Why should the United States even have borders?

[christcnection1]

Why should the United States even have borders? Why should any nation have borders?

It almost seems proponents of “illegal” immigration believe there should be no rules governing U.S. borders. If one believes otherwise, they are often labeled a racist, or some other derogatory name.

Assuming this is essentially true, why should any nation have laws protecting its borders? What is the rationale behind pro-illegal immigration proponents (a.k.a. undocumented workers) concerning these issues?

I can certainly understand why many people want to be here; I also desire that they have a far more reasonable path to citizenship. It’s my hope and prayer that many from all around the world can legally and successfully attain the American dream, but it’s clear that something is very wrong, and is happening in the wrong way.

If “illegal” immigration is justified here, then it’s reasonable to say that a borderless reality should be everywhere, and for all peoples. Otherwise, it would be hypocritical and a double-standard. Additionally, if a borderless reality poses serious dangers and threats, for various reasons, then it’s unjust for its “legal” citizens.

I personally believe that God’s law to love one’s neighbor trumps man’s law in establishing borders. That being said, I do not believe that a world without borders is a good thing in its current depraved state. In a more perfect world, it would be great. But tearing down these “fences” without laws and careful preparation is counterproductive and harmful.

 

[Haliit]

Above all, the simple fact that we have borders is what makes us a sovereign nation. If you do not have a clear distinction of the land under your jurisdiction, there is no sovereignty.

More realistically, the use of borders, border protection, and immigration laws is the protection of the country.

Love your neighbor does not mean that our earthly governments should abandon all concern for their citizens. If we did not have borders or immigration laws, many more Americans would have been killed since 9/11. It is these very borders and laws which stand between you and those who wish to kill your and destroy your civilization.

If you were a shepherd, would you allow all sorts of creatures to come in freely amongst your flock, even wolves? Or would you build a fence to protect those creatures under your care?

 

[DaveBj]

A simple question.

Here is the simple answer.

Because we are not yet in the millenium.

DaveBj

 

[grandfather]

Why should the United States even have borders? Why should any nation have borders?
.

It might be helpful to look at borders as a broader concept than imaginary lines that mark national frontiers or boundaries that establish governmental jurisdictions.

I am in my home right now. It sits on my property. It is where I live with my family. There is a door that is locked. It keeps people out of my home that are strangers to me and who might want to harm me and my family. That is a threshold or border. If someone knocks on my door I will answer it and ask them who they are and what they want. I might invite them to come in and I might not. That is my perogative. If they try to force their way in without an invitation that would scare me and I would think I need to protect myself from them. I would try to stop them and I might do something violent to do so, depending on how threatend I felt.

If they were in trouble and asked for help I would probably do what I can to help them. We should all welcome guests and wayfarers. Mary and Joseph were turned away. We should be hospitable, especially to those in need. The rich have a responsibility to the poor. God holds the rich accountable for their treatment of the poor. Lazarus went to heaven and the rich man did not fare well.

On the other hand, there are people who are homocidal sociopaths, driven by their religion or ideology or some mental illness. We do not want them as guests in our home and if they try to force their way through the door or border with the intention to do damage it is a good thing to stop them, because once they are inside all hell breaks loose.

 

[puzzleannie]

I have no objection to reasonable laws to limit the number of people who enter this country to visit, work or live permanantly, nor do I have an objection to rules and regs for receiving visas for work, study or for citizenship. I have a huge objection to laws based on ethnic, racial and religious factors, and the sad fact is our current immigration laws are rooted firmly in such discriminatory bases.

 

[JimG]

Borders are fine. What I don’t understand is why it should take so interminably long for anyone to qualify for legal immigration.

Our nation has had a long history of accepting immigrants. When Ellis Island was an entry point, U.S. authorities processed in thousands of immigrants per day, legally. Why should it now take months and years for immigrants to enter the country legally, particularly when there are employers willing to hire them?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Well, why should ANY country have borders?

Why should the question be limited to the United States?

 

[Digitonomy]

Above all, the simple fact that we have borders is what makes us a sovereign nation. If you do not have a clear distinction of the land under your jurisdiction, there is no sovereignty.

