Thinking About Open Borders

 
First let us define our terms.

1.  A “border” is a boundary -- a dividing point -- between… what?  States, countries, empires, kingdoms, tribes, clans… in short, between the eternal “us” and the equally-eternal “them”.  It can be a natural border like an ocean or sea, a river, a mountain range… or, on the other extreme, it can be a purely imaginary and arbitrary line -- and I would offer the way the colonial powers divvied up the Middle East and West Africa as prime examples.  Those lines were drawn for convenience and for administrative purposes as much as anything else, typically with little or no attention paid to the more traditional territories of the native tribes.  (In fact, it has been argued that, in some cases, borders of “new” nations were drawn in order to intentionally split single ethnic and religious groups into two or more parts, thus robbing them of cohesion and thus of political and economic power.)  Some of these lines are so arbitrary as to be, basically, meaningless -- a line extending off into the desert, turning into a dotted line and then disappearing altogether.  (How upsetting for the map buff with OCD!)

2.  What, then, is an “open border”?  Is it simply a border that is not closed, i.e. is not like the border between East and West Berlin during the Cold War?  That’s one possible definition, but it’s not particularly useful.  I think most people correctly think of an open border as one where anyone intending to cross it is not impeded by either the authorities of the place they are leaving or those of the place they are crossing into.  And by “impeded” I mean not only by direct intervention by border guards and the like, but by man-made barriers like walls, fences, mine fields, moats, barbed wire, and so on.  So in dealing with the present case -- our border with Mexico -- any border that one can cross, in many areas, by simply wading ankle-deep across a narrow river, or by climbing over a nonexistent fence, or going through a gap in an incomplete wall, is an open border.  Oh, but wait -- you might say -- what about all those who are met, encountered, or “apprehended”?  Can you say “catch and release”, class?  Or catch, keep in custody for a few days, then release?  Or catch, fly to some other part of the country, then release?  So yeah -- it might not feel like an open border right away to everyone who comes across, but if their chances of being released and allowed to go their own way are much greater than their chances of being held for any significant amount of time, or even returned to Mexico or their country of origin, then we have an open border, for all intents and purposes.  (And if you don’t believe me, believe President Biden, who started welcoming any and all comers into the U.S. with open arms when he was still a presidential candidate.) (And if you don’t believe him, then believe the thousands of migrants who are convinced, based on what they’ve been told or heard on TV or the Internet, that all they have to do in order to enter the U.S. is to show up at the border, preferably sporting a Biden T-shirt which puts them on the fast track to citizenship.)    

Discussion:  If you look at the world map these days, there are very few areas that are unaccounted for or “disputed”.  Every major war includes, as part of its follow-up, some sort of “claims” commission that sorts things out, almost invariably in favor of the winners.  But that usually does not mean that large numbers of people have to be forcibly evicted from one place and transplanted to some other place --- notable recent exceptions being the establishment of the State of Israel and the division of India.  And of course there are hard feelings all around, since it’s almost instinctive that anyone occupying a piece of land of whatever size -- including the most unproductive patch imaginable (I think of the rocky coast of southwestern Ireland, when the only crop that will reliably grow is gorse (think “kudzu“ except in Ireland)) -- considers it “theirs” by right (either because “we’ve always lived here”, or by right of conquest, or by having been granted the property by a benign conqueror -- or, in modern times, by treaty).

But as for borders per se, well… other than those of the natural kind, I don’t think people in ancient times, or mapmakers in Medieval times, spent a whole of time worrying about, or creating, precise artificial lines separating one group from another.  Most of the maps from back then will show names of empires, countries, and ethnic and racial groups without including lines in between.  A bit later on you can see empires, countries, tribes, etc. designated by different colored blobs, and there are almost always spaces in between -- and this is important!  Those in-between spaces have served throughout history as buffer zones… as a form of intentional ambiguity, if you will, in order to provide a bit of flexibility and avoid squabbles.  And those in-between spaces -- no man’s lands -- have a reputation, over the millennia, for being wild and dangerous -- places for robbers and brigands -- and the part of a given country that is close to these spaces is called the “frontier” -- still wild, and only a bit less dangerous.  (Note that the United States is exceptional in that its frontier moved continually from the establishment of the original thirteen colonies until the official “closing of the frontier”.  (That was the point at which the settlement from the East met the settlement from the West, in a kind of virtual golden-spike event.))

But a funny thing happened about the time “civilization” evolved, i.e. that was more than just scattered castles, forts, and strongholds with surrounding peasant villages, fields, and forests.  These clans and tribes started bumping up against one other on a regular basis, hence the need developed for better-defined boundaries… borders… lines.  I always think of Germany before the unification, with its scattering of kingdoms, dukedoms, and independent cities, with boundaries carefully demarcated so that everyone knew exactly where they lived and who their ruler was -- no more “wilderness” in other words (kind of like Washington, D.C., where there are no vacant lots because the land is too valuable, and no free parking).

