None of your arguments support the thesis that a closed border is immoral. And yet they are all misguided, even to the extent that they argue something or othe

None of your arguments support the thesis that a closed border is immoral. And yet they are all misguided, even to the extent that they argue something or other. For example, the Berlin wall divided a city that was otherwise ethnically, culturally, geographically, historically a single unit. This is not comparable to a national border in any sense. So why make the comparison? Past injustices like colonialism, whether good, bad, or evil, justified or otherwise, have no bearing on present policies except perhaps as an illustration of the dangers of cultural disunity. In any case, if they make an policy argument, it is for more greatly closed borders. Much more. With machine guns. Likewise, the effectiveness of a physical border is technical problem--not a moral or rhetorical point of any sort. You can't say, "ladders defeat walls, therefore walls are immoral." Silly argument. I guess my point is--if you want open borders for X reason, just say 'X'. For instance, open borders might be economically advantageous to you or people of the group you identify with. That's rational.