3 ms·

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 discourag

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.

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.