I'm not sure if this comment is serious or sarcasm. Today, for those rich enough to own estates, it is very easy to move between countries, as it always has. Today, it is also much easier than in the past for those not as fortunate to move between countries. How can this be so, given the often onerous immigration requirements between countries? Well, a Polish (or any other European) peasant would have been considered part of the land (the way a house or a well is a fixture on the land it occupies), and would have had to have the permission of his local landowner to even leave the plot of land he/she is fixed to. Moreover, try finding a country who wanted more peasants. There has always been anti-migration sentiment when it came to the poor; the highly regulated, but still slow, systems we have today are a clear improvement over the past impossibility.
I'm not being sarcastic at all. In particular, during the Age of Mass Migration, it was very common for the oldest son who was to inherit the land because of primogeniture to stay home and for his landless young brothers to go try their luck in the New World.
> In particular, during the Age of Mass Migration, it was very common for the oldest son who was to inherit the land because of primogeniture to stay home and for his landless young brothers to go try their luck in the New World.
So, if you belonged to a class where any one of your father's sons was inheriting anything, then you were part of the upper class. The eldest son of peasants could expect the same as his brothers -- an inability to form an estate, acquire meaningful wealth (in the form of capital), and a life of grueling servitude.
It is ludicrous to suggest that it is harder today for the poor to migrate than before. It is much much easier.