I don’t agree that a lack of clear borders eliminates sovereignty. Many nations, including the US, have disputed or unclear borders. Despite this, these countries remain sovereign nations.
Al Masetti:

Well, why should ANY country have borders?

Why should the question be limited to the United States?

Uh, yeah, that’s what he said in the OP, very first sentence.

 

[DL82]

I suppose one reason is economic protection. If anybody could apply for any job in America, American-born workers would find themselves out of a job pretty quickly, replaced by better qualified workers from elsewhere who are willing to work for less money.

Here in the UK, we are part of the European Union, which means European workers can move around freely, and live and work in any of the 27 member countries. Since Poland and other Eastern European countries joined the EU, Britain has seen a lot of jobs, such as plumbers, electricians and construction workers, being done by Polish migrant workers, who work for less money, expect a lower standard of living, and are often far better qualified than British workers who thought they had a monopoly on these jobs.

In theory, it works both ways, British workers could take our money, go to Poland, buy a house very cheaply, and work over there. Only problem is, the pay is lower, there are few Brits who speak Polish, and the quality of life is lower, so there are few British people who would want to take this opportunity.

If there was complete global freedom of movement, then, in theory, within a few generations all the areas with high-level graduate economies (Europe, USA, Japan, etc.) would be full of all the world’s graduates, and all the poor countries would be full of all the world’s drop-outs. The problem is, the poor world would then lose all its’ doctors, teachers, etc. and would just get poorer and poorer, and eventually social mobility would stop.

Also, cultures would be totally crushed. For example, a country like Australia, with 30million people, mostly European in origin, with a culture that comes from its’ British roots, would be quickly over-run by the 3billion citizens of neighbouring South Asia, and its’ culture and traditions, as well as its’ wealth (which were the reason all those millions of immigrants would leave their home countries in the first place) would quickly disappear.

 

[Contarini]

Why should the United States even have borders?

There’s nothing wrong with having borders. There’s something wrong with treating borders as sacred and inviolable in the face of genuine human need and suffering.

Borders are an administrative convenience, not something holy.

Why should any nation have borders?

Because for the past few hundred years the Western world has promoted the unified nation-state with a monopoly on the use of force within its borders as a means of promoting order and internal peace–and of course, as with all political structures, as a means of perpetuating the power of those who run it! This is not the only possible way to do things. In the sixteenth century in Germany, for instance, a village might be under the authority of several different overlords with different sorts of rights and duties (one in charge of serious felonies, one in charge of lesser crimes, one collecting taxes, etc.). A city or territory might have within it areas where the ruler’s authority was only indirect (one obvious example was church property). And so on. Yes, this was more chaotic than what we have now. It also created an effective balance of power (I think this complex authority structure is one reason why, in the religious conflicts of the sixteenth century, religious dissenters were far less likely to get themselves killed in the small German territories or decentralized countries like Poland than in more centralized territories such as Austria, Spain, France, or England). No system of government is perfect.

It almost seems proponents of “illegal” immigration believe there should be no rules governing U.S. borders. If one believes otherwise, they are often labeled a racist, or some other derogatory name.

Given the fear and loathing that seems to drive much advocacy for tighter border control, these accusations are sometimes justified. But you’re right–we shouldn’t assume evil motives on the part of those with whom we disagree.

Assuming this is essentially true, why should any nation have laws protecting its borders?

Because it’s convenient and helps preserve peace and order. But such laws are not moral absolutes. The fact that many people are here in their despite is evidence that something is wrong with the laws, not reason to be punitive toward the people who have violated them. When we are talking about laws dictated by prudence and not directly mandated by natural law, widespread disregard of the law is a good reason to repeal it. This has always been the practice of governments. But we have people in this country who worship law and think that if a positive law has been broken the order of the universe is falling apart. As I understand it, this is not the traditional Catholic position. Natural law is the law that has absolute and eternal validity. Positive laws passed by governments deserve our respect and obedience as long as they do not conflict with natural laws or get in the way of basic human needs. But an unenforceable and cruel law should be allowed to lapse.

