Try breaking inside Russia. They have less than half the number of people and much longer border in much harder terrain. Chances of slipping in are around 10%,

Try breaking inside Russia. They have less than half the number of people and much longer border in much harder terrain. Chances of slipping in are around 10%, most of the time, you just get a bullet. They managed to keep it this way (ok maybe a bit less secure, but still mass infiltrations were impossible) even they they were literally a failed state in 1990s. So i don't agree this is somehow difficult. It's a matter of political will and people obeying the law. Just make what's already illegal, illegal indeed. Sorting who's illegal? Inside the country, sure, it's not obvious. But at the point of entry? Any crossing outside of the designated point of entry - you get a bullet, no questions asked. No one will check if you are a citizen or have a right to enter. Simply a sign "use of deadly force is authorised" and armed patrols 24/7 with enough ammo to stop even large infiltrations. At the point of entry? You gotta have a passport and a visa. No need for violence. You are just denied entry. Price of mistake is a bus ticket back. What's hard about it? As for refugees, sure this is a good concept but they should be by invitation only. You escape to whatever country you can escape, then prepare and file papers in the embassy and wait. If there is more perceived propaganda value ("North Korean official escaped Kim regime") or factual ("Russian submarine designer with a suitcase of blueprints") of inviting you than perceived costs of threat, sure welcome, otherwise, why? Refugee status (just as ANY immigration) exists for the benefit of accepting country. Not for the benefit of the refugee or immigrant themselves.