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.

Equality and Equity

Equality exists when everyone receives the same treatment and has the same opportunities.

Equity exists when individuals are treated fairly.

These are not the same.  As a country we seem to spend much energy arguing about equality and fairness, yet I think that some of those arguments result simply from a misunderstanding of the terms.  Perhaps it is time to clearly focus on what our disagreements are.

This country and its laws strive to provide equality – to treat all Americans the same and to provide equal opportunities to all, regardless of factors such as race, gender, etc.  No, we are not there yet, but we have that aspiration and strive towards its perfection.  No doubt there are some fringe elements who do not favor equality, but as a whole this country is fully behind it, if not fully achieving of it yet.  (And, such achievement will likely never be perfectly reached; the key is, that we continue to ever move forward as we indeed do).

Equity is another thing entirely.  While I think most everyone would agree that all individuals should be treated fairly, the problem arises in answering what makes treatment fair in any particular instance.  This is where our disagreements truly lie and where we should focus our dialogs.  For example, should everyone receive the same pay regardless of effort or of the job they do?  Some would answer yes, some would argue no.  The answer is based on certain underlying premises and value systems, and it is those underlying concepts that are the basis of conflicts about results.

Hence, if we are to come together as a nation we must explore those underlying values and determine if we can find areas in which they are compatible or on which we can agree. Which are we willing to eliminate and which do we hold dear or will fight to the death to preserve.  In the above example it is easy to simply label one view socialist and one view capitalist and walk away from any further discussion.  While such labels might aptly apply, to label and do nothing more is not productive, nor does it resolve the divisiveness that is currently pervasive in this country.  All it does is encourage people to take sides, often based on things they don’t really understand.

This is where education is important.  Concepts of fairness are always going to be based on values and mores of the culture in which the question of fairness exists.  Public flogging or even death might be considered a fair punishment for adultery in some cultures while not so in America or others.  Countries are founded based on certain shared values of the founders.  Those values will to some extent determine such things as the form of government, the laws, and the justice system of the country.  When those basic shared values are no longer shared by a majority of the citizens, then it is likely that country will face upheaval and change, possibly to the point of no longer existing or becoming totally unrecognizable as the country it once was.  Such change can be well thought out and planned, or it can be based on a complete misunderstanding or ignorance of what exists and the likely effect of substantive changes in the underlying values and structures of a nation. 

America seems to be going through this sort of change, but without any understanding of the what or why of what is going on.  First, there is little understanding of the history of this country or its founding or of its Constitution.  From my reading as well as personal interactions with others it appears that few people really understand our democracy, how it works, or its underlying principles.  Second, those who favor a move to bigger government and smaller individual rights seem to lack an understanding of the long-term consequences of such a move; they seem fully uneducated about the histories of countries that have already followed such a path.  Similarly, those who argue for open borders seem to have spent little time thinking about the actual consequences of such action.  Third, there is a lack of knowledge about the various religious texts that are often used to support one position or another as well as to attack an opposing position.  Using one’s religion to shame or attack them without any depth of understanding about that religion is divisive, not productive.  Fourth, combined with lack of education and understanding in key areas, people or constantly bombarded with propaganda – what we now call fake news – that presents selective and incomplete if not fully distorted stories about key topics.  Finally, in addition to the drought of information and understanding is a superficiality and selfishness in the approach of many to their lives.

I, for one, believe that we should not change the underlying principles of America – the principles of self-reliance and independence, of small government, of free speech, and the basic guiding principles of our republic and its government that are set forth in our Constitution.  I also believe that a meritocracy breeds success and allows and encourages individuals to each reach their highest potential.  I encourage equal treatment and opportunity, but also believe that rewarding individual hard work is fair, even though it may leave individuals in differing (unequal) positions.  I believe that it is those things, those underlying values, that make this country the greatest country in the world, as well as the fairest and most equitable.  But, I also realize there are those who would prefer to abandon those principles and values.  They see equity differently.  I just hope that they take the time to educate themselves and realize what they are truly arguing for, because if we abandon those basic principles we will have a very different country that views each individual in a very different way.