For the vast bulk of people, you may as well suggest they move to a different planet.
The even worse problem with this line of thought is the econ-101 conclusion - that they must be OK with things if they don't demonstrate otherwise by voting with their feet. (Not ascribing that assertion to the parent.)
Yep. You’ve found one of the true purposes of immigration law. As with barriers to free competition among employers in the market for employees acting to suppress wages to benefit companies, so with nation states in their control of citizens immigration allowing for higher repression and exploitation of various forms.
This is an interesting theory, but it falls apart upon contact with reality.
The vastly overwhelming majority of immigration barriers in the world keep people out of other countries, not keep people in them.
The motivation behind those barriers is, broadly speaking, in keeping out moochers and undesirables, not "Actively helping some country on the other side of the world repress its citizenry."
You'll be hard-pressed to find people who support strict immigration controls for the latter reason. You don't have to look hard to find supporters of them for the former reason.
You don’t think both reasons have been important? How about the eastern block during the Cold War?
I bet my rulers in the USA are happy that the EU makes it difficult for our people to move there. On the other hand I am certain our populace mostly thinks about keeping “the other out” sure.
Cannot both things hold on their own time and place, and depending on where the person holding the view sits?
Mexico’s ruling class is likely glad for our immigration law, as it keeps their populace pinned in. Economic issues always cut two ways, and the press will stoke emotion about only one of the two, for some reason.
The even worse problem with this line of thought is the econ-101 conclusion - that they must be OK with things if they don't demonstrate otherwise by voting with their feet. (Not ascribing that assertion to the parent.)