Everyone deserves the opportunity to pursue a better life. That does not automatically mean everyone else is obligated to provide that opportunity(immigrantion)

I've seen people argue that they support open borders or illegal immigration because it's unfair that some people are born into poverty, war, or unstable countries. I agree that where you're born is one of the biggest injustices in life. Nobody chooses their birthplace.

But recognizing that reality doesn't answer the question of what immigration policy should be.

Life is unfair in countless ways. Some people are born into wealthy countries, others into poor ones. Some are born healthy, while others are born with disabilities or conditions that make life much harder. I have autism, and it has made building friendships and navigating social situations much more difficult. I don't blame anyone for that, because no one is responsible for the circumstances I was born into. It is my respondsibiity to not be a burden to society and people around me.

The principle I try to follow is simple: everyone deserves empathy, but not everyone has a right to demand that other people solve the unfairness of life.

That's why I support refugee and asylum systems. If someone is genuinely fleeing persecution or war, there is a strong moral case for offering protection. But that is different from arguing that anyone should be able to cross a border illegally simply because they want better economic opportunities.

As an immigrant myself, I followed the legal process. I don't think it's fair when people who ignore the rules end up receiving the same outcome—or even a faster one—than those who waited years and respected the system. To me, fairness isn't about correcting every injustice in the world; that's impossible. Fairness is about making the systems that humans create as consistent and impartial as possible.

Some people respond by saying, "Life isn't fair, so why do you care if someone cuts the line?" My answer is that this confuses two different kinds of unfairness.

We cannot control the unfairness of nature or where someone is born. We can control the fairness of the rules we create. If we abandon fairness in our own institutions because the world itself is unfair, then there is no reason to have rules at all.

Supporting legal immigration and refugee protection doesn't mean refusing to help people. We already have humanitarian systems because we recognize that some situations deserve exceptional treatment. But saying we should help people in genuine need is different from saying every country has a moral obligation to accept everyone who wants to move there regardless of its laws.

I wish everyone could have the chance to live a happy and prosperous life. But wishing for a better world doesn't eliminate the need for borders, laws, or a fair immigration system. We do not live in a Disney world where singing a song can fix the fucking world.

So my question is this:

If someone is not fleeing persecution, war, or another legitimate basis for asylum, what is the moral justification for entering or remaining in another country illegally? And why should that be considered fair to those who followed the legal process?