If “illegal” immigration is justified here, then it’s reasonable to say that a borderless reality should be everywhere, and for all peoples. Otherwise, it would be hypocritical and a double-standard.

No. That is an unreasonable position. Laws of this kind are pragmatic. They are justified if they promote the common good and conform to natural law. That doesn’t mean that all such laws everywhere should be discarded.

There are two circumstances that should be taken into account here:

1. Although some extreme conservatives like to deny this these days, America has been shaped by immigration in a way that many other countries (in Europe, for instance) have not (OK, there was immigration centuries and centuries ago that shaped those nations). America is a country based on a creed, as Chesterton said. It doesn’t have the same kind of link to ethnicity and culture that European nations do. That’s not to say that there is no such link, or rather that there are no such links to various cultures that have been here for a while. But the link is weaker. I think that European countries have much more reason to limit immigration and insist that immigrants assimilate than Americans do. (Another consideration is that some European countries are still formally and officially Christian, however little this means in practice, and that many of the immigrants are Muslims or other non-Christians–America on the other hand has never had an official religion, and furthermore Hispanic immigrants are almost all Christians, whether Catholic or Pentecostal or some other brand. So Christians in particular have reasons for being concerned about immigration in Europe that don’t apply in the U.S.) However, I recognize that this assumes a lot and can be argued.
2. I think a much stronger argument (though it annoys many Americans no end) is that the Southwest and California were taken by force from Spanish-speakers in an unjust war. (A war fought, as abolitionists pointed out at the time, largely to extend slavery.) Immigration of Spanish-speakers into these parts of the U.S. has a particular historical rationale that cannot be generalized to all immigration everywhere.

I don’t disagree with your conclusions, by the way. I’m simply trying to suggest reasons why the dilemma isn’t as sharp as you appear to believe.

Edwin

 

[JimG]

I suppose one reason is economic protection. If anybody could apply for any job in America, American-born workers would find themselves out of a job pretty quickly, replaced by better qualified workers from elsewhere who are willing to work for less money.

This is true, although an argument can be made that many new immigrants, legal or illegal, really are willing to accept jobs that native born workers do not. If a nation’s labor pool is not growing or is not adequate, and labor needs cannot be met, then immigration becomes an economic necessity.

Also, but because of corporate globalization, many companies, if they cannot find workers in a particular country, will simply open production facilities in countries where they can find them. Sure, they are going for cheap labor. But the very fact of moving work to other countries will tend to better the economic conditions in those countries.

No worker now is in competition solely with his own countrymen. By the same token, neither is any corporation safe from global competition.

 

[christcnection1]

Well, why should ANY country have borders?

Why should the question be limited to the United States?

It wasn’t. read the second sentence.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Why even bother having property lines?

Do countries without private property rights have any less stability than countries like the United States that supposedly do have property rights (and properly lines)?

 

[punisherthunder]

We need a GIANT electric fence. That would solve most border issues…

 

[Steve40]

Because God divides up His Authority into separate civil authorities. He determines the boarders and how long a boarder will hold. All civil authority comes from God and as such they are responsible to God to maintain law and order. Since the US does not have God given jurisdiction over Mexico it needs to maintain a boarder to maintain control over it’s God given authority and only it’s God given authority.

If there is no hyerachy of cival authority with God at the Top we have anarchy. Just as within the family God shares His authority it is also true with countries. The same question could be asked as why does your house have a door that locks and why would you restrict anyone from entering your house, when they enter and why they enter. Authority within the home is a microcosm of authority within countries. The same pricipals apply.

Note: The loss of the US boarder to Mexico and the potential loss of our country to foreign nations may very well be the Hand of God. No country that kills it’s own children within the womb has a future and can survive as a sovereign nation.

 

[roanoker]

You have national borders for the same reason you have a door on your house. To let people who are welcome in, and to keep unwelcome people out. To say “no borders” is pretty much like saying “no laws”…

 

[Contarini]

Because God divides up His Authority into separate civil authorities. He determines the boarders and how long a boarder will hold.

