Border Reality

Recently someone asked me why I haven’t written on immigration lately.  There are 2 main reasons for this. One, it is in many ways too complicated a topic for a short blog, and, second, it seems that this is an area where most all minds are made up already, though often not based on rational evaluation but rather on political point of view.  Nonetheless, let me try to add a few thoughts to the conversation.

Essentially, there are three approaches a country can take to its borders:  open borders, controlled borders and closed borders.  Standing for or against one or another of these forms does not necessarily mean one is racist or holds any other positions that various sides of the debate like to attribute to their opponents.  We might be more successful in resolving the immigration issues if we would focus on immigration itself, rather than on name-calling of those with whom we disagree.  That is, immigration should not be used to settle political scores.

A border is simply an outer edge that delineates where something ends.  In this case we are talking about the defining edge or boundary of a country.

An open border is one that allows free movement of people across with little or no restrictions.  Essentially there is no border control.  This may be by design, or due to lack of resources.  The borders between the states of the United States are open borders.

A controlled border is one that allows movement across but places some restrictions on that movement.  It may require a visa or a limited period of entry without a visa.  A controlled border will have some method of recording people’s movements across the border and for checking compliance with the restrictions and limitations on crossing.  Controlled borders will usually have some sort of barrier, either natural (e.g. a river) or man made (e.g. a wall) and will usually have designated crossing points for legal crossings of the border.  Most international borders, including the United States, are controlled borders.

A closed border prevents movement of people across the border with few if any exceptions.  Examples include the Berlin Wall and the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. 

Our immigration debate seems to primarily involve the following positions:  arguments for open borders; arguments to keep a controlled border with essentially the same restrictions and criteria for entry as we now have (keep the current immigration laws) and have a controlled border but rework the restrictions and criteria (rewrite the immigration laws).

Most of the open border arguments are humanitarian or idealist in nature.  They argue that migrants coming from developing to developed countries can, by earning higher wages, not only improve their own standard of living, but in the process reduce world poverty.  Additionally, is the argument that it is inherently unfair for people to be treated differently or live differently simply based on which side of a border they were born.

The arguments against open borders are more pragmatic and realistic.  Open borders can create a drain on available resources in the country to with the people are migrating.  And, it can deprive home countries of the people necessary to improve those countries (both laborers and educated professionals), especially when they are developing nations. 

The arguments for open borders can be quite compelling.  But, in my opinion, they are not very realistic, especially when taken to their logical extreme. 

America is a great country.  It has natural resources and it has a form of government beginning with its Constitution that is the envy of people around the world.  It makes sense that anyone would like to come and live here.  But, realistically, this country cannot support the whole world.  Nor should it. 

America has always been very generous with its legal immigration as well as its humanitarian aid to developing nations.  Legal immigrants have brought much to our country and we have given them much.  But one key to past legal immigration is that those who came appreciated not only the resources available here, but also the government and way of life in America.  While keeping their ancestral identity and culture they also have been willing to become Americans, to support the basic values upon which this country was built and which allows it to be both enticing and welcoming.  These legal immigrants truly gave up their home country for ours and became full participants in our society.

There are many today who also seek legal immigration into America as a way to become Americans, who will both take what America offers and give what they can in return.  But there are others who seem to seek this country for what it has to offer them, but who would rather not become Americans; they would simply move their country into our land and reap its benefits.  In many cases these are those who begin their entry by disrespecting our laws and entering illegally. 

It is these illegal border crossers to whom many controlled border advocates object and whom many open border advocates welcome.  But one must ask: if you allow everyone in, what will happen to this country?  There were at least 6000 migrants in the most recent group that arrived at our border.  We likely could in some way absorb that number, but what about the next 6000 and the next?  If most of the world sees America as better, then why shouldn’t everyone come here?  And then what?  Abundant as our resources are, we do not have enough for the entire world.

