Peter,

>> irrelevant. And if you have an unrestricted flow of goods and ideas, it 
>> is difficult to maintain a police state in its traditional sense, hence 
>> countries that are open to trade are, as a rule, more democratic than the 
>> ones that aren't.
>
> Or un-democratic enough to believe to be able to afford allowing 
> 'foreigners' to do things on their territory. Preferrably in specially 
> delimited zones and with special derogations to local legislation (knowing 
> that their own nationals would be dispossesed, tried, deported and maybe 
> shot - not necessarily in that order - if they would do such business 
> themselves, as the 'foreigners' are doing in their alloted 'free trade 
> zones').

Examples, please.

>> However, the implications of opening up borders for trade, and opening up 
>> borders for immigration are different.
>
> Of course. The relevant law paragraphs are worded entirely differently on 
> sheets of paper with the same heading as for trade agreements, and signed 
> by the same people (or at least of the same rank).
>
>> Note that US allows unlimited immigration from countries with a similar 
>> standard of living (for example, Great Britain). Makes sense - since you 
>> have similar living conditions, the Brits won't emigrate in huge numbers 
>> and drive down the wages.
>
> I think that you are not familiar with the immigration laws of the USA. I 
> am not a US citizen but I seem to know a little more about it than you do.

Would you mind substantiating?

Best regards,

Vitaliy

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist