My view is that many people are quite domesticated- traditionally, would you not agree that society flourishes wherever the strong and fair have the capacity to exclude the psychopaths?
Unfortunately, domesticated people often somehow get convinced to vote for open borders.
Borders are only one way to exclude people from society, and not a very efficient one if the only goal is to "exclude the psychopaths", which are no more likely to be on one side of the border than the other.
qnaal's point, of course, was to derail the interesting conversation HN is trying to have with some meaningless contingent political bullshit. I envy you, that such intent wasn't clear upon reading. Suffice to say, there is a certain class of American political lizard that enjoys pretending there's no problem we can't solve without some more of that good old-fashioned racism. Just downvote and move on.
From a theoretical standpoint, we define our own borders, no? A 'society' doesn't have to be very large to thrive, especially when it can interact with global markets.
Obviously there are many ways to 'remove people from society', but I think it's clear that the most ethical and economical method is exile.
Such a strategy doesn't scale very well for an enormous society, so globalists like 'jessaustin' call me racist- but I think my political agenda is apparent- curiosity and discussion of theory. It's pretty clear who's trying to derail what.
Unfortunately, domesticated people often somehow get convinced to vote for open borders.