I understand your point, but I think you’re still treating what is fundamentally a policy and planning challenge as if it were an unavoidable consequence of openness itself. On the 2015 Europe example, while there were indeed pressures on some local systems, attributing that to “too much openness” is an oversimplification. Research on that period shows the highly uneven impacts across countries, the largely temporary pressures and the concentrated effects in specific regions and sectors rather than systemic collapse. In other words, it was not “open borders failing,” but a migration shock into unevenly prepared systems.
On the “talent vacuum” argument the issue is not freedom of movement itself, but structural inequality between countries. Restricting movement does not solve the root causes wage gaps, weaker healthcare systems and also lack of investment And even in more open systems, skilled migration is naturally constrained by practical factors like job availability or language.
On infrastructure constraints its true that cities cannot scale instantly but that is an argument about planning capacity, not against mobility itself. Countries already manage population growth, urbanization, and migration through housing policy or public investment. So the problem it’s not “open borders = instant collapse,” but how well systems adapt to change. your argument assumes restricting mobility is the best way to protect development in poorer countries but that risks limiting individual freedom and locking in inequality rather than addressing its causes
08:09 PM