If you’re really concerned, then just move to california! Its much easier than moving abroad.
I lived in California long enough ago to remember when getting queer-bashed was a reasonable concern for a fair number of people, even in, say, Oakland. It didn’t happen daily, but it happened relatively often. If you were in the “out” LGBT community, I think you probably knew somebody who’d been bashed. Politics influence that kind of thing even if it’s not legal.
… and in the legal arena, there’s a whole lot of pressure building up on that state and local resistance. So far it’s mostly money-based pressure, but within a few years, I could easily see a SCOTUS decision that said a state had to, say, extradite somebody accused of “abetting an abortion” in another state.
War in the continental US? No, I agree that’s unlikely enough not to worry about.
Civil unrest, followed by violent crackdowns on civil unrest, followed by more violent civil unrest, followed by factional riots, on the other hand...
SCOTUS decision that said a state had to, say, extradite somebody accused of “abetting an abortion” in another state.
Look no further than how southern states responded to civil rights rulings, and how they (back when it was still held) they responded to roe v wade. Of course those reactions were much harder than, say, simply neglecting to enforce laws, which it should be noted liberal cities & states have been practicing doing for decades. Of course you say you’re trying to enforce laws, but you just subject all your members to all the requirements of the US bureaucracy and you can easily stop enforce laws while complying with the letter of the law. Indeed, it is complying with the letter of the law which prevents you from enforcing the laws.
… and in the legal arena, there’s a whole lot of pressure building up on that state and local resistance. So far it’s mostly money-based pressure, but within a few years, I could easily see a SCOTUS decision that said a state had to, say, extradite somebody accused of “abetting an abortion” in another state.
What money based pressure are you thinking of? Cities, as far as I know, have and always will be much more liberal than the general populace, and ditto for the states with much of their populace in cities.
The tactic of threatening to discriminate against uncooperative states and localities is getting a lot of play. It’s somewhat limited at the federal level because in theory the state and local policies they demand have to be related to the purpose of the money (and a couple of other conditions I don’t remember). But the present fashion is to push that relation to the absolute breaking point.
I lived in California long enough ago to remember when getting queer-bashed was a reasonable concern for a fair number of people, even in, say, Oakland. It didn’t happen daily, but it happened relatively often. If you were in the “out” LGBT community, I think you probably knew somebody who’d been bashed. Politics influence that kind of thing even if it’s not legal.
… and in the legal arena, there’s a whole lot of pressure building up on that state and local resistance. So far it’s mostly money-based pressure, but within a few years, I could easily see a SCOTUS decision that said a state had to, say, extradite somebody accused of “abetting an abortion” in another state.
War in the continental US? No, I agree that’s unlikely enough not to worry about.
Civil unrest, followed by violent crackdowns on civil unrest, followed by more violent civil unrest, followed by factional riots, on the other hand...
Look no further than how southern states responded to civil rights rulings, and how they (back when it was still held) they responded to roe v wade. Of course those reactions were much harder than, say, simply neglecting to enforce laws, which it should be noted liberal cities & states have been practicing doing for decades. Of course you say you’re trying to enforce laws, but you just subject all your members to all the requirements of the US bureaucracy and you can easily stop enforce laws while complying with the letter of the law. Indeed, it is complying with the letter of the law which prevents you from enforcing the laws.
What money based pressure are you thinking of? Cities, as far as I know, have and always will be much more liberal than the general populace, and ditto for the states with much of their populace in cities.
This sort of tactic. This isn’t necessarily the best example, just the literal top hit on a Google search.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/pam-bondi-ban-sanctuary-cities-funding-b2693020.html
The tactic of threatening to discriminate against uncooperative states and localities is getting a lot of play. It’s somewhat limited at the federal level because in theory the state and local policies they demand have to be related to the purpose of the money (and a couple of other conditions I don’t remember). But the present fashion is to push that relation to the absolute breaking point.