Sovereignty of a State

First, Happy Cinco de Mayo! I love Danny Trejo, it's no secret. And he has a special Cinco de Mayo message for you. (Apparently copyright laws have removed access to the video I posted here, but definitely check out the trailer for Machete through the above link).

All of this oppressive state-based legislation has got me thinking...Would these states be able to survive if they were a sovereign nation that did not fall under the protective umbrella of the United States? We have all heard it, California is broke. But of what consequence is that, really? The US has always got it's back, and no matter what the financial woe is, how much misfortune can really befall a state that is part of the US?

Now, I think about Arizona. SB 1070, in addition to being a racist measure, is financially going to screw the state if it works out. It is funny how economic interests are being posited as one of the motivations behind this legislation, because frankly, perhaps it is the influx of illegal immigrants taking unnaturally low-paying jobs that is keeping Arizona financially afloat in the first place. If this law is to pass, I am wondering A) if it could actually ever be "effective" in curbing illegal immigration, B) how they would measure such "effectiveness," and C) how it would really affect the state in the long-run. But even if this law becomes practice in Arizona, and it ends up hurting them financially, will it really hurt the state deep down? If Arizona were a sovereign nation, what would come out of all of this? I am thinking financial ruin might have something to do with it. But luckily the big bad US can protect all of its children from actually ever failing, so even though Cali can go broke, it is of no real consequence, is it not? I see a dissertation in the making: Can states make policies that are not in their best interest as a political move and not be negatively affected in many ways because they are a part of the US?

Luckily, many people agree that the law won't hold any water when it comes down to being put into practice. It is being called "constitutionally troubling," and I have heard that foreign policy matters do not fall under state jurisdiction. And basically, when you make a law that calls for police to detain people because of "reasonable suspicion" without defining what constitutes "reasonable suspicion," yeah, people are not going to let that fly.

And on a final note. In light of the anti-woman/choice/medicine legislation recently passed in Oklahoma, is it any surprise that some OK legislators are getting a proverbial boner over the idea of following suit with Arizona's SB 1070? Unfortunately, other states (like Ohio) are also considering similar moves. Thankfully, Ted Strickland has already said he would never sign such a measure. But read on in the article, because it looks as though there is still a looming threat.