5 ms·

This would require a constitutional amendment. We have free movement in America. It's not the Soviet Union.

vinay427 12y ago
I'm assuming a conditional visa that transitions to permanent residency (green card) if one lives in Detroit for five years is legal, though. Many visas are restricted to employers, for example, and Canada has a similar system through the provincial nominee program.
- derefr 12y ago
  Hmm. Now that you mention it, it would probably be much simpler, legally, to make something like a visa specifically granted to companies based in Detroit, to bring their workers to the US. The workers wouldn't be legally obligated to stay in Detroit... but the companies are probably going to want them to.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> This would require a constitutional amendment. No, it probably wouldn't. > We have free movement in America. On a constitutional level, that's not necessarily true of immigrants. The states generally can't impose such limits on immigrants because regulating immigration is Constitutionally a reserved federal power, so it would be a Supremacy Clause issue. The feds, however, almost certainly can impose place-of-residency restrictions on immigrants without a Constitutional amendment.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  That's not how it would work. The feds clearly won't even impose "are you here legally in the first place" restrictions. Bush and Obama have made that perfectly clear. Anyway, the whole idea stinks of shit like the propaganda line "jobs americans won't do." You really think Americans are some sort of idiots that couldn't make use of the land and infrastructure in Detroit given proper reforms? Apparently we're too dumb and need some foreigners to lead the way.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > That's not how it would work. How politically things are likely to work is a different question from what is Constitutionally required. EDIT: also, > The feds clearly won't even impose "are you here legally in the first place" restrictions. Bush and Obama have made that perfectly clear. George W. Bush's administration engaged in some of the most extreme uses of every federal power available (and more)over immigrants since WWII in the wake of 9/11. They may not have used that power where you want them to, but that's a different issue.

I'm assuming a conditional visa that transitions to permanent residency (green card) if one lives in Detroit for five years is legal, though. Many visas are restricted to employers, for example, and Canada has a similar system through the provincial nominee program.

derefr 12y ago
Hmm. Now that you mention it, it would probably be much simpler, legally, to make something like a visa specifically granted to companies based in Detroit, to bring their workers to the US. The workers wouldn't be legally obligated to stay in Detroit... but the companies are probably going to want them to.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> This would require a constitutional amendment. No, it probably wouldn't. > We have free movement in America. On a constitutional level, that's not necessarily true of immigrants. The states generally can't impose such limits on immigrants because regulating immigration is Constitutionally a reserved federal power, so it would be a Supremacy Clause issue. The feds, however, almost certainly can impose place-of-residency restrictions on immigrants without a Constitutional amendment.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
That's not how it would work. The feds clearly won't even impose "are you here legally in the first place" restrictions. Bush and Obama have made that perfectly clear. Anyway, the whole idea stinks of shit like the propaganda line "jobs americans won't do." You really think Americans are some sort of idiots that couldn't make use of the land and infrastructure in Detroit given proper reforms? Apparently we're too dumb and need some foreigners to lead the way.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > That's not how it would work. How politically things are likely to work is a different question from what is Constitutionally required. EDIT: also, > The feds clearly won't even impose "are you here legally in the first place" restrictions. Bush and Obama have made that perfectly clear. George W. Bush's administration engaged in some of the most extreme uses of every federal power available (and more)over immigrants since WWII in the wake of 9/11. They may not have used that power where you want them to, but that's a different issue.