Imagine a world where counties could vote to move to different states they were adjacent to. One day you are living in Oregon, the next you are in Idaho. There would be little blue island states surrounded by huge red states. Would there would be competition among the states to bring in more counties? Or would some just not care because almost no one lives there?
Then I read about corner crossing, where private landowners can capture public lands because it is illegal to cross into private land if that land connects via a corner to other private land. The landlocked public lands are technically public, but you are breaking the law if you go into it because every single edge has private land on one side.
What possible justification does Texas have for keeping Dallas/Travis (Austin)/Bexar (San Antonio)/Harris (Houston)/most of the Mexico border counties as captive colonies when they clearly want to leave?
And that’s notwithstanding Texas is actually constitutionally allowed per its annexation agreement to split itself into 5 separate smaller states, if it so wishes! The reason it hasn’t though is because at least 3 of the 5 would be solidly Blue by the approved divisions made at the time. One a tossup. One solidly red.
So, similar too the Greater Idaho plan. Or the Jefferson/California plan. Or Calexit. Or…
And the people who live there who don’t want to leave? Those who want to leave are free to move to Idaho any time they like. They’d rather forcibly drag people out of Oregon with them rather than leave just themselves?
> And the people who live there who don’t want to leave?
They're already f-ed by every Oregonian referendum that touches their benighted soil.
If Greater Idaho showed any sympathy, it would purchase their property as public domain (to be auctioned off) and it would help with moving expenses. Not that I expect that.
