You know, unless you’re willing to live in open sea or in space or in Antarctica, you can’t possibly emigrate from a country without immigrating into another one.
Which is a reason why landlords aren’t analogous with countries. If you don’t like your landlord, you can (in principle) buy your own house, become homeless, live with your parents, etc.; whereas if you don’t like your country, even if your country allows you to leave, if you don’t find a country that allows you to enter you’re out of luck.
I think his point was more like ‘the landlords / cities must allow people to freely leave.’
Wouldn’t that be a lack of regulation on emigration, not immigration?
You know, unless you’re willing to live in open sea or in space or in Antarctica, you can’t possibly emigrate from a country without immigrating into another one.
Solvent’s point is that there’s a difference open immigration:
‘the landlords / cities must allow people to freely enter.’
and open emigration:
‘the landlords / cities must allow people to freely leave.’
Which is a reason why landlords aren’t analogous with countries. If you don’t like your landlord, you can (in principle) buy your own house, become homeless, live with your parents, etc.; whereas if you don’t like your country, even if your country allows you to leave, if you don’t find a country that allows you to enter you’re out of luck.