Borders preserve the priveledges of the wealthy at the expense of the poor.
Borders prevent the world's poorest people from accessing resources and opportunities that are available in richer countries. (1) This has led to people in poorer countries being forced to live with a lower minimum wage, greater passport restrictions, less social security and a poorer quality healthcare system than that which people in richer countries enjoy.
There is large discrimination in the world based on place of birth/origin. This is enabling the rich to preserve their wealth and keep the poor oppressed. Immigration restrictions are similar to apartheid and Jim Crow laws, but with the criterion of discrimination being place of birth/origin rather than race (2). In this way, country borders have become a form of global apartheid.
Enter the counter arguments here ...
1. Borders act to preserve the priveledges of the wealthy at the expense of the poor across the global population. 2. Preserving the priveldges of the wealthy at the expense of the poor is a form of global apartheid. 3. Borders enable a form of global apartheid.
The premise is based on a logical fallacy. Preserving wealth does not inherently oppress the poor. This is a false dichotomy.
Content references here ...