From: "Tony Ingenoso" 

There's many reasons why a state may want to restrict movement.  ex. If the
Dominican Republic didn't have the border with Haiti fenced and watchfully
guarded, they'd soon be overrun and socked with the associated maintenance
costs of feeding millions of refugees fleeing a moonscape country (of their
own creation).

With completely free, unrestricted interchange how do you know who is a
citizen of your country or not?  Would you want a bunch of imported
foreigners voting and affecting how your country spends money or conducts
its foreign policy?

In abstract terms, 100% unrestricted travel only worked until the first
nomad who got tired of wandering around decided to settle somewhere and put
up the first fence that was ever built.

Good fences make for good neighbors ;->

"Dave Ings"  wrote in message
news:407621a1$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Actually I've always found it a rather odd concept that nation-states assert
> the right to restrict the movement of humanity around the globe.
>
> As a member of the fortunate class (materially speaking) inhabiting this
> globe, it may be to my personal benefit that this right is asserted. But I
> still have trouble seeing how it's defensible in abstract terms.
> --
> Regards,
> Dave Ings,
> Toronto, Canada

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5