5 ms·

Why should people in CA let people from OK move there? They probably have more in common with major metropolises world-wide than they do a rural farming commun

Why should people in CA let people from OK move there? They probably have more in common with major metropolises world-wide than they do a rural farming community they happen to share a nation with. People are pointing out the hypocrisy in the selective application of freedom-of-movement. There may or may not be valid reasons for this but don't pretend its grounded in self-determination.

remarkEon 7y ago
It is absolutely grounded in self-determination. That people from CA let people from OK move there is their choice. They could levy taxes on movers to discourage this no problem. And, frankly, I bet if you put this up to a vote a lot of people in (metropolitan) California would be just fine with a policy that aimed to keep those stinking farmers away.
- learc83 7y ago
  You can't levy taxes on new residents from other states. Freedom of movement within the US is recognized as a constitutional right.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- streb-lo 7y ago
  Which would be very quickly struck down by the Supreme Court, like many of the other levies/duties that have been attempted to be applied on new residents from other states.
  - goles 7y ago
    Would like to read more about this, can you provide a source?
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
      - remarkEon 7y ago
        So this is the only part of that wiki article that suggests you're right: >The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. I'm having a hard time finding a controlling case that says states can't do the inverse, i.e. levy fees on those who want to move to their state. I don't have the time tonight to read the whole case and its references, but I'm happy to be proven wrong here. Levying a fee on people who move in seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. After all, we all have to pay move-in fees when we lease a new apartment or buy a house.
        learc83 7y ago
        The supreme court struck down the refusal to disperse welfare payments to new residents as unconstitutionally restricting freedom to travel. I gurantee you that taxing new residents would be struck down for the exact same reason. >After all, we all have to pay move-in fees when we lease a new apartment or buy a house. That has no bearing on this at all. Private companies are free to do many things the government can't.
  - ryanmercer 7y ago
    I am not a lawyer but specifically, per the wiki linked in this comment chain, I think it would fall under the >(for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens mentioned in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)
  - remarkEon 7y ago
    Please point to the controlling cases here. I haven't been able to find them. Edit: ah sorry I replied to you downthread.
HBKXNCUO 7y ago
The people in CA have certain shared interests with the people of OK. They have, for instance, pooled their military resources together, so that if anyone invades CA, soldiers from OK will protect it the same as they would OK. To cement that special relationship, the people of those states have given each other certain privileges, such as being allowed to move freely between those states.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  No, the people of CA have surrendered their ability to make these decisions to the State in exchange for certain benefits. The people in CA cannot, for instance, allow workers from London to freely immigrate despite their shared interests and mutual benefit. I'm not making a value judgement on that claim -- just pointing out that it's no different than if two or more countries were to subvert their provinces/cities/communities/etc's wishes and allow for freedom of movement in pursuit of some benefit.
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >The people in CA cannot, for instance, allow workers from London to freely immigrate despite their shared interests and mutual benefit. Right, part of the pact with OK is that they have ceded some rights to a common political body. Nothing you've said contradicts what I said.
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      OK, then we agree. The fact that CA (which has more in common with London, UK than Oklahoma City) has freedom of movement only with the latter has nothing to do with their decision as a community and everything to do with decisions made long ago and social contracts they were born into. My point is that a communities' right to self-govern has very little to do with where you're allowed to freely move today -- it's a vast web of historical agreements, geopolitics, and the lottery of birth.
      - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
ghufran_syed 7y ago
Because the people of California and the people of Oklahoma both agreed to become part of the "United States", and in turn, the existing United States at the time also agreed to let them join. And the US Constitution and rules say that the residents of the states can move between them. So "self-determination" does seem like an important part of the reason. There is no reason in theory why, say, Mexico couldn't apply to become part of the United States and the US accept them, but I suspect the reason this kind of thing doesn't happen any more is 1) being a leader of a nation state is much more fun / fulfilling than being governor of a state in the US, so why would the leaders of a country ever agree to it? and 2) the level of welfare spending under existing rules in the US would require a massive wealth transfer to any new state that isn't as developed an economy. Personally, I still think it would be worth it for both the US and any state that wanted to join, but I don't think it will ever happen again.

