Open borders can bring many beneficts to the countries and the economy of them. when countries allow people to move more freely, they create more opportunities for work, education, and cultural exchange. Also open borderspromote freedom. people should have the chance to escape poverty, war, or political oppression and build a better life elsewhere. in this globalized world, restricting movement too heavily can limit human potential and the cooperation

I understand the concerns you’re raising, but I think they rely on a simplified view of how open borders would actually work in practice. First,the 281 million migrant figure doesn’t prove that migration would “explode” under open borders. Migration today is already heavily constrained by visas, costs, and bureaucracy. The fact that not everyone moves already shows that people don’t migrate automatically even when they can. Second, in n realistic scenarios of greater openness migration would likely be gradual and economically driven, people would move mainly where there is labor demand and many economies would actually benefit from additional workers. Then, remittances from migrants significantly support home-country economies and also many migrants return or invest back home. Also claiming it’s “against human nature” is more an assumption than a fact, historically human mobility has been the norm when not restricted.

I understand the intuitive force of your examples, but they rely on worst-case assumptions rather than what evidence from migration systems actually shows. On the Kenyan doctor example it’s but incomplete. Skilled migration depends not only on openness, but on working conditions in origin countries, wages and infrastructure, retention policies and investment so the solution is not restricting movement, but improving conditions that cause departure in the first place. On wage collapse in many cases migrants fill labor shortages rather than directly replacing workers, they also increase demand, which supports job creations and also economies are not fixed-size systems but they expand with population

you’re conflating current migration pressure under a restrictive system with what would happen under a fundamentally different system. the idea that people would instantly flood across borders if restrictions were removed doesn’t match observed migration behavior. Even when legal barriers are reduced people still face strong constraints cased by relocation costs, language barriers, family ties or existing employment. All of these slow movement even without strict legal prohibitions. On the US–Mexico example, that situation reflects a highly constrained system under stress, not open borders. You can’t extrapolate from bottlenecks in a closed system to predict behavior in a fundamentally different one. Also On “open borders vs gradual migration”: it’s not a contradiction. You can have free movement as a principle and plus practical regulation through labor markets and infrastructure because open does not mean absence of management but absence of blanket legal exclusion.

I understand your point, but I think you’re still treating what is fundamentally a policy and planning challenge as if it were an unavoidable consequence of openness itself. On the 2015 Europe example, while there were indeed pressures on some local systems, attributing that to “too much openness” is an oversimplification. Research on that period shows the highly uneven impacts across countries, the largely temporary pressures and the concentrated effects in specific regions and sectors rather than systemic collapse. In other words, it was not “open borders failing,” but a migration shock into unevenly prepared systems. On the “talent vacuum” argument the issue is not freedom of movement itself, but structural inequality between countries. Restricting movement does not solve the root causes wage gaps, weaker healthcare systems and also lack of investment And even in more open systems, skilled migration is naturally constrained by practical factors like job availability or language. On infrastructure constraints its true that cities cannot scale instantly but that is an argument about planning capacity, not against mobility itself. Countries already manage population growth, urbanization, and migration through housing policy or public investment. So the problem it’s not “open borders = instant collapse,” but how well systems adapt to change. your argument assumes restricting mobility is the best way to protect development in poorer countries but that risks limiting individual freedom and locking in inequality rather than addressing its causes