A sane person would regard the presence of so many non-citizens as tantamount to an invasion. Foreign citizens have no claim to being part of the society which forms a part of this Union, and therefore their opinions one way or the other is immaterial. They cannot vote, so they cannot invoke the right of self determination in a land which is not theirs.
This is a very different thing from people who have owned and lived on the land for generations deciding that their existing government no longer represents their interests. Your analogy is utterly wrong in the most important particulars.
Would the United States have the moral and constitional right to enforce the US Constitution, by force if necessary? Or does a temporary majority in a single state have the right to remove the protections promised by “the people of the United State” to all individuals within each state?
It is not a majority of legal citizens. It is a nonsensical hypothetical no different than suggesting a few Million Chinese visiting New York could pry it out of the Union. In the case of California, it isn't their land, it isn't their society, and they shouldn't even be there, let alone have any determinative power over that state.
BTW, we may be headed towards something very like this in the state of Hawaii.
Good riddance. All it has given us of any significance was Barack Obama, and that was significant only in it's degree of horribleness. You do know that Hawaii only became a state due to Democrat's insistence that they get a Democrat state if Alaska was allowed in the Union?
Hawaii was a compromise deal to get agreement on Alaska. It never should have been a state in the first place.
This may come as a shock to you, but most of the hispanic residents of California are native-born US citizens.
Foreign citizens have no claim to being part of the society which forms a part of this Union, and therefore their opinions one way or the other is immaterial. They cannot vote, so they cannot invoke the right of self determination in a land which is not theirs.
Why not? Who says whose land is whose? Do not all people have a right to self-determination wherever they may be? Is that not a natural right? Must be consistent now.