<p>Why should there be a sharp discontinuity at political borders? Why tolerate an economically inefficient situation?</p>
<p>If I were a border town with closer economic relationships with the people across a border, shouldn’t I also desire that the economic and political system of that country be liberalised?'</p>
<p>
Oh, and you didn’t even look at its other points, I suppose. The article is asking you to think hard about the relationship between the two measures. </p>
<p>Firstly, there are willing American owners who want immigrants on their private property – employ them, for reasons of economic (allocative) efficiency, comparative advantage, and so forth.</p>
<p>Secondly, the premise that the US is the “collective private property” of all its citizens was asserted, not proven. Again, I can argue it’s not unconstitutional, because all these extra unregulated new babies keep on infringing on collective private property of other Americans.</p>
<p>You keep on dodging the question – you say you support free trade – but you have not addressed the fact that free trade requires open migration (because you know, labour market).</p>
<p>There are other fallacious points in this thread that I have let slide, but I’m going to take a break soon.</p>