67 and a few other... migrants?

Isn’t the use of the term migration in the first place the subject of a blatant and criminal human hypocrisy? Who is on which side of which border? Who are we (from a "better" side) to deny the moving of the other (from a "worse" side), my human alter ego, not less or more migrant than myself in this world? Who among us does not come from some place other than where they stay, lodge, live, dwell?

Some of our multiple borders for example: countryside / city; city centre / periphery; capital / province; regional / communal; national / European; European / international. And we could add many more.

All these geo-institutional borders push me to hide behind my own: the borders of my hospitality, my generosity, my altruism, my love. How many borders / barriers do I have in me preventing me from hosting another?

What then can we ask our governments, whose retort, already well petrified in this regard, is reinforced with each new election?

"67 people have a fortune equivalent to that of 3.5 billion people"[1]: latest media scoop and nobody seems to wonder, to react!

These figures speak for themselves. What authority do I have, being on the good side of the border, to tell some of these 3.5 billion people to not cross the border of my territory where, as it happens, I was born and live.

Wouldn’t it be more legitimate to ask these 67 people to move the border of their wallets, rather than spending public fortunes trying "to stem migration"?

Didn’t the caveman, the woodsman always move to survive? In the 21st century, isn’t it finally up to the "wealthy" man to move so that his fellow brothers, "rich with their vulnerabilities", can survive?

[1] The 67 wealthiest people in the world have as much wealth as the poorest half of the world population (see Oxfam Report –2014).