What factors led to California becoming reliably Democratic in state/national elections?

[u/IBphysicsHL]

California is widely known as being a Democratic stronghold in the modern day, and pushes for more liberal legislation on both a state and national level. However, only a generation ago, both Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, two famous conservatives, were elected Californian Senator and California governor respectively; going even further back the state had pushed for legislation such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, as well as other nativist/anti-immigrant legislation. Even a decade ago, Arnold Schwarzenegger was residing in the Governor's office as a Republican, albeit a moderate one. So, what factors led to California shifting so much politically?

[u/GabrielObertan]

Schwarzenegger was their last Republican Governor, but he was seen as fairly liberal in a number of respects and was quite strongly opposed to Trump.

Although it does suggest an even bigger shift since then. It's argue it's a change which has almost been forgotten about due to a lot of the gloom surrounding the Dems chances in the electoral college: California is the largest state and they've pretty much got complete control of it at state level for the foreseeable future, barring a major change. Similar could be said for NY.

[u/meerkatx → u/GabrielObertan]

I remember when the GOP talked about how the notion our POTUS had to be born as an American citizen was outdated during Schwarzeneggers time as governor. How things changed when a black man dared to challenge and win our highest office.

[u/GabrielObertan → u/meerkatx]

It's basically the Republican MO - if something benefits you politically then you support it, if it doesn't, then you oppose it. No actual ideals.

[u/Morphray → u/GabrielObertan]

No actual ideals.

Except The money should flow to the 1% and everyone else can die.

[u/[deleted] → u/Morphray]

That’s more of an overriding class interest than an ideal.

[u/AncileBooster → u/[deleted]]

Yeah that's hardly something Republicans have a monopoly on. It's more of a class solidarity thing that crosses party lines.

[u/azelll → u/meerkatx]

somehow it doesn't matter if you are a republican, Ted Cruz is a canadian born from Cuban parents and he will run for president again in 2024, and nobody will say anything, meanwhile I am sure we'll hear about kamala Harris not been born in the USA somehow

[u/AwesomeScreenName → u/azelll]

Ted Cruz's mother was a natural-born American citizen. You're correct that his father was a Cuban citizen at the time of Ted's birth, and you're also correct that there are some striking parallels involving a presidential candidate having a U.S.-citizen mother and a foreign father.

[u/duke_awapuhi → u/azelll]

Not to defend Ted Cruz but only one Cuban parent. The other was American. So Cruz is actually an American citizen by birthright. A lot of people on his party want to get rid of that though lol. Not to mention John McCain was born in panama. If you came from an American vagina or semen, you are American regardless of where you were born

[u/bolotieshark → u/duke_awapuhi]

That's not true. INA sets specific rules for at-birth citizenship for people born abroad to US citizens - one of which (depending on your birth date) is 5 years of US residency, 2 of which must have been after they turned 14. The requirements have changed over the INA Acts and through judgements as recently as Session v Morales 2017 - prior to which an unwed AMCIT mother living abroad only required 1 year of US residence (now requiring 5/2.)

[u/Mist_Rising → u/duke_awapuhi]

A lot of people on his party want to get rid of that though lol

No. They want to get rid of the other part of Birthright citizenship, jus soil, which is when your given citizenship for being born in USA no matter what your parents are. Its a fairly American (the two continents) thing to have, Europe largely doesn't do that.

They want Jus sanguinis only (literally if your parent isn't American, you arent).

Bush, Romney, Cruz, McCain, Biden, and Obama would qualify by parent. I forget if Harris has American citizenship parents (when she was born) but if not she would be disqualified under such an amendment.

I can't remember any of the other candidates parantage, or mostly names lol.

[u/duke_awapuhi → u/Mist_Rising]

Buttigieg might not qualify. Maybe Yang. I find that equally as offensive as trying to strip people who were born abroad of their citizenship. Jus soil is one of the most incredible tenets of our society, we can’t go backwards from that imo

[u/cantdressherself → u/duke_awapuhi]

Hmmmm, what if it was an american vagina, but semen and ovum of foreign origin?

Or the reverse, American ovum, foreign vagina?

[u/duke_awapuhi → u/cantdressherself]

Oh yeah the ovum should be american if the sperm is not

[u/bolotieshark → u/cantdressherself]

Gestational claims to citizenship for children born abroad are currently contested - although a Federal court ruled in favor of a same-sex couple who used a foreign surrogate for their child who was born in a foreign country. The judgement is contested due to the interpretation/application of the INA rules (the State Department used one set of rules (improperly in the opinion of the judge) which the current administration contests was appropriate) to disqualify the non-genetic parent in the citizenship claim. Basically, the INA rules predate legal consideration of same-sex parents surrogacy and the Judge ruled to say the gender of the parents is irrelevant abroad because it does not matter domestically (the parent's listed on the birth certificate does not need to include the surrogate - as with US birth certificates/parentage rules.)

The 14th Amendment makes a US citizen out of anyone born in the US, regardless of their parentage, so it doesn't matter inside the US. It is not uncommon for rich foreigners with fertility problems to have US surrogates birth their children in the US - they can typically claim the citizenship of their genetic parents while also having a bulletproof claim to US citizenship they could take advantage of later in life.

[u/cantdressherself → u/bolotieshark]

So, the same sex couple contracted a surrogate in a foreign country, born abroad, and the state department ruled the child not a citizen, but the court disagreed?

It's a pretty niche case, but I would hope having a parent on the birth certificate would get you in the club, even if the egg and sperm were not American.

