Because no one wants to leave their family and entire home behind just to move to a wealthy country to live on the street as a homeless person. We will only ever attract as many immigrants as there are jobs to support them.

At least up here in northern Europe that is sadly not true. I'm not claiming immigrants come here seeking free welfare (some probably do but there's always people like that everywhere); but there's plenty of people being actively lied to in their own countries, and sold this idea that you can just go up north and get a job and send money to your family etc. get a better life! So they gather all the money they have and give it to these liars, who then traffic them into EU and up here.

There's barely any jobs in my country you can get without speaking the native language (which is difficult to learn and useless outside our 5mil population), and at this moment we even have massive unemployment crisis so there's no jobs even for the natives. Still people are sold lies and come here, then get stuck trying to scrap any money they can, and get taken advantage of and have to live in poverty. Some even have big loans on them, they took to just get here. All in vain

Watch this video. Market inefficiency will have people freezing to death in the streets, unable to afford travelling to a place with work, unable even to afford accurate information on where to find work. Many turned to crime to survive.

In Tudor England's case, they "solved" this by kidnapping people ICE-style and deporting them to the colonies as indentured servants or putting them in for-profit prisons.

Open borders are good, but you need to be anarchocommunist about it. People need to base their migration patterns on accurate information, which means information given as mutual aid rather than for profit or for manipulation (e.g. if people constantly say "we have no space" when they have space, people learn that "we have no space" means "we probably have space", so if there is no space you get disaster).

It also needs to be mutual aid when people are there. Expecting people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps to slot into the economy of a foreign culture is "leaving money on the table". It's much more economically productive to get people everything they need to be comfortable so they can instead spend their labor on efficient tasks they are specialized in (which then help other get what they need faster in the positive sum game we call society).

Well, first of all, seems like someone else's goal posts have been moved, trying to slip in a conflation of intrinsic and inherent. These are not the same thing. Leaving the "It's natural" appeal to nature fallacy aside, if it's inherent, then that in no way contradicts what I've offered.

"Micro border"... likewise, seems to be shifting language to contrive reality to fit an already held belief.
* Like psychological boundaries of principle where one intently shall not bring themselves to cross regardless of provocation?
* And shared among like-minded with similar experiences?
* That kind of safe space?
* Is that for which you've coined the term "micro border"?

Sounds like conjuring micronations from like-minds and shared-experiences, and even, I dare say, groupthink [(precursor to mass formation, and totalitarianising psyche, in which no one is safe, from each other, in the hyper-rational (irrational) desperate social dominance demand for social conformity more equal than others, where any and all atrocities are seen as necessary virtues, ever worsening as each try to prove themselves more devout to the group, to save themselves from the group)]. Yeah, that could become problematic, and a self fulfilling prophecy succumbing to the classic first failure of game theory, the tragedy of the commons, where having it aggravates the reason for having it, causing a feedback loop. It's kinda like outsourcing your circular reasoning, cajoling others to be complicit in it, and then likely even blaming them, othering them. Those dirty outsiders, look at them, disrespecting our micro-bordered safe space. Hehe.

In some sense, this can be seen as an energy control drama^1^, perhaps starting with some "aloof" mixed in with the (at least) "poor-me", perhaps even escalating through "interrogator" to "intimidator", to preserve what, initially, may have had good intentions, but becomes a separation that leads to destruction.

... I forget who that's attributed to ~ "separation is the path to destruction"... Siddhartha Gautama? J Krishnamurti? Gandhi? A handy concept to have around to consider and measure against. Always more, in "the longer now"^2^.

Should they be allowed to do so and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?

First, tackling:

Should they be allowed to do so

Like needing permission? Like a binary, allow or disallow? Not sure that's a healthy way to tackle it. Sounds like the one tool in the toolbox is the ban-hammer, and every situation, to strike the situational nail, or to not strike the situational nail. Much more nuance, much more richness of growing cognisance and comprehension available in learning about things, rather than first reaching for allow/disallow.

and does that have any relevance to the larger discussion about borders?

For socio-societal-psychological explorations, sure, why not. Some relevance, in exploration, sure. But to wield that like it's the core root and same-same, nuh-uh.

I think it does.

I can see that it can. But not all. Leans more to mere academic exploration, than the direct substance itself. More side garnish tributaries than the core crux. May be helpful for broader [foundational and supporting] understanding, or may be used to contrive felling the main trunk.

I think people instinctively want borders to protect themselves from others who might mean them harm.

And what compels and propels activation of this instinct?

It’s natural and inherent to humans.

Yes... which sorts of circumstances inherit such?

• Inherent, from Latin inhaerere[/Inherens] ("to stick in"), e.g. like something imbued within from something prior.
• Intrinsic, from Latin intrinsecus ("on the inside"), emphasizing internal essence. Does not imply receipt. At least not intrinsically. ;)

(And yeah, I did poke a LLM [& Deepl] to help provide the etymology clarification there... I don't know Latin off the top of my head. Felt that needed done, since this is a very commonly shared conflation to false synonym, depriving us of an important distinction between intrinsic and inherent. Defy the Orwellian newspeak truncation of language! Harr!).

So beyond the appeal to nature fallacy, what's cooking us? n_n What's trying to bake-in these divide-and-conquer abusable traits? Because we can see situationally, it's not always so, and thus not ubiquitously appearing intrinsic. So what situations evoke it? Who's causing such? Who benefits?

^1^ ^2^ Heh, that's two references to The Celestine Philosophy there, I did not expect to make when I started writing this reply.