Nativists tend to focus almost exclusively on stopping "bad" people from _entering_. But immigration suppression laws also prevent "bad" people from _exiting_.
Due to open borders between US states, people are free to move to the states that best suit them.
For example, the progressives of New Hampshire can move to Vermont. The more NH progressives leave, the less NH conservatives have to fight for passage of conservative laws. Same goes for progressives in VT.
If border laws stopped NH progressives from leaving, they'd have to stay and fight with NH conservatives for the laws they want. As result, there would be more fighting for power, and both sides would be forced to live under less ideal compromise laws.
Historically, we can see the ill effects of stopping "bad" people from leaving.
For example, few Jews in Nazi-controlled territories were able to flee to other countries due to anti-immigration laws. (1) Unable to drive the Jews from German territory via immigration, the Nazis turned to the "final solution" of industrial slaughter.
If the Jews had been allowed to flee to the US, not only would 6+ million lives have been saved, there likely would've been little demand for a Jewish state of their own. No Israel, no Arab / Israeli conflicts.
Alternatively, in a world where people could freely move between countries, many of the Palestinians would've left Israel long ago. The remaining Palestinians could then more easily be absorbed into the Israeli population, with less fear that Muslims would dominate the government to the detriment of the Jews.
Freedom of movement allows people to self-assort into the polities that best match their preferences. This reduces conflict and allows more people to live in communities that share their values and culture.
(I hope readers realize that I don't think either Jews or Palestinians are "bad".)
#archerPolitics
#immigration
#fsp
#freestateproject
Due to open borders between US states, people are free to move to the states that best suit them.
For example, the progressives of New Hampshire can move to Vermont. The more NH progressives leave, the less NH conservatives have to fight for passage of conservative laws. Same goes for progressives in VT.
If border laws stopped NH progressives from leaving, they'd have to stay and fight with NH conservatives for the laws they want. As result, there would be more fighting for power, and both sides would be forced to live under less ideal compromise laws.
Historically, we can see the ill effects of stopping "bad" people from leaving.
For example, few Jews in Nazi-controlled territories were able to flee to other countries due to anti-immigration laws. (1) Unable to drive the Jews from German territory via immigration, the Nazis turned to the "final solution" of industrial slaughter.
If the Jews had been allowed to flee to the US, not only would 6+ million lives have been saved, there likely would've been little demand for a Jewish state of their own. No Israel, no Arab / Israeli conflicts.
Alternatively, in a world where people could freely move between countries, many of the Palestinians would've left Israel long ago. The remaining Palestinians could then more easily be absorbed into the Israeli population, with less fear that Muslims would dominate the government to the detriment of the Jews.
Freedom of movement allows people to self-assort into the polities that best match their preferences. This reduces conflict and allows more people to live in communities that share their values and culture.
(I hope readers realize that I don't think either Jews or Palestinians are "bad".)
#archerPolitics
#immigration
#fsp
#freestateproject