Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

TurretLauncher OP t1_j93c8ay wrote

Any attempt to do that would be blatantly unconstitutional.

> The U.S. Supreme Court [most recently] dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:
> (1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation),
> (2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "Privileges and Immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and
> (3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, "the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ... has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.").


jdkeith t1_j95v1pd wrote

> People moving in to a place changes it politically for the worse and we should keep them out. I agree totally.

Glad you're on board with a wall on the southern border of the U.S.


Reddit_in_her_voice t1_j93cakg wrote

I'm just agreeing with the other Democrat in this thread.


TurretLauncher OP t1_j93en6h wrote

Also, per this sub's posted rules: "No suggestions or claims that people aren't wanted in New Hampshire."