I was reading an article in the National Post, a Canadian newspaper, about how the PQ, a political party, wants full immigration control for the province of Quebec. This is analogous to a US state demanding it have control over who immigrates to that state.
As I have pointed out in recent postings, some cities and municipalities through ordinances (that are inevitably ruled unconstitutional), try to deter undocumented aliens from living in them while others declare themselves “sanctuary cities” in which the authorities are specifically told that the undocumented are welcome. Some cities even offer identification cards that document the undocumented to allow them to open bank accounts and receive other benefits. As it stands now, there is a hodgepodge of rules that attempt to affect immigration in various parts of the country.
Given the divisiveness over this issue, one wonders if viewed geographically, some areas of the country are more tolerant of immigrants than others. If some states had more liberal immigration policies and others had more restrictionist policies, which states would be better off?
Of course there would be major constitutional hurdles to such a plan, each state would have its own border (perhaps fences or walls would do the trick – definitely a pain for interstate commerce or for traveling across country for Thanksgiving family reunions!), and the country would hardly be true to its name, the United States of America…but it is food for thought.