Spanning a number of academic areas, “An anti-objectivist study of Border Crossing” focuses on the inaccuracies of the current objectivism conception of border and borderland to the conclusion that if the subject/object dichotomy is real and external reality is true, causation will be logically impossible, and cross-border migration will be unattainable. The only condition by which the possibility of human and cross border interaction may continue to enjoy wide approval is to ensure that it is founded upon a logic precondition other than the one that had rendered it bizarre. It must be admitted though, that what emerges from this discussion is an idea that will undoubtedly require further defense. Usually, the view that people often opt for the border (physically, mentally and possibly spiritually as a way towards comfort) is a common occurrence. Examples could be found in moments of social crisis such as the Russian invasion of Ukraine when Ukrainians rushed towards the Border in other to escape into Poland. Even in daily conversations, people are sometimes said to be on the fence, mostly to avoid being attacked. Based on their position either for or against, they sometimes prefer to stand on the fence (border). On the other hand, unfortunately, borders are the most fiercely contested and controversial spaces. These happen because the borderland is not as indubitable as the tend to appear. This paper, employing the method of logical and historical analyses has attempted to make a proposal new intellectual geography capable of ensuring the logical prospects of border crossing, and consequently of logical, mental and physical human migration toward proposing a review of the current dominant policies on visa and migration.