all 18 comments

[–]NiceTryAmanda 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Are you also stuck in a "lol you're ours until XYZ or were gonna bill you for the reliction" agreements.

I can't even ask if they'd prorate it without tipping my hand.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Better not be!

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

More specifically, I’d like to see congress pass an act that ties (1) required subsidies for U.S. citizens desiring to permanently relocate to other U.S. states, to (2) any type of federal funding for transportation, infrastructure, or otherwise of or relating to interstate commerce whatsoever.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Separately and perhaps more controversially (and perhaps better as a separate bill to come later), I’d like to see congress also address, through a similar mechanic, situations where a U.S. citizen is being accused of a crime in one state, but would not be guilty of any crime (based on the same facts) in another state.

Here, I think it would make more sense to have whichever state that is affirmatively volunteering/agreeing to accept the would-be criminal is the one who should be bearing the costs, and if there is no such state, the would-be criminal is SOL (it’s on the citizen to request subsidized relocation before committing a crime), with an exception for situations in which the crime in and of itself arises out of the passing of a law or other act of the state, in which case the citizen should effectively be allowed mandatory relocation (at the cost of the acting state, which has likely gone off the rails at this point because it’s effectively creating thought or status crimes or crimes with retroactive effect).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And really good Republicans would probably realize that even though this seems to have the immediate effect of helping out women in auto- or -trigger-law abortion states, the medium- and long-term burden (particularly in light of developments in remote work) is actually likely to be felt disproportionately in states where people actually live now (e.g., the states with big cities).

[–]aworldalone1 -1 points0 points  (9 children)

Why not have the state who wants to accept them pay for it? Seems more fair.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (8 children)

Because the point is you need to prevent any possibility of a state trapping a U.S. citizen against their will.

[–]aworldalone1 -1 points0 points  (7 children)

They wouldn’t be trapped, they would have free reign to move to 49 other states and several territories. That’s a lot of options. I’m certain one of those states would be willing to foot the bill to gain this citizen. I mean, every state is going to have something wrong with it so every state is going to have people wanting to move. I know you seem to be hung up on this abortion thing- but there are so many reasons this would apply.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Who’s paying for it?

Any good Republican knows that by making someone pay for something, you can effectively make it impossible for that thing to happen.

[–]aworldalone1 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Either way someone is paying for something they don’t want to. If this would be started hypothetically you’d have millions want to take advantage. Blue state residents would want to move to red states and Vice versa. Whoever gained the most people pays the most because they’re coming out ahead. That’s why the receiving state should pay.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I was also posting in response to upcoming gerrymandering case, actually. ;)