Those who would allow open borders play on our emotions with pictures of mothers and starving children, try to shame us based on our humanitarian values into opening our borders to all.  Of course we want to help.  Those against opening our borders to everyone show us pictures of gang members who are rapists and murderers.  In reality, those attempting to enter our country include both and more. 

The focus should not be on who exactly is climbing the wall, or storming our border, or even seeking legal entry, but rather on should we or should we not open the border, and if it is not open, then what should be the criteria for legal entry.  In the meantime, we should enforce existing laws equally and against anyone who violates them, regardless of their emotional appeal to us or lack thereof.

We are a country, we are not the keepers of the entire world.  We are indeed fortunate to live in this blessed land.  But we have also given blood and treasure to build and keep this country.  Compassion for those less fortunate does not require us to open our borders to all or to give away that which our people have worked hard to build.  There are many ways to express compassion.

Our immigration laws need to determine the criteria for legal entry.  These criteria should include an understanding of why the applicant wishes to enter and how they will in some way contribute to our country.  Perhaps they have a skill we need; perhaps they will learn here and take what they learn back to their country, sharing our compassion in that way to make a better world. 

Of course we must take in those who seek asylum (though there may also be limits on that number).  But a refugee is not simply someone who thinks it is better here than in their home country.  A refugee is someone who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution, or natural disaster.   If they simply don’t like the economy or policies of their country, it seems a better plan for them to work to change those problems and make their own country a more livable and better place.  We can perhaps give advice or training or monetary assistance.  But we cannot simply open our doors to everyone who sees America as better than where they are now.    

Opening our borders to everyone requires that we be willing to give up our country, for a country without borders is no country at all.   We see many of the illegal immigrants that enter our land still holding the flag of their home country while defacing the flag of the new country they would call home.  They choose not to learn our language or our customs or our values.  It is those things, held in common, that are the basis of a country and not simply a geographic area filled with competing tribes.

A controlled border allows us to have laws that insure that those who seek to enter have a true desire to become a productive and supportive participant in America.  Those laws also allow us to exclude those who attempt to enter illegally or with purposes that are not in the best interests of this country.  With such restrictions we can enjoy the gifts and talents that immigrants bring with them while ensuring that those of us (immigrants and current residents) who choose to be here will continue to have the country that we have chosen.

Of course, we’d all like to believe that if there were open borders everywhere, we would all just get along fine and the world and everything in it would be wonderful.  But the world is inhabited by imperfect humans and it is highly unlikely that would happen.  We can open our borders, but we must be prepared for a loss of our way of life:  a loss of resources, a loss of shared values, a loss of our cultural identity as a nation. 

In the real world, open borders are a bad idea.  Controlling borders means creating clearly defined and protected borders, not allowing illegal immigration (and not rewarding it after the fact), and having clearly defined requirements and procedures for legal immigration and appropriate penalties for violations of those rules.  It is time that people get over the emotional and unrealistic arguments and stop using immigration as a political weapon and simply focus on making America’s controlled borders the best they can be.

A Trigger Warning for Christmas?

I’m thinking that maybe I should put a trigger warning* on the Christmas cards I’m about to send out.  They have a picture of the nativity (a reproduction of a 15^th century painting). 

*Trigger warning for those who are not familiar with the term is “a statement at the start of a piece of writing, video, etc., alerting the reader or viewer to the fact that it contains potentially distressing material (often used to introduce a description of such content).”  Teachers and professors are advised (sometimes required) to give such a warning to students when a subject to be addressed in class might prove upsetting to some.  

While my consideration of a trigger warning for my card is primarily in jest, it is also in response to learning that an associate professor of clinical psychology and sexuality studies from Minnesota, posted on his Twitter account that the “virgin birth story is about an all-knowing, all-powerful deity impregnating a human teen,” and “There is no definition of consent that would include that scenario.” He concluded the tweet by writing “Happy holidays.”