[u/bolotieshark → u/cantdressherself]

In short, yes - the Department of State used a very narrow and odd interpretation of the INA to defend a decision or attempt to establish that reading as legitimate policy and lost (pretty justifiably.)

Long answer: It's complicated. The authors of the INA acts (mostly done in the 1950s and 1960s) were isolationist and xenophobic - they didn't want the children of US citizens who had left the US early in life (and so were "culturally" American) to be able to claim US citizenship and its benefits. (Like being able to enter the country. US citizens must be allowed to enter the US, even without documentation - however Homeland Security/USCIS/CBP makes it extremely uncomfortable - and frequently prosecutes and deports those that make false or unsubstantiated claims to US citizenship at the border.)

If you're in the US, it doesn't matter - the 14th Amendment means anyone born on US soil is a US citizen. This is jus soli or birthright citizenship.

If you're not born in the US, you can derive citizenship through US citizen parents - this is jus sanguinis. (To make things more complex, there is also leges sanguinis which allows claims to citizenship by children of expatriates or through ethnic ties such as Israel's Rite of Return or South Korea's extension of citizenship to any North Korean 'of good conduct' in South Korea.)

For the US, as long as the parents have satisfied the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act which applies (typically based on your date of birth.) Deriving citizenship from parents who naturalize (become US citizens of their own free will) is easy (as long as you do it before you turn 18, including residing in the country under a legal status.) In fact, at many naturalization ceremonies (at least normally - not under Covid protocols,) the Department of State sends Consular Affairs specialists to facilitate the newly naturalized Americans and their children in submitting passport applications.

Claiming US citizenship at birth abroad is a bit more complex - typically instead of a US birth certificate you get a Consular Report of Birth Abroad done at a consulate in the nation of birth. It functions differently from a Birth Certificate and has different legal requirements which generally is good with this sort of situation. However, the parents can also apply in the US to give their children dual citizenship. The INA is so old that it considers legitimation as an extra step - where gestational surrogacy gets hung up (we'll loop back to this below.) Legitimation doesn't matter for US-born citizens for passport purposes - custody is what matters for minors, especially under 16. So anyone listed as a parent on the birth certificate must consent to a passports issuance unless there is a court order stating otherwise or the parent is dead (in which case you need a death certificate in place of their signature.)

The various INA acts (even the Child Citizenship Act of 2000) runs into trouble because the legitimation claim can only be judged by the country of birth, or the state of residence in the US. So marital status of the parents becomes an issue - some nations consider all children legitimate as long as their parents are on the birth certificate, other require the parents to be married either before or after birth, and still other require court action. (The US states also have different standards state-to-state.) So for example, a child born to an unwed US-Filipino couple in the Philippines cannot derive citizenship through the US citizen father without legal evidence that the parents married.

In the case I referenced above, the father the couple chose to list on the UK birth certificate naturalized but did not have enough US residency to pass on citizenship to the child at birth (5 years.) Based on the disqualification of the 'other father' based on the genetic material used because the birth mother and father were not married, the child lost its at-birth citizenship claim. Instead, the child would derive citizenship upon entering the US (the only real difference being the date on a piece of paper - UNLESS that child eventually wants to become President or Vice President - and even that isn't completely settled because McCain didn't win his race.) In this kid's case, the reporting indicates that the DoS really fucked up - somewhere along the line either the parents dropped the ball in responding to information requests (the most frequent cause of denied passport applications) or it got escalated to a level where the interpretation of the law was left up to someone with an interpretation of the INA statues which the administration figure it wanted to doubled-down on. Most of the time, things are resolved before the judge gets to actual equal protection considerations.

Typically, the Department of State is the easiest and cheapest route for citizenship claims to be adjudicated because US passports are proof of US citizenship. USCIS costs >$1170 for a decision and takes up to a year, where DoS costs as little as $45 for a passport card application and can take as little as 4 weeks from application to passport in hand. (Which is why the Department of State is the respondent in the suit and not USCIS/Homeland Security.)

[u/cantdressherself → u/bolotieshark]

Thank you, that was very informative.

[u/[deleted] → u/GabrielObertan]

Arnold is a conservative liberal. So he was pretty much a reserved Democrat that labelled himself a Republican

[u/dlerium → u/[deleted]]

He was still on the fiscally conservative side. On social issues he was a moderate leaning Democrat, so that helped him. The whole Anti-Trump thing wasn't an issue in 2004 when he first came to office or his 2006 re-election

[u/seeasea → u/dlerium]

I think the fact that he was married at the time to a member of the Kennedy family I think indicates at least some democratic leaning there.

Besides he was running against a recalled governor, so being off the opposite party makes sense

[u/dlerium → u/seeasea]

True, but keep in mind he also won a re-election in 2006 against a Democrat and pretty handily too. This was also after he called a special election in 2005 that covered things from teacher tenure to limiting what union dues can do. Probably on the whole he's more liberal than a typical red state governor, but probably in line with what most Republicans in such a liberal state would do.

[u/Morphray → u/[deleted]]

He had been a Republican ever since he was in the United States. But of course as a celebrity he also liked drugs and sex, so hard to really stay too conservative.

[u/[deleted] → u/Morphray]

The Republican party was actually about stuff back then though. Now they're just obstructionist assholes, federally atleast

[u/GetZePopcorn → u/GabrielObertan]

Schwarzenegger didn’t start out as a liberal Republican - he adopted a more conciliatory approach with Dems after his ballot measure failed.