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.

Principle or Partisanship?

One has to wonder whether the ever-present outrage of the Left against Trump and his supporters is a result of some underlying principles that they hold dear or simply pure outrage that he and not they are in power.  Let me suggest that the outrage is far more likely partisan – a reflection of their real anger at having lost an election and with that loss their power as well.  By cloaking their outrage in the guise of standing for universal principles and humane values, they perhaps hope to hide the ugly partisanship that they are practicing.

Here are just a few of many examples of actions or policies that the Left claims to find abhorrent today, but which they previously accepted and often advocated.

Refugees and Immigrants

I suspect that everyone is aware that President Obama separated families and sent illegal immigrants home.  Somehow that only became cause for alarm or impeachment when Trump became president.

But, there are other examples in this area.  In 1975 many Democrats including then Senator Biden and then Governor Brown of California argued for a ban on Vietnamese refugees.  Governor Brown sounded the alarm about the huge toll that the refugees would take on his state as he worked to keep them from entering the country.  Yes, this is the same Gov. Brown who now welcomes immigrants, both legal and illegal, to his state and many of the same people who now assert that enforcement of immigration laws by President Trump is inhumane.

So, apparently when President Trump enforces our immigration laws with an even hand, he is guilty of treason, of being like Hitler, of destroying America; but, when the Left enforces those laws or works to keep legitimate refugees out of the country it is perfectly fine.

Security Clearances

President Trump revoked the security clearance of Brennan who no longer works for the government in any capacity, has no need for a security clearance, and was using (and perhaps misusing) his clearance for personal gain.  Those who are again finding this somehow treasonous or an impeachable offense have apparently forgotten that President Obama also revoked security clearances.         
       In 2013 James Clapper (who is now outraged by the revocation of Brennan’s clearance) was concerned about “threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information.”  The Obama administration then began a review in order to scrub and remove a number of security clearances.

So, apparently national security and possible misuse of security clearances is something that a president can be concerned about unless that president is President Trump.

Sex, Hush Money, and Underage Victims

It is alleged that Trump, before becoming president, paid former consenting sex partners to keep silent about their affairs.  Again, we hear this is treasonous or calls for impeachment.  Where was the outrage when, until recently, the Congress had a fund out of which they paid to silence individuals claiming sexual abuse or harassment by their members?

When there were unproven allegations that Republican candidate Roy Moore had improper behavior with minors decades ago, this was cause for the Left to raise the alarm not only against Moore but against anyone who argued he should have a fair day in court and considered innocent until proven guilty.   But wait – these are the same people who for decades have defended Roman Polanski who pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13 year old child.  And where is the outrage this week against the MeToo spokeswoman who it has now been revealed had sex with a minor.  These allegations which can be backed up with actual evidence or guilty pleas are apparently not as heinous as the allegations against Moore which lack such solid evidence.  Could it be that there are different standards for Republicans and Democrats?  Could it be that the outrage against Moore was simply an effective way to campaign against him?

We have a similar situation in the way that the accusations against Bill Clinton were treated and the sudden “woke-ness” when the allegations are against a Republican.  Sure sounds like partisanship to me.

Russia

This is a big one, but I will only cite enough to make my point here.  First, there is just the simple outrage when Trump meets with any foreign leader, but especially when he met and suggests future meetings with the head of Russia.   Yet, where was the outrage when Obama met with Putin and other leaders.  It was not labeled as un-American or treasonous as Trump’s meetings are.  And, while the Left daily asserts some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia in their  hunt to find evidence for those assertions, they seem to have forgotten that in 2012 Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Putin after the election.

Not even an eyelash was batted when Obama made that statement.  Directly to the Russian President.  When he was President.  But, when candidate Trump at a campaign rally joked about hoping Russia would find more of his opponent’s emails, the Left sees this as some sort of verifiable proof of collusion.  I call it grasping at straws.

Campaign Finance Violations

Cohen, in his plea deal Tuesday, stated he made payments to keep quiet women who allegedly had consensual sex with Trump long before he was a candidate.  In is questionable at best whether such a payment violates campaign finance laws, but, assuming it does, and, assuming that through some sort of twisted logic that automatically pins the violation on Trump, he would not be the first candidate to violate such laws.

There are indeed allegations against Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton that sadly seem to be worthy only of being ignored by the Left.  There are allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund was a scheme to bypass campaign finance laws and allow huge donations to the Hillary campaign that were violative of those laws.  The committee committing the alleged violations was authorized by Hillary.  These alleged violations involve millions of dollars directly to her campaign, not payments of a few hundred thousand to alleged former lovers.

Once again, one sees the Left turning a blind eye to alleged violations of law by those of whom they approve while twisting and turning every law possible to attempt to convict their “enemy.”

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

In 1992 Democrat Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that if there were a Supreme Court vacancy, then President Bush should not name a nominee or, if he did, no confirmation hearings should be scheduled until after the November presidential election.  This became known as the “Biden rule” and was apparently just fine with Democrats until Republicans enforced it in 2016 when then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  They did not want to wait until November then.  And now, as the Brett Kavanaugh nomination moves forward, the Democrats suddenly once again embrace the Biden rule, though now in the context not of an upcoming presidential election, but a midterm election.  

So, again, do the Democrats really have a position on this, or is it just that if their person is in power we should forget the Biden rule, but if their opposition is in power then we should enforce it, in the hope that the opposition will be defeated and the Left will regain power after the election?

The above are just a few examples of partisan maneuvering couched in the guise of standing up for principles.  It is hypocritical and dishonest.  But, what is really scary is that if principles can blow with the partisan wind, who next will be on the down side?  This is the problem when people become less concerned with law and freedom and true inalienable rights, and more concerned with creating a series of fleeting values that are geared to deny power to some while simply bolstering power for others.

So, next time you hear the Left assert that it is standing up for important principles of humanity or America or freedom, take a hard look at what the real motivation is.  Is it really a stand for principle, or just for partisan power?