The premise of the article is essentially artificial because it's impossible to discuss immigration without discussing the social, political and economic circumstances that have impacted immigration policy. In the West, immigration restrictions proliferated in tandem with industrialization, the rise of labour rights and, most importantly, the emergence of universal suffrage and the associated transformation of the role of the state. Is it surprising that people will vote to protect themselves against unrestricted competition, particularly when they're experiencing hardship or are anxious about the future? The very idea of citizenship focuses on the notion that membership has its privileges, one of which is the understanding that a primary purpose of the state is to promote and protect the interests of those living within its boundaries. This is the basis of the "social contract" that emerged following the Enlightenment. To believe otherwise is to fool yourself.