Micro- and macro- evolution are terms vaguely referencing to arbitrary time scales
The terms microevolution and macroevolution have rather arbitrary and unclear meaning. For this reason, they are rarely used in the scientific literature. When they are being used, it is often in the first part of the introduction where general statements for which inaccuracy matters little are being made.
Typically, the existence of lineages called races (but see below) within a greater lineage called a species are limit cases between what one would want to call macro evolution or micro evolution. But in essence, it really does not matter where such arbitrary boundary is put, it changes nothing to evolutionary processes at play.
The concept of ethnic group
Note also that the concept of race (generally called ethnic group) is a human made concept that sometimes fail to match the reality of population structure in humans. If we were to name lineages based on genetic differentiation rather than socio-cultural cues, we would, if I am not mistaken, end up with a reasonably different result.
For your bonus question, you'll probably want to have a look at the post Does it make sense to classify all humans in a single species? and the post How could humans have interbred with Neanderthals if we're a different species? who discusses the concept of species.
You are right that the increased migration rate brought about by globalization causes increase interbreeding between humans lineages and will therefore rather prevent any further population structure that would have otherwise eventually lead to an event of speciation. There is, for the moment, no sign that any human speciation would evolve any reproductive barrier with any other human lineages. We are for the moment far from any speciation event in humans.