That is naive. The wealth disparity between nations is so great that if borders were done away with, people from wealthy nations would be able to trivially outspend people in poor countries. Once they own the land and the businesses, political power is theirs. Meanwhile the people from those poor countries might try to do the same in wealthy countries, but wouldn't have the resources for it. It would be katastroika on steroids.
Then they can be removed in two steps. First, allow people to come and work to get wealthy so they can compete with other wealthy people. Second, allow wealthy people to spend money.
> The wealth disparity between nations is so great that if borders were done away with, people from wealthy nations would be able to trivially outspend people in poor countries.
Free movement of people does not mean that you don’t have extreme taxes on high-wealth individuals that they become subject to when they move.
> Once they own the land and the businesses
You are assuming, again, in addition to free movement of people a basically capitalist economic system in every country. That you are free to move to a country and live and, if you can find a job, work there does not mean that you can simply buy land and/or control of the non-financial means of production. It may mean you are as free to do so as local residents, but it doesn’t mean anybody is free to do so.
Note, that because even slightly capitalist countries – rich or poor – tend to provide relatively free movement of capital already, whether or not they allow free movement of people, this “buyout by remote elites” is already a problem for relatively poor capitalist (or even somewhat capitalist) countries, even with border controls – you don’t need to live in a country to buy up property and businesses there, and exercise control through such ownership.
