More Than 750M Worldwide Would Migrate If They Could

I feel like your comment makes it seem a lot more fluid than it was for a group to simply migrate and enjoy their new country.

Until fairly recently, historically, if you weren't locally known or vouched for by those either locally trusted or in positions of authority, you'd often be completely ostracized and potentially subject to arbitrary violence that authorities wouldn't concern themselves with. So, effectively, not only wasn't the world borderless but the borders were at the village level.

> If you talk about the period from medieval, to early renaissance. It was very natural for every polity to want to get more subjects

Not really; plenty of them had every sustainably farmable acre under the plow, and any more people was more to support; there wasn't land for more peasants or agricultural surplus for more in the upper classes; conversely, with the agricultural revolutions as you exited this period to later periods, the constraints that make additional population an unsustainable burden are somewhat relieved.

1. Human labour was much more critical to survival than today. It was a great thing if one family from another town moved under you cause they'll farm and pay more taxes. Now labour is cheap and isn't critical survival. In fact, there's so much labour that social ills that arise from unemployment is a way bigger problem.

2. Migration happened in much shorter proximity. Therefore, the difference in language, culture, ethnicity and religion were much smaller than the effects of migration today. The host society wasn't concerned about huge changes of their society as much as today where changes of biblical scale are happen in a matter of decades.

3. There was no welfare. If you failed as a migrant, the cost of the failure is paid by yourself. If you fail as a migrant in the host society today, you still have free healthcare, education, citizenship for your children, child care, endless support system to sustain your living in the country. It makes sense the modern state wants control over who enters their state much more.

Your point is an interesting addition (have you read "The Art of Not Being Governed" by any chance?) but this seems to me to just be for the sake of getting more karma, which I will not support.

You could also write that it was borderless because they couldn't track every individual.

The Romans spent a lot of effort in trying to keep the various barbarian tribes from migrating freely into the Roman Empire. In fact, for much of the Roman Empire, the bulk of the Roman Army was stationed on the frontiers such as the Danube and Rhine to keep the German tribes out. One of the big turning points was in 406 when the Rhine froze and removed a natural barrier that had kept a lot of these tribes out before hand.

Imperial China also worked hard on keeping the various northern groups from migrating into China, going so far as to build the Great Wall.

It seems that the more developed the civilization, the more effort it expends in defining and guarding it's borders.

If you are living in first world country, you should know that you still have it very very easy.

To some, a chance to move is a once in a lifetime opportunity.

Immigration policies aren't just about 'keeping the bad ones out', it's also about 'hey, how many people can we realistically bring into this economy over a given timeframe'?

"Why should this person and by extension country allow a stranger who may or may not align with their culture, politics, society, etc in for an indefinite time with no restriction?"

What would be your answer?

Africa is headed for a population crisis. Places like Somalia and Niger have around 6 or 7 children per woman. These are countries that already import a lot of food to feed rapidly growing populations. If we have another energy shock, it's unclear to me who is going to feed all of these babies.

You still working in this? Would like to have a chat if possible.

How are they supposed to know that? A two year vacation is extraordinarily strange.

That said, apart from the US, I wouldn't know any country where a rich German citizen couldn't get a long-term business or investment visa.

If you live in a country for 50%+1 days of a solar year you're considered resident in that country and this has a number of implications (first of all taxes). I guess that's why you can't get more that 6 months of visa.

You can ask for a resident permit though, but if you come from a rich country and you can show that you have enough money to live you may get it. (I had an American friend that did exactly that).

I'm not saying that's bad, but countries typically want some control over this process.

I've seen some of this resentment in SE Asia. Foreigners work remotely from paradise, which is great for us -- but the locals see you filling up the nice restaurants and renting the best apartments and driving up the cost of living for locals who, unlike us, don't have many options about where they live.

What ads are you talking about?

An instead of North America it says ‘Northern America’ which makes me believe this refers to just the US & Canada

A farmer from rural Malawi who cannot write and doesn't speak English would not be able to integrate into a European countries' economy and, accordingly, would be a lot less welcome.