>Until 1914, there were no travel restrictions based on where you were born. Um... That's a flat out lie. I read a lot of history for fun and there are countle

>Until 1914, there were no travel restrictions based on where you were born. Um... That's a flat out lie. I read a lot of history for fun and there are countless instances of people not able to enter other kingdoms/countries, or even leave where they're at without some form of official document. Hell, the wikipedia on passports gives plenty of examples or proto-passports starting from 450 BC. There's been plenty of travel, work and living restrictions between countries for thousands of years. Just a little Silk Road reading shows how complex travel/work was back in that era. The modern passport can be more related to as a unified standard of documentation to travel between sovereign nations. But to say you could waltz in live/work in any country you chose to, without said country's acknowledgement prior to the passport's inception? That's bullshit. Does the general system of passports and visas need to updated to adapt more to the times? Yea, I can see that. I get where the writer is coming from... but one of the pillars of their argument is based on literally zero knowledge of history. No matter how warm, fuzzy, feel good you want to seem, you still need to be based on reality and history. If the sheer basics of immigration and merchant control history is completely blank on them, it's hard to imagine their ideas on economic improvement are any good. I doubt they know much on economic history, what has worked and hasn't worked in the past few hundred years, let alone thousands.