Because different groups of people have their own interests, shared culture, etc. Just because you don't mind a homogeneous global culture doesn't meant that others do or should.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

>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.

Historical agreements can be changed if there is political will, but of course inertia is important.

To put my answer to your question "Why should people in CA let people from OK move there?" in a different way, people from CA should allow people from OK to move there, and vice versa, because free movement between the two areas is a show of good faith. It tells the people of OK that the people of CA trust them not to exploit that privilege for their own gain, which is of course something that not everyone can be trusted not to do. Shows of good faith of that kind help both sides trust the other side more, to the point where they are comfortable with, for example, pooling military resources, which are absolutely critical to maintaining the future existence of both groups and are more effective when pooled.

Might the people of CA have enough in common with the people of London that each side could trust the other not to exploit their generosity? Maybe, but it takes quite a while for that trust to build.

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.

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.

You can't levy taxes on new residents from other states. Freedom of movement within the US is recognized as a constitutional right.

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.

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)

Please point to the controlling cases here. I haven't been able to find them.

Edit: ah sorry I replied to you downthread.

Would like to read more about this, can you provide a source?

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.

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.

I think the poll answers your question. It would be a little bit disruptive if 140M people suddenly moved to the US.

The poll says ~140M would migrate to the US if they could. That’s very different from saying 140M people would show up at our doorstep if we opened borders. It also says that 1/6 of Americans would leave if they could. You are ignoring these important qualifiers.

Edit: it’s actually 158M who would migrate to the US if they could, and ~55M Americans who would leave, for a total net inflow of 103M, if everyone could magically teleport to a new country on a one time basis.

If we just threw open the flood gates sure, but that's far from the only option. Simply increasing the immigration quotas gradually year-over-year would eventually allow an equilibrium to be reached without creating a large shock to the economy.

And I bet the imported values would be exactly the same as the ones held by the current citizens.

I bet the food would be delicious.

And so free of pathogens.

How does anyone know you have a degree and no criminal records?

I can prove it in embassy or whatever. Take a paper from police and a diploma from my university.

You answered your own question. A visa is often just validating what you claim.

how do we know your docs are not fake?

In order to obtain global mobility, I will embed into my body a microchip of your choice that reports current location and biometric information continuously, and pay up to $10k into a yearly program that will report my per-country statistics into a global database.

> Still don’t understand why I can’t just move to another country... I have a degree, no criminal records. But I need visas, permits, etc. Why all this difficulties?

If you are living in first world country, you should know that you still have it very very easy.

To some, a chance to move is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

It is still a lot complicated, but I agree that for some people it may be even harder.

Your comment reminds me of the Abdi and the Golden Ticket TAL story.

Example: San Francisco.

Immigration policies aren't just about 'keeping the bad ones out', it's also about 'hey, how many people can we realistically bring into this economy over a given timeframe'?

If bringing people into the SF economy were actually a policy goal, you'd see very different policies deployed to that end. In fact, it seems like what's been decided is that we ought not bring more people into the economy (not because it's infeasible, just because we don't want to), so we are going to make it as painful as we possibly can.

Completely agree. SF is starting to see its set of socio-economic and cultural challenges and the situation might get worse before/if it gets better. A city of 800k can not take the bunt of 2M people without there being consequences. Local Govt policies aren't helping either.

You have to couple immigration policies with compatible housing, zoning, and social policies. Immigration policy is not the only lever.

While no criminal records is definitely a plus, and a degree is also a good thing, neither of those are what bind a nation together.

Isn’t cities and places are to connect different people? I will embrace the culture of a nation, if I move. That’s just the fact that you need to adopt. But I don’t see a reason for it being a hinder to choosing where people want to live.

No offense intended but this strikes me as an underlying sentiment of entitlement. If we rephrase the question,

"Why should this person and by extension country allow a stranger who may or may not align with their culture, politics, society, etc in for an indefinite time with no restriction?"

What would be your answer?

I have a degree from US, been living here for 6 years now, been working here 2 years now, still cannot move here and need to wait about 3 more years to get a Green Card.

In theory, if people move around a lot they have less incentive to think and act for the long term in any one place.

Because there are people who ruin it for you by fake degrees, changing identities to hide criminal activities and so on.

In Europe it is rather easy :)

Within Europe. Moving from Africa to any EU country will be very challenging, just like it would be to move to the US