The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that, therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here "... A prima facie rights violation

The author, in my view, appears to be making 2 logical fallacies (that, therefore, invalidate the argument) summarized here "... A prima facie rights violation is an action of a sort that normally—that is, barring any special circumstances—violates someone’s rights. For example, killing a human being is a prima facie rights violation: in normal circumstances, to kill someone is to violate his rights. ...." Fallacy one, is that killing a person is an binary, killed or not. It is not equivalent to a country establishing suverenity over its territory, borders, and laws. And denying a right to immigrate into a particular list of first world countries, is not equivalent to killing. Fallacy two, is that the author oversimplifies. First it is postulated, that immigration is a right. However, it is not the case. Every right granted within a sovereign country does not necessarily extend beyond its borders. Eg 2nd amendment right in US does not extend to Russia. Same can be said about abortions right grants -- these are not applicable at 'global level'. So lack of examining significantly complex analogies, is a simplification fallacy. Second example of oversimplification fallacy, is that there are many more variables (rights, privileges, letter of law, reasons to enforce laws, etc) than just "US government" vs "an immigrant".