I would like to expand on L.Dutch's answer.
Two years ago we tried to tackle this issue with "A proposal to finalize the 'are real-world questions on-topic' debate." Generally speaking, the policy became "people can ask real-world questions so long as they have a worldbuilding reason for doing so."
If you search Meta for questions about real-world questions, what you'll discover is that the proposal helped, but did not solve the problem. To quote Secespitus,
If we just allow every question we turn into a "Please google that for me" and a "Which Wikipedia site contains these keywords?" search engine. That's not what the site is supposed to be and not what the value should be.
Consequently, all real-world questions fall on a hair-line balance. That's just the way it is. There is no clear-cut solution because, in a very real sense, if we just open the gates and allow any question to be asked here we quite literally will become Stack Exchange's dumping ground: the Stack to which all other Stacks send the questions they don't want to answer.
To be fair, while the vast majority of questions on this site can be and are answered with real-world expertise, it's actually somewhat uncommon for a real-world question to be asked directly. Think about it. Real-world space ships extend all the way to the Space Shuttle. Anything else beyond that is Worldbuilding by definition because the ships don't exist (even if the expertise to answer the question does).
As time passed (and you'll see why I say that if you read through that lengthy history of real-world question discussions) I've come to realize the wisdom of erring on the side of "we answer real-world questions, but we also don't answer real-world questions." The goal is more than user volume. It must be or this stack really has no value at all.
The goal is quality questions about worldbuilding.
Therefore, despite being one of the respondents to the question in question, I do agree with L.Dutch that the worldbuilding context wasn't just thin, it was non-existent — and I should have known better. A sincere worldbuilder is working on the rules of a fictional world of their own creation. Saying something vague, or worse, something like "I'm working on a world just like Earth..." and then expecting us to answer the question is (and should be) a reason to migrate the question.
BTW, within an hour of migrating the question, my answer got to more up-votes. :-)
One more thing. You state, "The original question doesn't specifically disallow that, or place any restrictions on magicial/high-tech enforcement." I just finished writing an answer to Is it okay to edit? that touches on that kind of statement.
You don't know the mind of the OP. You don't know what he/she intended, wanted, or expected. You don't know the background of the question or its motivation. You literally don't know if anything you said is true. What you're doing is assuming those are true, and based on those assumptions, you're wondering why the question was migrated.
The harsh reality is, the question was migrated on its merits, not on its potential. Just as questions are (and should be) closed on their merits, not their potential.
No Stack should be allowed to become a free-for-all.