More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could • Hacker News Board

Re: More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

#151

Post by remarkEon » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:29 AM UTC

streb-lo wrote: post #121

goles wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

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.

Re: More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

#152

Post by remarkEon » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 6:36 AM UTC

streb-lo wrote: post #111

remarkEon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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

Edit: ah sorry I replied to you downthread.

Re: More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

#153

Post by dragonwriter » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 7:07 AM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #26

I'd add some background to what fehyjn says below. The entire world was relatively borderess prior to 20th century, and it was completely outside of humanly possible for the state anywhere to keep tap on every individual. If you talk about the period from medieval, to early renaissance. It was very natural for every polity to want to get more subjects. Feudal lords couldn't have been more happy to see more people mig…

> The entire world was relatively borderess prior to 20th century,

Until fairly recently, historically, if you weren't locally known or vouched for by those either locally trusted or in positions of authority, you'd often be completely ostracized and potentially subject to arbitrary violence that authorities wouldn't concern themselves with. So, effectively, not only wasn't the world borderless but the borders were at the village level.

> If you talk about the period from medieval, to early renaissance. It was very natural for every polity to want to get more subjects

Not really; plenty of them had every sustainably farmable acre under the plow, and any more people was more to support; there wasn't land for more peasants or agricultural surplus for more in the upper classes; conversely, with the agricultural revolutions as you exited this period to later periods, the constraints that make additional population an unsustainable burden are somewhat relieved.

Re: More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

#154

Post by pushpop » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 12:21 PM UTC

timoth wrote: post #142

pushpop wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can move freely amongst counties in the Schengen Area, which is a subset of EU counties (which itself is a subset of European counties). > The free movement of persons is a fundamental right guaranteed by the EU to its citizens. It entitles every EU citizen to travel, work and live in any EU country without special formalities. Source: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/border... As an aside, t…

You can move freely among EU countries, not just Schengen countries. Schengen isn't just a subset of EU countries -- it's many EU countries and some non-EU countries, and it's to do with a lack of border checks rather than the basic freedom of movement right.

> You can move freely among EU countries, not just Schengen countries.

Kind of. There are passport checks and you have no automatic right to work (which is what the GP was discussing). So in practice no you can’t.

> and it's to do with a lack of border checks rather than the basic freedom of movement right

It’s both. As the link I posted clearly states

Re: More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

#155

Post by gbrown » Sat, Feb 01, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #69

gbrown wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even within the EU? I thought that was largely the point.

GP said "Europe", not "EU".

I think it might have been edited, I swear I originally read EU.

Re: More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

#156

Post by turk73 » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 1:28 PM UTC

aaron695 wrote: post #85

If you ever want proof HN is not Libertarian, they way it downvotes open borders shows it is not. Libertarians don't have to believe open borders work fully but should be open to talking about it. It's also something in the future people will judge us for. They will live in a world where richness is less border based though, so get rose colored glasses. Like slavery, easy to judge when you don't get to do it.

[dead]

Re: More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

#157

Post by learc83 » Mon, Feb 03, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #151

streb-lo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit...

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 s…

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.