There is a case for open borders, in a perfect world.  On the other hand, the destination country does not get any equity in the source country, as deferment. Immigrants take up resources (housing, educational, etc.) and send money out (remittances).<p>Let&#x27;s say you&#x27;re running a great country with a great economy, Singapore.  And, suddenly in a gesture of humanity, you open borders, and you have 5 million people stream in, maybe ten.  How good is Singapore going to be as a destination with that kind of migratory assault on resources, infrastructure, culture, economy etc?  Do they get dividends on the source country which squandered its opportunities (say Indonesia with vast natural resources).<p>And what&#x27;s the incentive for the people&#x2F;gov&#x27;t in the other countries to shape up?  Remember, at the turn of the 20th century[1], lots of poor countries were on par with now developed nations and many developed and rich nations were backwaters (Norway, Sweden) and many powerhouses were very agricultural (the US, Japan, China, Russia) and kind of backward.<p>I think one could just as well make a case for, wait for it, the great bogey-concept, imperialism.<p>Why not have Singapore control Indonesia, bring in expertise, a culture of success, government and eradicate corruption gov&#x27;t malfeasance and bring prosperity to Indonesia, for example?<p>I mean, what&#x27;s the difference between Indonesians going to Singapore to become like Singaporeans and adopt some of their culture, versus Singapore having dominion over Indonesia and instilling some of their culture, success, economic prowess, etch, thus becoming a bit Singaporean?<p>[1]<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;data&#x2F;growth-and-distribution-of-prosperity&#x2F;gdp-growth-over-the-last-centuries&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;ourworldindata.org&#x2F;data&#x2F;growth-and-distribution-of-pr...</a><p>graphs show disparity in the 2 - 3x in the early 20th cent.