I feel this response is confusing right with might. Just because some group has the political might to make laws that benefit them does not make those laws right, does it?

Right and wrong are almost entirely subjective on issues like this. What is the right level of political boundaries for people to have a vote in these decisions? Should residents of San Diego be able to influence housing policy in San Francisco? How about residents of Chicago, or Madrid, or Karachi?

I don't like the idea of residents of far-away cities having a say in housing policy in my city. But I'd also support a federal-level ban on rent control policies, based on the idea that it's a net-good if we encourage people to move to more efficiently allocate housing.

But I totally see how this is kind of hypocritical. I just want things my way, everywhere. :-] idk!

I suppose that the next-best thing is to have local control with freedom of movement. The United States and cities are kind of like this--- it allows for states and cities to try out different policies, and compete based on policy.

It doesn't, I was being ironic.

Let's apply that same logic to refugees (red-lining, migrant workers, or really any topic of im/e/migration). Current citizens have votes and decide that refugees aren't welcome, refugees don't have votes and so cannot be welcomed.