So just saying "economic wellness" is not enough to issue a blanket restriction unless you are infringing on those rights to the minimum possible degree. Why t

So just saying "economic wellness" is not enough to issue a blanket restriction unless you are infringing on those rights to the minimum possible degree. Why the asymmetry? Why shouldn't we apply the same standard to the rights and freedoms of the residents? There are many, many, many way to place very light and focused restrictions on immigration that would achieve such ends, and people don't even talk about them. (E.g., if you're worried about security, make each immigrant pay a fee or bond that, in expectation, covers the costs imposed by the tiny minority of immigrants who commit crimes.) That sounds great to me. The reason why such things aren't discussed in the US, is that proponents of such measures are tarred as "racist." no one respects freedom of movement across national borders in the same way they respect freedom of speech Because freedom of speech is essential to free societies. The false "freedom of movement across national borders" could well degrade a society. Why isn't there a freedom to move into your house? No government's resources are infinite. Illegal border-crossing only infringes in a less obvious and more indirect way, as compared to someone moving into your living room.