So, those of us who enjoy Christmas, for religious or other reasons, can now consider ourselves complicit with those sexual predators called out by the MeToo movement.  We are also not to listen to a variety of Christmas or Winter season songs – “Baby Its Cold Outside” (date rape); “I’m Dreaming Of A White Christmas” (racist); “Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer” (bullying), “Deck the Halls” (homophobic). I haven’t heard complaints yet, but I’m sure “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” is a symbol of elder abuse.  Of course, we already have learned that Charlie Brown is racist from his Thanksgiving special.   And, the movie “Elf” includes the song “Baby It’s Cold Outside,” so it too must go.  I’m sure there is a long list of other offensive Christmas activities that we will eventually hear about.

Once upon a time in a Children’s story the Grinch stole Christmas.  There are real grinches who would not only spoil the fun of Christmas but put an end to it altogether.  They remind us that it is really a recycled pagan holiday, that we don’t know when Jesus was born, and that the word “Christmas” is not in the Bible.   We already know we should not be using the word Christmas – if we must give a season greeting it should be the generic “Happy Holidays.”

Debates.org has a debate poll asking the question “Should Christmas be abolished?”  The result:  49% yes, 51% no.  Reasons for yes include that the holiday is racist, sexist, and Christian, that it “gives false hope” to children, and that it is for capitalists.

Once upon a time in this country we were more tolerant.  Even if a holiday were not one that we chose to celebrate, we were tolerant of those who did.   We were not offended by, nor did we look for everything possible by which we could be offended in the holidays, beliefs, and activities of others.  I grew up on a street with Christians and Jews.  They did not celebrate each other’s holidays, but neither did they take offense at them.  They respected the other’s views and were tolerant of them.  They did not try to take the joy out of them or spoil them or end them altogether.

Today we do not have such tolerance.  Those who oppose Christmas are not content to let others enjoy the holiday.  Instead they would impose guilt, doubt, hatred on those who do.

In soviet Russia, the State took charge of what people should believe.  The goal was to establish State atheism.  Religious property was confiscated, believers were harassed, and religion was ridiculed while atheism was propagated in schools.  Believers had to worship secretly; public displays of religion were prohibited.

Is that where this over-eager hunt for Christmas offenses leads?  It is certainly in line with the autocratic mind-set of dictatorship.  And with what seems to be more and more the prevalent mind-set of the progressives in this country.  The Democrats (most recently via Sen. Hirono) have told us that they are just too smart for the rest of us.  Perhaps that is why they believe that it is their job to tell us how to think and to act, what to celebrate and what is just too offensive, what we should feel guilty about and why we should just never be able to simply enjoy life without shame and guilt for our many sins and misdeeds.  And, among those, apparently, is the joy and fun of Christmas.

Lenin wrote, “Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.”  Marxism-Leninism advocates the suppression and ultimately the disappearance of religious beliefs, considering them to be "unscientific" and "superstitious”.

That is communism; we live in a country that protects a variety of beliefs and expects others (even those who think they are smarter than our bourgeois working class) to be tolerant of them.  The current war on seemingly every aspect of Christmas joy is simply a part of the war on everything that does not conform to one particular point of view.  It is a war, that if successful, will change this country completely and make it reminiscent of the joyless communism of the USSR.

The Hollowness of Show

We seem to live in a world where appearance is everything and there is an emptiness behind the superficial.

I watched a time lapse photo on Facebook of an artificial tree being erected in a family living room.  The video is cute and the “tree” is lovely, but I couldn’t help but feel that something was missing.  The point of the video was (I think) to show the world the “tree”  and that the family had gotten that job done. The time lapse encapsulated removing the "tree" from its box, stacking its tiers, turning on its pre-strung lights and adding the coordinated decorations.  When it was over you imagined the family simply returning to their everyday lives.

