> Or to put it simply, to argue that the border is synonymous with the law, that a violation of it is a violation of law and order, is to ultimately posit that law and order is inseparable from a hierarchy decided by birth. It is an identification not with the ideal of law as equality, as applicable to all, but to the reality of law as that which enforces hierarchy.

The whole thing reads a bit like an undergrad paper, but it's profoundly uncharitable to interpret the idea of a "border" in this way. Taken to its logical extreme, you simply cannot have a coherent and functional society (my premise here is that we don't want anarchy) without borders, unless we have a world government (which we do not have). How could you even enforce laws (even the most moral of laws, e.g. punishing a mass murderer) if someone can hop in and out of your jurisdiction willy nilly?

Obviously borders are important for many reasons, and they are trivially synonymous with the law, as they often delineate legal jurisdictions (unless we want to go to war to enforce our laws where our neighbors want to enforce theirs).

In short, there are much better arguments against mass deportations.