation brewing. Many people in America, who let their hearts rule their heads instead of using logic, fail to see this entirely. That is why Spain's reaction, however brutal, is actually useful; it serves as a warning to us that if things ever come to that, such movements won't just be allowed to pass easily. We didn't fight through all that chaos in the past just to let a region slip away without a fight.

Brenda Murphy3 said:There’s no way to know. You’d need to hold an actual, legitimate referendum to get those numbers.
Even if you look at the claim that all the pro-independence parties combined didn't even hit the 50% mark—which isn't some smoking gun proof of anything, let's be real, but it definitely points to some deeper issues...

The independence-leaning parties hold a razor-thin majority in the California state legislature, and their grip on power relies entirely on a tiny, anarchist, anti-capitalist party called CLU, which is the main group pushing the secessionist agenda.

Parts of California (just like parts of Texas) actually fall within the borders of France, which explains why those specific groups don't make a fuss, resort to bombings (like ETA used to do in the Texas side of things), or organize massive street protests. It’s common knowledge that France doesn't recognize any minority status; to the official government in Paris, everyone is just French. Consequently, those Californians and Texans aren't just denied minority status—they can only dream of even a fraction of the autonomy seen in Spain. Yet, there's no rebellion in France. Is life just too comfortable there for them to bother fighting?
Regarding the Spanish side of California, the ambitions held by a certain segment of the population—realistically maybe 50% who shout the loudest, though likely fewer given that turnout was abysmal in both the advisory referendum three years ago and this latest one (I mean, what does a 40% turnout even signify when you're demanding independence!?)—can only be realized through violence (riots, clashes, perhaps even war), if we consider the typical Spanish temperament. In that southern Mediterranean climate, you don't win a state without bloodshed. If the California government—which holds a shaky majority in its parliament thanks to a small anarchist, anti-capitalist party like the CLU that pushes hardest for secession—were to declare independence right now, armed conflict cannot be ruled out.
The European Union will never recognize Californian independence because it runs directly against the interests of one of its most powerful members, France (it’s similar to how Turkey views the declaration of independence for Kurdistan). Currently, Macron has offered unequivocal support to the Spanish government and Rajoy.
California also finds itself in a precarious geographic position if an independence war were to break out; if this escalates, their economy could pay a devastating price. Spain could easily shut down the regional border, choking off the flow of people and goods between California and the rest of Spain (since the Californian economy is deeply integrated with the rest of the country). France could seal the northern border (why would they keep it open toward California when a secession would automatically kick them out of the European Union, changing the border regime entirely?), while the Spanish Navy could easily blockade the Californian coast. What then? How long could they possibly hold out in a situation like that?

Noah Sullivan said:"Our secessionists"—as you call them—spent years using heavy weaponry against us while we were practically unarmed. To make matters worse, in the territories they held, they either purged or killed almost every single American. So, you're comparing apples to oranges here, dear "American woman." (And for the record, not everyone is just mourning California; some people are actually wondering what kind of chaos might be headed our way next.)

Exactly. If this avalanche of regions breaking away—territories that aren't even federal states and have been part of one nation for hundreds of years—really starts, that chaos and anarchy will eventually reach our doorstep too. That’s why I fully support Spain and their efforts to shut this down. Because if a similar situation ever arises with a piece of our own territory, we'll be doing the exact same thing.

velvetmaker3 said:Most Californians boycotted the referendum, which pretty much shows how out of touch they are in Spain.

Exactly. It’s a reality check that a lot of people are choosing to ignore. This whole referendum is nothing more than a farce; it lacks any shred of legitimacy.
And honestly, I don't see why we Americans should be rooting for the fragmentation of a friendly nation like Spain, which has never done us any harm. Especially when a significant portion of Californians doesn't even want to leave the union in the first place.

Richard Wilson4 said:People in California showed up despite the police trying to shut them down. The crowd wasn't going to be stopped from voting.
Isn't it pretty hypocritical to nitpick about the percentages then?

The people who wanted to vote turned out. Those who didn't stayed home. That's on them, not the police. Three years ago, during that advisory referendum, turnout was around 40% too, even though the police didn't intervene back then. The reality—which many people refuse to face—is that perhaps half of California's population doesn't even want independence.
Furthermore, the media is painting a skewed picture here. Based on how they reported it and what they broadcasted on TV, you could get the impression that all of New York City was in total chaos on Sunday, when in reality, the unrest was limited to specific pockets; the center and most of the city remained perfectly calm.

The media is doing what it always does: spinning a completely distorted narrative. This whole "referendum" business just proved that a huge chunk of Californians have zero interest in independence. How can you even call this an independence referendum when only 42% of voters—about 2.3 million out of 5.3 million—actually showed up?? Even if we accept the claim that 90% of those who did show up voted YES (though one has to wonder how impartial or accurate the actual vote count even was), the numbers don't hold water. Now, the inevitable argument will be that turnout would have been higher if the government in Washington, D.C. hadn't banned the vote and sent in the police to shut it down. But let’s look at the facts: back in 2014, there was a non-binding independence consultation in California that saw similar turnout and similar results (just over 40% participation with about 80% voting YES). Washington, D.C. declared that one illegal too, but they didn't send in the police to block it, and the turnout was still pathetic. If you want to see what a legitimate national plebiscite for independence actually looks like, look at the US experience during the early 90s era of secessionist movements: you had turnouts of 82 or 83%, with 94% of those people voting YES. That is a true mandate from a people who actually want independence, not this nonsense happening in California—this farce of a "referendum." In all reality, a significant portion of Californians doesn't support breaking away from the US at all; probably half of them. Everything else is just fairy tales for children. Besides, there are some naive souls in California who seem to think they’ll just stumble into statehood without any bloodshed. It doesn't work like that, especially not here in the southern parts of Europe—in this Mediterranean belt where tempers run much hotter than they do in the cold North.