You're making a travesty of what equal opportunity means. It's not about getting things without earning them, it's about getting the same shot at earning them.

You're making a travesty of what equal opportunity means. It's not about getting things without earning them, it's about getting the same shot at earning them. Redistribution of wealth to provide equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of many countries and societies. I'm arguing that if you are for this principle, then how could you argue it should stop at a border? And if instead you're in favor of abolishing all income redistribution, then in essence that is also an implicit argument for abolishing government, which again makes borders meaningless. Either way, rationally, i see no objective defense for the principle of borders restricting what people have access to. Compare the US and mexico. A child may be born 5 miles south and lose an incredible amount of opportunity. Why is that fair? What did the child do to earn that station in life? Why are castes accepted when they are cross-border but not inside a country? Why should poverty be inherited? (I'm not arguing against inheriting wealth, just against inheriting poverty and not getting a fair chance at making your own wealth as a consequence.)