So was it God’s will that the civil authorities of Nazi Germany had control of much of Europe for several years in the middle of the 20th century?

This kind of argument is self-refuting as well as morally vicious.

Edwin

 

[Steve40]

So was it God’s will that the civil authorities of Nazi Germany had control of much of Europe for several years in the middle of the 20th century?

This kind of argument is self-refuting as well as morally vicious.

Edwin

God gives us free will. You have free will as a father, as a mother, as a husband. The same is true for leaders of countries. A bad leader is the Judgement of God upon the people.

Just because God allows evil leadership does not mean the authority does not come from God. See the Chatechism on civil authority and St. Paul’s letter to Romans.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Why should the United States even have borders?.. Additionally, if a borderless reality poses serious dangers and threats, for various reasons, then it’s unjust for its “legal” citizens. …

Is that “Who would you attack if you had no enemy?”

I suppose one reason is economic protection. If anybody could apply for any job in America, American-born workers would find themselves out of a job pretty quickly, replaced by better qualified workers from elsewhere who are willing to work for less money….

not correct, I would love to cross the border for better cheaper medical care from those “better qualified workers from elsewhere who are willing to work for less money” same for buying cars, mowers exedra however there is a problem- they do not exist

Here in the UK, we are part of the European Union, which means European workers can move around freely, and live and work in any of the 27 member countries. Since Poland and other Eastern European countries joined the EU, Britain has seen a lot of jobs, such as plumbers, electricians and construction workers, being done by Polish migrant workers, who work for less money, expect a lower standard of living, and are often far better qualified than British workers who thought they had a monopoly on these jobs.

When a Brit pays 100 pounds for a job which used to cost 120 pounds what happens to the last 20 pounds?

In theory, it works both ways, British workers could take our money, go to Poland, buy a house very cheaply, and work over there. Only problem is, the pay is lower, there are few Brits who speak Polish, and the quality of life is lower, so there are few British people who would want to take this opportunity.
If there was complete global freedom of movement, then, in theory, within a few generations all the areas with high-level graduate economies (Europe, USA, Japan, etc.) would be full of all the world’s graduates, and all the poor countries would be full of all the world’s drop-outs. The problem is, the poor world would then lose all its’ doctors, teachers, etc. and would just get poorer and poorer, and eventually social mobility would stop.

I am not so sure, would the “high-level graduate economies” have PhD’s mow the yard, and replace the sewers? Or would free movement have those people spread their talents where the talents are needed?

This is true, although an argument can be made that many new immigrants, legal or illegal, really are willing to accept jobs that native born workers do not. If a nation’s labor pool is not growing or is not adequate, and labor needs cannot be met, then immigration becomes an economic necessity.
Also, but because of corporate globalization, many companies, if they cannot find workers in a particular country, will simply open production facilities in countries where they can find them. Sure, they are going for cheap labor. But the very fact of moving work to other countries will tend to better the economic conditions in those countries.
No worker now is in competition solely with his own countrymen. By the same token, neither is any corporation safe from global competition.

we could have a large amount of security. Let’s say 20%. Now since we tax at 40% already then the new tax rate would be 60%. Of course we can go higher to temporarily increase security. But the key word is “temporary” because we lack the ability to sustain that high tax and security.

 

[hazmatdude]

I have a huge objection to laws based on ethnic, racial and religious factors, and the sad fact is our current immigration laws are rooted firmly in such discriminatory bases.

You have made an incorrect assumption which is often repeated by those who wish to fuel enmity towards the United States over the immigration issue. The fact is that reforms of the 1960’s ended preferential treatment and quotas. Since then the majority of legal immigrants have have come from Latin and South America, India, Southeast Asia. It is also a fact that the majority of the 1M+ legal immigrants annually come from this hemisphere along with the almost 1M illegal aliens. Contrary to your opinion the United States as a nation accounts for the majority of legal immigrants in the world. Claiming that “our current immigration laws are rooted firmly in such discriminatory basis” is as unnecessary as it is mean spirited. I hope that someday you will realize that we are very welcoming and gracious country towards immigrants.