This is the first of a series of weekly posts with the most interesting content from the Open Borders Action Group on Facebook. Do join the group to weigh in on existing discussions or start your own (you might want to read this post before joining).

• Critical factors constraining migration rates if migration were significantly liberalized: There was little consensus, but top contenders ranged from setting up job opportunities to the new migrants, to absence of people in the new country to connect with, to bureaucracy, to availability of housing.
• Additional countries for Open Borders to discuss: Suggestions included Iran/Afghanistan, the Caribbean, Mexico/Guatemala, Japan, Israel, Russia, China, Taiwan, and Brazil.
• Whether “open borders” is the right term: There was a wide range of opinions in the comments.
• Why “pro-immigration” groups (such as FWD.us) endorse border security and employment verification systems, and whether this is strategically appropriate for their goals and for open borders: The general view seemed to be that there are more strategic downsides that the “pro-immigration” groups might believe.
• The extent to which existing minimum wage laws would need to be modified to reap the full economic and humanitarian gains from open borders: There was general consensus that minimum wage laws could be a barrier for many prospective migrants, but commenters argued that people could circumvent these by working on family businesses where such laws were harder to enforce.
• How open borders and charter cities compare: Milo King’s comment listed 7 points and included a diverse range of considerations.