Can feet vote? Yes, they can and do! How do you compare the quality of life between countries, states, regions, and cities? By examining the way people vote, but not by raising their hands but ... with their feet. Follow the migration patterns. The migration within the US has primarily been from large urban centers to smaller cities, towns, and rural areas, coupled with people moving from 'blue states' to 'red states.' In 2024, the top inbound destinations were Idaho, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, and Texas. While California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Washington were the top outbound states. The movers' reasons for relocating are lower taxes, greater economic freedom, and more personal freedom. From a global perspective, the United States is the world's top migration destination, with more international migrants than any other country. In fact, the US has more international migrants than the next four countries combined. In 2020, the US had over 50 million immigrants living in the country and is home to almost 20% of the world's migrants despite only representing about 5% of the world's population. Much like the interstate movers, the foreign migrants want to come to America because only in America can they see people like themselves succeeding. They want economic and personal freedom. Recent polls suggest that 150 to 200 million adults worldwide would relocate to the US immediately if allowed to. One of the more conservative surveys estimates that 158 million adults would migrate to the US if they could. The estimates indicate that would bring 227.6 million children with them. In addition to that, chain migration, which allows migrants to bring in family members, would add an additional 545.1 million migrants if current chain migration ratios continue. That's a total of 930.7 million added to the current population of 340.1 million. Altogether, that's 1 billion two hundred seventy million eight hundred thousand. Where would this addition of nearly a billion go? If current patterns persist, they will go to the 25 biggest cities. The graph below shows those cities and how their growth would be affected if we opened our borders completely. I've added the potential immigrants to the cities in proportion to the size of the city, which is generally how immigration patterns tend to happen. Of course, they could go elsewhere, but this gives you an idea of how it could transpire. So, if we were to open our borders and all those who wanted to come here did, New York City would increase its population from 8.3 million to 156 million. That would make NYC larger than all but five countries, bigger than Brazil! Los Angeles would have more people than all but 16 countries, more than Iran. Only twenty countries would have a larger population than Chicago, with more people than Great Britain. The US would be the most populous nation on Earth, overtaking India and China. Now, if that were to happen over the course of a hundred years, the consequences might not be disastrous. But even spread out over a hundred years, that would be 10 million a year, not a crisis, but a burden. However, simply opening the US borders could allow that growth to occur much faster, far faster than the economy could accommodate. Currently, the US adds housing for about one and a half million a year. Even if the US spread the immigration over a hundred years, it would require triple the new housing. If it happened all at once, the entire working population of the US would have to change jobs and become construction workers to build enough housing, and of course, then nothing else would get done. Every infrastructure and service industry would have to grow to almost four times its current size. It would be a strain if it spread out over a century; any faster, and the results would be dire. It's great that US states with economically sensible policies win the vote by the feet as the best places to live. And it's cool that the US is, by popular vote, the most desirable place on Earth. But we have to be careful of the consequences. The more popular destination states must be cautious that the newcomers don't come in and vote for the same policies that created the conditions they are abandoning. In Arizona, where I live, there is concern about this, and it's not unusual to see signs and bumper stickers reading, "Don't California My Arizona." Don't come here and vote for the things that made you leave home for here. On the national level, it is crucial that the desires of the vast numbers of the global population that would like to come here not cause the US to open its borders to more potential citizens than we can accommodate without making life worse for those already here. Yes, it's saddening that many in the world don't have the advantages that those in the US do. Still, the US can only remain the most desirable destination by limiting population growth to sustainable levels. The US has a history of welcoming immigrants, and those immigrants have brought skills, talents, and a work ethic that has made the country stronger and more productive. That didn't happen by opening the borders; it came with controlling the borders and keeping immigration rates manageable. The votes are in, and the feet are clearly voting for a strong economy, economic and personal freedom, and a chance to use those freedoms to build a better life. People want freedom, but politicians sometimes lull them into seeking security instead. So, they vote for politicians who promise to implement policies that grant the government greater power, ostensibly to provide a larger safety net. These policies create an environment that the citizens no longer find desirable: increased taxes, more restricted freedoms, and a less vibrant economy. Paradoxically, the only true security is freedom. Henry Ford said it this way, "The only real security that one can have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience and ability." The only way to accumulate that reserve is through personal and economic freedom and an economy that provides opportunity. Why do so many have the perception that capitalism limits their opportunities? Because those same politicians and the media keep telling them how bad things are. If you want the truth, I'd suggest reading my series Then and Now, 'Then and Now Part 1', 'Then and Now Part 2', and 'Then and Now Part 3'. Freedom makes everything better, and excessive regulation and control, even in the name of helping, makes things worse.