**TL;DR - Borders are unnecessary and unjust** Borders themselves are somewhat arbitrary. Throughout centuries, the world's borders have shifted countless times for countless reasons; it is irrational to think that _for some reason_ those we have today are more valid than the innumerable combinations throughout history. Furthermore, many of the "borders" the world has today are not, in fact, defined in the sense of a fence, wall, river, or the like—they are simply _accepted_ by society. Many modern borders were developed through practices now widely considered [illegal and immoral](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24716&LangID=E), like forced annexation. African borders, for example, were [haphazardly drawn](https://www.dw.com/en/130-years-ago-carving-up-africa-in-berlin/a-18278894) by a group of Europeans in Berlin. Borders bolster nationalism, [encourage violence](https://refusingtoforget.org/the-history/), allow for the death of [thousands of migrants annually](https://migrationdataportal.org/themes/migrant-deaths-and-disappearances), and may stifle the [economy](https://www.forbes.com/sites/adigaskell/2021/01/19/the-economic-case-for-open-borders/?sh=6951a9444f69). Open-border projects like that of the European Union have been [largely successful](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/03/6-things-the-eu-has-achieved-60-years-on-from-its-founding-treaty-7609e02c-01bb-4763-8cbf-716d2287a647/) at curbing some of these societal ailments. Disclaimer: Surely, many of these problems could not be solved simply by abolishing borders, but it may be a start. These ideas are a small facet of antiauthoritarianism and anarchism—topics I will not digress into for this opinion.

**TL;DR – A workable concept, although practical considerations should also be taken into account.** It is true that borders are somewhat arbitrary lines which shift and change over centuries. It can also be acknowledged that there are a lot of problems with associated with borders, namely [violence, oppression, xenophobia and detention centres](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35834178). Whilst I believe that softening borders will help to reduce these problems, I also think that we should not be so hasty as to abolish them so soon for the following reasons: • In order for governance to be effective, governments need to have an idea of population size so they can plan budgets and distribute resources. If borders are abolished too quickly, then there may be a rapid influx of citizens from developing countries migrating to more developed countries. With such a rapid change, the host nations may struggle to meet the needs of the population. • The abolition of borders may lead to the end of the [modern territorial state](http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/abolition1313/anita-yandle-open-borders-then-abolish-them/) as distinctions based on nationality and common heritage become less relevant for governance. If national governments are no longer needed, could this lead to the creation of a world government? If so, does this not also have tyrannical and authoritarian undertones? • Arguably, border control was and still is important for _somewhat_ controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. Having an open border policy may make it much more difficult to contain transferable diseases.

**Borders are the most powerful expression of sovereignty, since they are the manifestation of a country's history and denote the territorial integrity of a country.** Alsace and Lorraine were not that large: together, they constituted only roughly 2% of the land of France. Nevertheless, the loss of these two provinces in the Franco-Prussian War was a sufficient reason of grief that triggered World War I. The nationalistic sentiment attached to merely 5,597 miles squared of land sufficed to trigger one of the largest rivalries and enmities on the land of Europe. That borders are important to a country, from this example, is evident to anyone's eyes. (hhttps://www.wikiwand.com/en/Alsace-Lorraine) When I used to be a history nerd in my sophomore year of high school, I loved to watch one of those videos on YouTube that are entitled "history of XXX, every year", the content of which is usually a map with different colors denoting the borders of different countries or civilizations. Often, the comments below these videos mock how a tiny change in color requires the death of thousands. This brings me to my first point: borders alone are testaments of a country's history. Be it violent conquest or peaceful expansion, the change of a country's territory is always an integral part of a country's very history and tradition. The annexation of Texas alone required a war; the acquisition of Alaska was politically contentious enough that one of the greatest politicians could be considered committing "folly" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Purchase). Borders are the sum of a country's experiences and dealings with others. The Maginot Line demarcating France and Germany was not only a powerful source of defense in WWII; they came to symbolize the very integrity of France and were emblematic of the territorial principles that that country does not tolerate others to trespass upon. The borders between India and Pakistan were not only witness to the trials and tribulations of the Partition of India but also expressions of sovereignty central to the conflict between these two nations. That borders are important is a truth immediate to every person's eye.