Imagine that you are concerned by anti-competitive legislation motivated by ethnocentrism. In a democracy such as the U.S., one must consider, when discussing whether or not to allow immigration that improves efficiency while also depressing wages, not just the direct economic effects, but also the political externalities caused by enfranchising those who may have rather distinct voting patterns. We must consider the likelihood that Mexicans will themselves pursue policies nativist from their perspective, when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. To do otherwise would be myopic.

I'm concerned about anti competitive policies, whether ethnic or not. I attach no moral weight to ethnic groups.

I am concerneded about the harmful effects of democracy that you bring up, but I prefer disenfranchisment as a solution. Preventing people from working is far more harmful than preventing them from voting.

What are you smoking its how the free market works

Artificially banning a class of workers isn't really the free market. They're not leaving to make more efficient use of their labor. Just as banning black workers would up the wages for white workers according to the free market.

The ban is only 'artificial' if you believe free and open borders should be the default state of the world. This hasn't been true globally since World War I.

Yes, we have a very non-free labor market. It's designed to keep poor people poor and rich people rich.

Surely you are not arguing that national borders are non-artificial? We can argue all day about their pros and cons, but they are certainly an artificial construct.

We're talking about in the context of economic relations, which are entirely human-created constructs. Under that definition, everything is artificial.

Fact of the matter is that every nation in the world has labor and passport controls. It would be exceptional and unusual for the US to abandon them unilaterally.

They could open the border with Mexico, just as the UK opened the "border" with Poland. If that happened, it would be undeniably a freeing of the labor market. That means the participants are individually deciding where to go, rather than other people who aren't directly involved in their trading. It might be unlikely but just because a situation is the status quo, doesn't make it natural or free.

The Soviet Union lasted a long time without a free market. Yet nobody would say allowing sellers to choose their own prices is artificial because they've been dictated by the government for decades and that's the normal and natural state of things.

Yes, the free market is supposed to work by shifting labor from low wave places (e.g. Mexico) to high wage places (e.g. USA) and causing wages to equalize between those places.

Similarly the market should shift oil and iron from low value places (in the ground) to high value places (e.g. in a steel beam or gas station).

Economies that attracts and integrates (domestic or foreign, the difference will blur) individuals which work or study hard will prevail. Countries that falls under the hands of extremism will collapse or be forced back into open societies. Artificial protection of economies are a fraudulent propositions from demagogues and doomed to further digging the economy down into extremism. The government should support citizens through change friction, but by enabling rather than addictive entitlements. But which politician can sell foot work, instead of sugar? Find a common external enemy, blame them rather than the rigged markets and systems.