<p>Again, did you even read the article I posted in post 333?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For a guy in Princeton [and for someone who is also well-read in philosophy] you are surprisingly close-minded about this … </p>
<p>A guy in a border town in Mexico is part of a social contract that spans the mutually shared economic and political interests of both American and Mexican towns. [For example, if there were a crime spree in the American border town nearby, economic interests in that Mexican town would also be hurt. So the police forces of both towns agree to work with each other.] The individuals of that American border town have social contract relationships with a neighbouring town deeper into the border, though that neighbouring town might not share social contract relationships (or very minimal ones) with the Mexican border town. </p>
<p>In this case, the political requirements that, “OMG! Mexican police forces can’t cross into our border to pursue fugitive X!” may sometimes result in inefficient outcomes.</p>
<p>Anyway, regarding the rights of new individuals (you seem to like to apply the word “impractical” a lot, especially to ideas foreign to you), by extension, to assume that newborn babies are automatically members of the American social contract is also impractical. I guess we should start regulating the entry of new American lives.</p>
<p>The principle is the same.</p>