remarkEon 7y ago

It is absolutely grounded in self-determination. That people from CA let people from OK move there is their choice. They could levy taxes on movers to discourage this no problem. And, frankly, I bet if you put this up to a vote a lot of people in (metropolitan) California would be just fine with a policy that aimed to keep those stinking farmers away.

learc83 7y ago
You can't levy taxes on new residents from other states. Freedom of movement within the US is recognized as a constitutional right.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
streb-lo 7y ago
Which would be very quickly struck down by the Supreme Court, like many of the other levies/duties that have been attempted to be applied on new residents from other states.
- goles 7y ago
  Would like to read more about this, can you provide a source?
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      So this is the only part of that wiki article that suggests you're right: >The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. I'm having a hard time finding a controlling case that says states can't do the inverse, i.e. levy fees on those who want to move to their state. I don't have the time tonight to read the whole case and its references, but I'm happy to be proven wrong here. Levying a fee on people who move in seems a perfectly reasonable thing to do. After all, we all have to pay move-in fees when we lease a new apartment or buy a house.
      - learc83 7y ago
        The supreme court struck down the refusal to disperse welfare payments to new residents as unconstitutionally restricting freedom to travel. I gurantee you that taxing new residents would be struck down for the exact same reason. >After all, we all have to pay move-in fees when we lease a new apartment or buy a house. That has no bearing on this at all. Private companies are free to do many things the government can't.
- ryanmercer 7y ago
  I am not a lawyer but specifically, per the wiki linked in this comment chain, I think it would fall under the >(for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens mentioned in Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999)
- remarkEon 7y ago
  Please point to the controlling cases here. I haven't been able to find them. Edit: ah sorry I replied to you downthread.

HBKXNCUO 7y ago

The people in CA have certain shared interests with the people of OK. They have, for instance, pooled their military resources together, so that if anyone invades CA, soldiers from OK will protect it the same as they would OK. To cement that special relationship, the people of those states have given each other certain privileges, such as being allowed to move freely between those states.

streb-lo 7y ago
No, the people of CA have surrendered their ability to make these decisions to the State in exchange for certain benefits. The people in CA cannot, for instance, allow workers from London to freely immigrate despite their shared interests and mutual benefit. I'm not making a value judgement on that claim -- just pointing out that it's no different than if two or more countries were to subvert their provinces/cities/communities/etc's wishes and allow for freedom of movement in pursuit of some benefit.
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  >The people in CA cannot, for instance, allow workers from London to freely immigrate despite their shared interests and mutual benefit. Right, part of the pact with OK is that they have ceded some rights to a common political body. Nothing you've said contradicts what I said.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    OK, then we agree. The fact that CA (which has more in common with London, UK than Oklahoma City) has freedom of movement only with the latter has nothing to do with their decision as a community and everything to do with decisions made long ago and social contracts they were born into. My point is that a communities' right to self-govern has very little to do with where you're allowed to freely move today -- it's a vast web of historical agreements, geopolitics, and the lottery of birth.
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago

ghufran_syed 7y ago

Because the people of California and the people of Oklahoma both agreed to become part of the "United States", and in turn, the existing United States at the time also agreed to let them join. And the US Constitution and rules say that the residents of the states can move between them. So "self-determination" does seem like an important part of the reason. There is no reason in theory why, say, Mexico couldn't apply to become part of the United States and the US accept them, but I suspect the reason this kind of thing doesn't happen any more is 1) being a leader of a nation state is much more fun / fulfilling than being governor of a state in the US, so why would the leaders of a country ever agree to it? and 2) the level of welfare spending under existing rules in the US would require a massive wealth transfer to any new state that isn't as developed an economy. Personally, I still think it would be worth it for both the US and any state that wanted to join, but I don't think it will ever happen again.