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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>(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)
Edit: ah sorry I replied to you downthread.
>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.
>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.
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.