The article presented many interesting points, but the consequences of what was discussed are very significant. It’s one thing to make general claims, but it’s another thing to prove them. One of points that I really disagree with is that the article claimed that if someone moved into the U.S. they would make a few times more than they would in their country of birth, but that assumes there is no mass movement of people in the U.S. in the levels the article suggests. The number and gravity of assumptions made by the author is outstanding, so until the claims about how everyone would get paid more are supported I would just simply think these are nothing more than ideas. I do agree that barriers for working somewhere should be removed, but at the same time it would obstacles that nobody really knows. There are many security issues with completely opening all borders, so who knows how it would work out. Another issue is whether all countries will open up their borders because even if half the world does there would still be great discrimination. Another issue many countries would not like to give up their sovereignty. The world would be like one large country or state with no borders, but this is where geopolitics can get messy with sides arguing about how wealthier countries are getting crowded while poorer countries would lose population. Some countries would get flooded and then, I believe, living standards will fall in those wealthier countries until some sort of equilibrium is reached. The point where equilibrium is reached is very important, and that equilibrium may result in consequences that are hard to imagine. The economic aftermath would be very significant, but I am not sure if such a shock would be good or bad. Gradually moving towards opening borders seems more appropriate than doing it instantly. I am an opponent of doing great reforms without really knowing what the benefits and costs are. The article did not present those consequences, and rather spoke about discrimination. Obviously, discrimination is bad, but it doesn’t mean discrimination would end with what the author proposed.