Can A U.S. State Ban One Or More Specific Foreigners

Let’s say an Irish band upsets the feelings of a state’s governor, and the governor tells them not to come back. If they did try to fly into one of the state’s international airports (from abroad) at a later date, could local officials turn them around and/or tell them to get their asses to a friendlier state? If they were found there in some other way (like maybe they had flown into a friedly state and driven into the angry state), could cops tell them to turn around? Take them in for trespassing?

Nope. Texas seems to think they can, but immigration is the purview of the federal government.

I believe foreign visitors are allotted full access the country and, as mentioned above, can’t be banned from a particular state. If the state authorities were to escort them to the state line and dump them there I don’t know what recourse they would have against the state, but they could just fly or drive back in, over and over again, until the authorities got tired of dealing with them.

The (oft misunderstood) right to travel is one of the privileges and immunities specifically granted to US citizens to cross state lines unencumbered. The question is if that right has been extended to non-citizen tourists or if it is just a custom that has never been dealt with before from the legal perspective. Because unless there is a Federal law on it, I believe the state could argue that under the 10th Amendment it could ban tourists. At least it would be an interesting legal fight as to if the authority of the feds to permit entry into the US extends to all of the states or if a state could deport an unruly tourist with their own plenary power.

Note: a state banning immigrants is a completely different issue as immigration is well established to be subject to federal jurisdiction.

But isn’t, from a legal point of view, a tourist entering the country for vacation just as much a case of immigration as someone moving to the country to live there permanently?

Possibly - but there’s a difference between banning a specific person and banning all immigrants or even all immigrants from a particular area and that difference may keep the banning of that specific person from being an attempt to regulate immigration.

But I don’t think a state would be able to “deport” someone if “deport” means to force them to leave the country. New York might have the right to say someone can’t stay in NY bit they have no right to say the person cannot stay in New Jersey.

I think the OP’s question is only the former. Can NY ban an alien who has been admitted to enter the country by federal authorities from being in NY? I don’t think the OP is asking about states banning such an alien from the entire country.

The OP was not about that - but there was a mention of whether a state could deport someone with its own power and there’s an argument to be made that banning someone from a state is not regulating immigration since they aren’t banned from every state.

Now that I’ve thought more , I don’t think a tourist is entering the country for vacation is definitely considered a case of immigration. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is part of the Department of Homeland Security , not the Department of State which issues visas. Immigrant visas involve both agencies but non-immigrant visas involve only the Dept of State. My guess ( and it’s only a guess) is that the question has never come up in court - I heard plenty about Texas busing migrants to NYC but not that it was an attempt to regulate immigration.

I don’t see how the two are legally similar at all.

When I said deport, I meant out of the state like Colorado taking them to Kansas and dropping them off, not out of the country.

Because they’re both about a foreigner, who has no inherent right to be in the country, being admitted to the country. At least the US Code provisions on tourist visas, the VWP and travel control are included in subchapter 2 of Chapter 12, and that subchapter is titled “Immigration”.

Do states have any actual ability to control freedom of movement from another state? I know they have some border-like stuff (e.g. the “agricultural inspection” stations) but are state borders really borders in the sense that one state can deny entry to a citizen of another state?

No. That’s pretty well established. But it comes from the privileges and immunities clause (“the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states”) which, by its own terms, applies to citizens of US states.

I’m not sure if there is any law on the application of the P&I clause to aliens.

Edit: Actually, I think this is addressed by Truax v. Raich, which held that an alien who had lawfully “been admitted to the United States under the Federal law” was “thus admitted with the privilege of entering and abiding in the United States, and hence of entering and abiding in any State in the Union.” Although this seems to be based on the Equal Protection Clause. So I don’t know if a specific alien enjoys the right to travel, but I think the answer is yes.

I think that most rights of citizens (not all) like right to travel have been extended via case law to residents both with legal status and without. But extended to tourists?

Except immigration laws apply to those intending to obtain lawful status. Tourist are here temporarily. Sure tourist visas are under federal jurisdiction, but they are not immigrants. Could the right of travel apply to everyone: citizens, those with lawful presence, illegal immigrants that are residents and tourists? Sure. But only one group has that right guarantied under the Constitution so the presumption of that right cannot apply to the others except by case law or positive law. I do not know of any court case giving right of travel to tourists and if it is in the US Code or CFRs then we should be able to find it. Other than that it is a theoretical exercise if states can ban a tourist under the 10th Amendment.

I’m not sure the distinction you’re drawing. The federal immigration power (wherever it derives from) is the power to admit or exclude aliens. That seems to clearly extend to immigrant and nonimmigrant aliens (permanent residents, tourists, and all the in-between categories). If it follows that a lawfully admitted alien has been admitted “under the Federal law” and that such admissions gives him the ability to enter the United States and “hence” any State, then I don’t know why the makes a difference if he has been lawfully admitted as an immigrant or a nonimmigrant. (Or, really, I don’t know why a state would be able to treat them differently. Obviously, federal law puts all sorts of restrictions on lawfully admitted aliens depending on the nature of their admission).

It’s a different argument with unlawfully present aliens who (by definition) have not been “been admitted to the United States under the Federal law.” I’m not sure if the “right to travel” has been extended to them, but if it has, it’s not going to be under the P&I clause.

[Moderating]
The question was hypothetical, and the scenario described therein has not yet happened in any US state. Whether it might someday happen in any US state is a political question, not well-suited for FQ.

I believe the OP is obliquely in reference to several bands who pulled out of South by Southwest in Austin this week due to the U.S. Army being a sponsor. Abbott wrote “Bye. Don’t come back." on his personal Twitter feed. Obviously, this is in no way comparable to a Governor trying to physically ban a band or any other foreigners from coming into the state.

Probably the closest case is when San Antonio banned Ozzy Osbourne from performing in the city for ten years after he pissed on the Alamo. But he wasn’t banned from entering the city.

this has nothing to do with the OP’s question about a state banning a foreign national-which I don’t believe would be legal. However, in reference to the federal powers, the Feds do restrict foreign nationals travel in the US. The most well-known examples are restrictions placed on Russians traveling outside certain cities and areas. Usually diplomats or employees of embassies, but not all of them. For many years back in the good old days, the Soviet Union sold farm tractors in the US. Simple to use, low-cost, they were actually kind of popular. The tractor salesman could travel to places Soviet embassy personnel couldn’t, but they couldn’t travel wherever they wanted. That gave the FBI something to do back in the day.
My point is the Feds can and do restrict travel of foreign nationals to specific areas (and by extension ban them from some states/areas).

If a tourist was arrested and one of their bond conditions was travel restrictions they would effectively banned from traveling to other states or even from leaving the local jurisdiction of the court. But that would only keep them in a certain area, not bar them from specific areas. That would also require the tourist to be accused of a crime.

Got a cite for any of that?

My thought - an immigrant with a green card, or a tourist, have been legally admitted to the USA. But a person with no right to be there (“illegal immigrant”)?

Those with a legal right to be there presumably have the jurisdiction of the USA. What was the citizenship birthright clause about being under the laws of the USA? As for discriminating against one individual simply as persona non grata - how would that work?