But isn’t Christmas and the holiday season not really about the tree or other decorations, but something deeper and far more meaningful?  We can all admire a perfectly erected artificial tree, but I would rather have a less than perfect tree and focus on the time together selecting (perhaps even cutting) it and decorating it (perhaps with homemade decorations or ones that are otherwise individually meaningful).  And, if it is only about the photo op of the “tree” or checking off the box that one put up a “tree” then we have lost any deeper understanding of what that tree might signify to us as an individual, to our family, to our faith, to our culture.

In contrast I recently watched some videos of holiday celebrations in Eastern Europe.  Families laid beautiful tables using special dishes, but the decorations in the homes were sparse.  One family had their celebration around a kitchen table with stove and sink as the backdrop.  Yet, in these videos, the families were focused on one another as they enjoyed the meanings and memories of the holiday.

I can remember birthday parties at our family’s kitchen table.  The table was well set and decorated, but the stove, sink, and cluttered kitchen counter were the backdrop.  I hope my children were not ashamed or embarrassed by this, especially when the typical child’s birthday (including those of their peers) was celebrated at some sort of entertainment center where the parents can demonstrate that they keep up with (or perhaps surpass) the Jones.

Appearances.  They seem to have become important ends in themselves.  Not just noteworthy celebrations, but daily life as well.  New homeowners feel compelled to completely furnish and decorate their new home immediately; no waiting and saving and buying piece by piece.  Slower acquisition results in a décor scheme that includes unmatched but complimentary pieces.  Perhaps not the perfection of a décor right out of a magazine photo, but a décor that one can feel is their own – that has meaning to the one who created it.

Yet, in all of the above, what will people drool over and compliment?  In most instances it will be the perfect artificial tree, holiday celebrations not in kitchens but in elaborately decorated homes, birthdays planned and carried out at some impersonal venue, homes that indeed look like a magazine photo.  The point is not the underlying meaning, but what it looks like to the rest of the world.  It is superficial beauty with a hollow core.

And it is not just our environments; it is ourselves as well.  The first questions asked upon meeting or hearing about someone are usually aimed at identifying where the person works and what their social status is.  Not who they are but what label we can slap on them.   Do we even care if there is anything beyond the surface that we label and then judge?

There is a hollowness in all of this.  An emptiness that reminds one of those philosophies that assert the emptiness and meaninglessness of life itself.  Perhaps that is why there is now so little interest in history or so much focus on making things better and feeling good in the moment with no thought to or concern for how it might affect the future. 

Let’s think about where this attitude leads.  If everything is nothing more than a “tree” to get out of a box, put up and move on, wondering “OK, that’s done, what’s next?”  then we are well on the way to not just denying but destroying our culture and with it our very souls.

There was a time when this country tried to make the many Native American Tribes give up their cultures, their languages, their ceremonies, their very way of life.  When this country came to realize the mistake that was, the Native cultures were only able to restore themselves and survive because the elders had preserved traditions and understood their deeper meanings and were able to pass this on to younger generations. 

Yet, as today’s PC police chip away at anything that is offensive to anyone, they are in effect doing what we tried to do to the Native cultures.  The progressive “inclusive” movement tries to make everyone think, act, and be alike.  That requires individuals and families to give up their personal traditions and beliefs – the things that tie them to both their past and their future.  It requires them to give up their very souls.

As we lose what is individually meaningful, we are losing the understanding that is necessary to preserve individual families and the culture that is their soul.  Some may think this is the way to a better world, to the utopia that is (and by its very nature must always be) a dream.  It is not.  Rather, it is the way to a loss of individuality, of one’s very being.  It is the way to a hollow and superficial world, a world that has no meaning and therefore no respect.  No respect for culture or for the families and individuals from which a culture derives. 

When there is no respect, no understanding, no meaning to something, then there is no need to sustain it; it can acceptably be destroyed and forgotten.  And hollow people can go about behaving as they are told, with no understanding of why and no individuality or meaning to their lives.  And that, at least in my opinion, is not a utopia.  It is instead a hollow world that can very easily collapse upon itself and cease to be.  When appearance – the show – is everything, then we must wonder what happens when the show ends and the curtains close.