Seceded California and immigration law
VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu
Thu Feb 15 11:49:57 PST 2007
I have no such implicit assumptions, though I will happily add
that to the list of questions. For instance, should it be
constitutional for California to allow more -- or more flexible --
immigration from the Remaining United States than from Mexico?
I would guess, though, that there would be more economic
incentive for Mexicans to move to California than for Arizonans to move
to California, since Arizonans likely have it better back home than
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Tushnet [mailto:mtushnet at law.harvard.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:23 AM
> To: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: RE: Seceded California and immigration law
> What are the implicit assumptions here about regulation of
> immigration from the (remaining) United States?
> Mark Tushnet
> William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law Harvard Law School
> Areeda 223 Cambridge, MA 02138
> ph: 617-496-4451 (office); 202-291-6352 (home); 202-374-9571
> 617-496-4866 (fax)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:08 PM
> To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Seceded California and immigration law
> Let me briefly elaborate on my earlier question: Say
> you were a citizen of a seceded California, which had the
> following demographics:
> Population 36 million.
> 26% foreign-born.
> 18.5% non-citizen (inferred from data on voting age
> population; actual number probably a little higher).
> Some unknown percentage illegal aliens.
> 39.5% of 5+-year-olds have a language other than
> English spoken at home.
> 20% speak English less than very well.
> 2/3 of the non-English-at-home speakers speak Spanish
> (I'm inferring from the numbers for Western states generally).
> (Sources: http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-29.pdf;
> http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06000.html .)
> What constitutional rules, if any, would you adopt with
> regard to immigration, naturalization, and assimilation?
> Even if you support relatively open borders for the U.S.,
> would you support them for a California? (What if the rest
> of the U.S., which will then be a lot more red, cuts down on
> immigration, so that blue California with its pro-immigration
> policy will attract still more immigrants?) What would
> happen to California politics if, say, 10 million new
> immigrants arrived from Mexico? What would happen to
> California attitudes on abortion, homosexuality, separation
> of church and state, and a variety of other topics?
> As you might gather, my view is that a fairly open
> immigration policy, which I think might well work for a
> nation of nearly 300 million people, poses far less potential
> problems -- including the risk of change to nonimmigration
> constitutional doctrines related to culturally contested
> questions -- than such a policy for a smaller state. Would
> others agree?
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu To
> subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives;
> and list members can (rightly or
> wrongly) forward the messages to others.
More information about the Conlawprof