This is definitely a discussion that needs to be had, and I applaud Mr Faris for his brave thinking. Here in Australia we are having similar immigration issues, against a background of growing labour shortages. The resistance to increased migrant workers is less about 'taking our jobs' than about further diluting the remnants of the old White Australia policy. In other words, we don't want neighbours that look and talk differently. And to be honest there is a little bit of that in me, as much as my liberal left-leaning brain says that's wrong. But with a declining birth rate and booming economy, we may just have to get over that, and accept that as our economy becomes more globalised, so will the look and feel of our nation.

So, now being a citizen of a "first world" country is racist? That seems to be the contention of this article - that immigration laws are the new apartheid? Amazing how this just happens to coincide with the immigration "rights" protests in the USA!

As long as we are at it - why not eliminate intellectual property rights? - I mean, the idea that people in "the third world" should actually respect and pay for intellectual property (patents, entertainment) is also a real burden that should also be eliminated. I mean - why should someone in Cancun, Mexico pay attention to things invented in Tucson, Arizona?

Well, there can be an equally valid argument made that local cultures might be responsible for some of the economic misery that bedevils most of the world’s population. So, the idea of resisting some cultural baggage might be perhaps a bit valid. (Note the word “some” - that does mean not all of them) You really want the levels of corruption found in Africa or Central America brought to your town? I don't think that is racist. Perhaps many of the people that leave those places are running away for their own benefit.

This is not just a "first world" problem too - look at the economic disparity between the rural and urban worlds in China and India. You need a permit to move in at least one of those places - is that "apartheid" too?

How about the reverse argument? - That many the places cited need to bring a little more of the cultures that are successful into their sphere to globalize the labor AND rules that make it work. Try that first - and see if the disparity between salaries shrinks

Mr. Faris argues that it's immoral to restrict where someone can work based on where they happen to have been born. But just eliminating immigration rules would have massive consequences -- not just for the developed nations that would gain millions of workers, but for the developing nations that would lose them. I've read that there are small towns in Mexico where lots of families have new houses and appliances, paid for with money sent home by family members working in the U.S. That's fine for those families, but what about the long-term development of those towns? Why build factories (or call centers, or software development centers) in Mexico or Nigeria when you could just import the workers to the U.S. or U.K.?

What I'm arguing is that there's a conflict between the proposed right of individuals to work wherever they want, and the goal of developing industry and infrastructure in less developed parts of the world. The unrestricted flow of capital has not done great things for Africa; it's not obvious that the unrestricted flow of people would help it either (although it would help the individual emigrants).

I'm not saying all economic migration is bad. It's worth discussing whether current immigration rules are too strict. But by keeping workers spread out over the globe, restrictions on migration might make humanity better off in the long run. (This is a utopian way of thinking, but the article got me in that mode.)

Globablizing labor would give all the world's workers, including US workers, the "fair market value" of their labor. Unfortuantely, in a global market, the value of unskilled albor is barely enough to buy food. The main effect of throwing open the gates to all immigrants would be to totally crash the US labor market and permanently sink our labor unions. As it is, we are already half way there. Even skilled labor in the US is feeling this pressure as certain IT and clerical jobs move overseas. This article does make a good point that it is unfair (and not at all laize fare) for capital to be so much more fluid than labor. A better solution, rather than destroying our own country, would be for the First World to stop pressuring the Third World to remove all trade restrictions. Some trade barriers and are beneficial to a local economy by counteracting the pressures of liquid capital. Many of our own trade policies operate on this principle. This is very basic economics, but it is mostly ignored because it is not in the interests of international corporations. I don't advocate an end to all immigration or an end to all trade agreements, but it would nice if there was some thought given to anything other than tomorrow's stock report when we create long-term global economic policy.

In my opinion, wealthier countries, including ours, have a long history of wealth as the expense of others.

Our wealth was in large part based for the first couple centuries on slaves, then on immigrants, then on racism until the 1960's, and in recent years on illegal immigrants. Many are blind to the situation who benefit.

I think the only 'real' solution is to reduce inequality globally.

It's not easy to do, and we'll lose some of our 'wealth', e.g., five dollar alarm clock/raidos from super-cheap labor in China which will cost twenty five dollars made by people making decent wages, but it will solve many problems (including illegal immigration), and be a moral thing to do, as well as provide better markets to us.

Oh, and it'll take the public pushing it, which is not on the radar now.