“I do not believe they can legally impose retroactive residency requirements.”
Governments can make any laws they want. To change them, you have to take them to court. It takes hundreds of dollars per hour to operate the legal system and the average person simply can’t afford it, so whatever “unjust” law is on the books can stay there until Hell freezes.
I suspect when they say “out of state” they mean Mexico. As I just mentioned in another post, many of the Mexicans I met in Mexico had full time jobs in California, but their family and homes were in Mexico. Thus, they earn the California wage rates but live the life of kings in the Mexican economy. It’s nice if you can do it.
Crossing the border for work has been going on for 60+ years in California/Mexico.
For example, back in the 1950’s my father in law(now 85) worked in San Diego. He went to San Diego state and worked at the General Dynamics/Lockeed Martin aircraft factory assembling Corvair jets. He lived across the border in Tijuana. He was a young gringo from NH. Back in the day, it was very safe to live there. It was also cheaper to live in Tijuana. He lived there for five years. By the time he moved back to NH he was fluent in Spanish.
At the San Diego.Mexican border-—the Mexican kids get to cross over into the USA for SCHOOL-—EVERY DAY.
“I suspect when they say “out of state” they mean Mexico.”
I know otherwise.
I know many firefighters; got a childhood friend who made Captain of a SoCal Dept, and family with LACo.
TONS of these guys are solid Conservatives, and their out-of-State properties are in red States across the West; from Montana down to Arizona. You might note, though, how the article specifically AVOIDS defining what they mean when they say these people “lived in” other States. I can “live in” a house just about anywhere, but actually BE in CA enough of the time to keep legal residency. OR I can play it the opposite way; and “live in” another State and only BE in CA enough to do my job.
The article makes a mountain out of a molehill.