A lot of californians moving to the Pacific Northwest has been disruptive. This does not justify interstate immigration restrictions.

A welfare state , government monopoly schools, and centralized healthcare systems struggle under the burden of poor immigrants, but by the same logic then, we should be able to forbid the poor here from having babies, too. The problem is divorcing essential services from market transparency and hiding costs and needs alike behind a veil of bureaucracy.

Your argument presupposes that governments provide an essential good or service to society. I argue government is instead the biggest Mafia. National borders are mafia turf. Taxes are mafia extortion. Heck, organized crime syndicates are even known for providing charity and emergency services in many cities, and they do keep rival criminals in check. This doesn't mean mafias are necessary for a healthy city.

Society needs many services governments presently provide, but that does not justify government. As other analysts have suggested before, suppose government monopolized shoes. We all need shoes. But no matter how ill-fitting and ill-made those government shoes may be, a generation accustomed to government "right to shoes" would balk at suggestions shoes could be better provided by market means. "But who would make the shoes, and where? Out of what materials? How would they be distributed? What about people with little money, do you think they can afford $1000 Italian loafers? You just want the poor to go barefoot!" This same kinds of irrational arguments are raised when we suggest government police, courts, and borders are at best misguided, and at worst completely unnecessary obstacles. If we do need functional windows, do they need to be government windows? And do we in fact need these windows as your analogy suggests?