> This will single-handedly allow equality of opportunity to be realized. In the long-term and not entirely. I wonder what the effect in the short- to medium-t

> This will single-handedly allow equality of opportunity to be realized. In the long-term and not entirely. I wonder what the effect in the short- to medium-term would be on poorer countries who presumably would see a lot more emigration of demographics who have the wealth and/or skills to move somewhere with more opportunity, the "brain drain" effect of the money spent on educating someone and the loss of future tax earnings from their employment is a problem that exists now after all. And again in the short- to medium-term how would unrestricted immigration play out? Immigrants are a net economic benefit to their new countries but does that hold for all amounts of immigration within a given time? It seems to me 500,000 immigrants in a single year is not equivalent to 50,000 immigrants each year over a decade even if in the long run the result is the same. > The problem is that most first world countries' people would be worse off under this scheme (with people from under-developed countries being better off). That's a very zero-sum way of looking at it. Globalisation and free trade have overall made the poorest countries a lot better off while also making the richer ones better off, shouldn't open borders do the same in the long-run? I'm not sure it would be good for countries though, which itself would have knock-on effects... TL;DR open borders and free migration are great, but I can see a shit-load of short-term pain were it to happen!