# Restricting immigration between states in US **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 3, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/restricting-immigration-between-states-in-us/484276 "2009-02-03T17:33:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/restricting-immigration-between-states-in-us/484276/1 "2009-02-03T17:33:00Z")
Could one state in the US pass laws that restrict immigration from other states, or is this prevented by federal law? It seems like a ridiculous idea now, but under some doomsday scenario in the future where resources are extremely scarce, I can see a state deciding it doesn’t want to share what it has with just anyone who wants to move there. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/restricting-immigration-between-states-in-us/484276/2 "2009-02-03T17:46:38Z")
Article 5, Section 2 of the Constitution: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. Thus, you can’t pass a law that only applies to particular state citizens. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/restricting-immigration-between-states-in-us/484276/3 "2009-02-03T18:28:11Z")
Semi-relevant: California had an “anti-Okie”\* law in the 1930s which was [struck down](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._California). Note that there the 14th Amendment is cited. \*Technically not just Okies but indigents in general. But Okies were the main target. ---
**Author:** ![anson2995](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/restricting-immigration-between-states-in-us/484276/4 "2009-02-03T18:32:37Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > Thus, you can’t pass a law that only applies to particular state citizens. There are residency requirements with regards to both taxes and voting, and in some circumstances you are required to be a resident in order to partake of certain benefits. ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/restricting-immigration-between-states-in-us/484276/5 "2009-02-03T18:47:23Z")
> [@ftg](#): > > Semi-relevant: California had an “anti-Okie”\* law in the 1930s which was [struck down](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_v._California). Note that there the 14th Amendment is cited. I came in here to bring up Edwards v. California as well. Note, however, that the main justification in the decision was not the Fourteenth Amendment but the [Commerce Clause](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause). The opinion also had a more philosophical objection to the law: > [@](#): > > But this does not mean that there are no boundaries to the permissible area of State legislative activity. There are. And none is more certain than the prohibition against attempts on the part of any single State to isolate itself from difficulties common to all of them by restraining the transportation of persons and property across its borders. It is frequently the case that a State might gain a momentary respite from the pressure of events by the simple expedient of shutting its gates to the outside world. But, in the words of Mr. Justice Cardozo: ‘The Constitution was framed under the dominion of a political philosophy less parochial in range. It was framed upon the theory that the peoples of the several states must sink or swim together, and that in the long run prosperity and salvation are in union and not division.’ ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/restricting-immigration-between-states-in-us/484276/6 "2009-02-03T19:05:19Z")
> [@anson2995](#): > > There are residency requirements with regards to both taxes and voting, and in some circumstances you are required to be a resident in order to partake of certain benefits. Sure, but that law applies to anyone who resides in the state. The Constitution prohibits singling out groups from other states selectively. You can’t sat “people cannot move here from State X.” Or “Anyone from State y will immediately be arrested and sent home.”