The situation in the American colonies was a bit different.  If you look at maps of where Native American tribes originally lived (before many were displaced and forcibly moved) you, again, see either just names on a map with no lines, or a bunch of blobs.  But enter the land companies and surveyors, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and now each tribe has its very own square, or rectangle, or polygon of some sort (again, often ignoring natural topography) because, well… it’s about property, see?  And ownership.  And pioneer settlement, hunting lands, trapping lands, cattle land, farm land, fishing rights, and so on.  And in the case of the Indian reservations, they had multiple purposes:  (1) Get the Indians out of the way of the European settlers; (2) “Civilize” the Indian tribes by providing them their own territory and, hopefully, eliminating intertribal conflict (not to mention attacks on the settlers); and (3) Imposing administrative and legal controls.  

Now, some of these provisions were, clearly, expressions of the conqueror  vs. the conquered.  Some were about grabbing all of the better land and access to waterways.  Some were about safety (for the non-Indians).  And some were, very possibly, benign -- such as the establishment of European-style schools and local (tribal) governments.  (There’s a lot of revisionism going on right now with regard to the schools -- but that’s a topic for another day.)

Borders in our time are, to a greater extent than at any time in history, firmly established, with lines drawn to a degree of precision only made possible by GPS technology.  This has its advantages, no doubt… but it also means that adjoining countries, tribes, clans, ethnic groups, etc. have no more buffer zones -- they confront each other “toe to toe” on a daily basis, and the border becomes a kind of fetish, as witness the elaborate daily gate-closing ceremony on the India-Pakistan border.  There is no wiggle room -- again with the exception of those dotted lines in the desert.  (The few remaining nomadic tribes do, indeed, tend to inhabit these “dotted line” areas, and couldn't care less which “country“ they happen to be in at any given time.)  (Back in the 1960s the Bedouins could move freely back and forth between Egypt and Israel, unlike anyone else.)  But in general even the most remote areas, such as the western Himalayas, are claimed, square foot by square foot, by someone -- and usually by more than one someone (hence conflicts in places like Kashmir).

So we see that while the concept of borders is age-old in one sense, the way in which it’s expressed can be highly fluid -- or at least has been in the past.  There is nothing at all unusual about our border with Mexico, which is part natural (the Rio Grande) and part drawn lines.  What is unusual is that the border is marked by a hodgepodge of fences and incomplete walls.  You can hardly call it fortified, but it is guarded to some extent, at least… and in this sense it’s the exception rather than the rule, both historically and even in the present day.  

The first fortified border (as opposed to a fortified city) we know about was the Great Wall of China, the remains (some restored) of which can still be seen today.  But the golden age, if you will, of fortified borders has to be the period starting with World War I and extending up to the present day -- and we all know whose borders they were and are, namely those of totalitarian (fascist or communist) states.  These also have the interesting feature of being designed to keep people in, as opposed to out -- the latter a feature of our border with Mexico.

But what is the essence of borders?  What do they all have in common?  Again, it’s the age-old question of Us vs. Them.  But it’s not just Us, it’s our cities, towns, villages, farms, homes, families, resources of all sorts (forests, waterways, lakes, trade routes, and so on).  These are all things that are -- or have been until just recently -- considered worth defending, and if they are not defended, or if the defenses are inadequate, the nation or culture in question is likely to perish at the hands of an aggressor (even if the “aggressor” is no more than an overwhelmingly great number of the “tired, poor, huddled masses yearning to breathe free“ -- or to breathe at all).

But what do aggressors -- invaders -- even migrants -- want?  They want what they don’t have, or more of what they do have.  So there is an economic basis for the whole border concept -- and the greater the disparity between the invader and the invaded, the more likely the invasion is to take place, and the more difficult is it to turn back.  (I won’t go into other factors like invasion for the purpose of religious conversion, which motivated much of the Muslim conquest of North Africa and parts of the Middle East, the Balkans, and Spain.  In that case the motivation was to provide the opportunity and privilege of being converted to Islam -- not that other factors were ignored, of course.)  (And by the same token, aren’t there fringe benefits when we invade a country in order to “spread democracy” and liberate people from whatever is it they need to be liberated from?  And if there aren‘t, why do we bother (some cynic might say)?)

But to return to the usual case -- whether you’re talking about an armed invasion by a modern army or people wading across the Rio Grande, it’s always about getting what you want, which basically means taking it from someone else, i.e. the people who already live there.  This is obvious.  In the short run, it’s a zero-sum game, although in the long run… well, who knows?  What’s not so obvious is what I’ll call the equilibrium point.  Just as water seeks its own level, so does poverty -- by which I mean that the poor, needy, and oppressed go from their native land to somewhere where they won’t be as poor, needy, and oppressed -- or (important point) where they think this will be the case.  And of course, human nature being what it is, people tend to be overly hopeful and optimistic in these circumstances.  They come here seeking the Gold Mountain, and instead find new and different kinds of poverty and danger.  But at least it’s not as bad as what they left back home -- or they tell themselves that (cognitive dissonance kicks in) and decide to stay and hope for the best.  

Now, in this high-tech and electronically/digitally-saturated environment, we can assume that once someone manages to penetrate our fraying border defenses and establishes themselves somewhere, they waste no time getting back to the folks back home and providing a progress report.  We can assume that this happens on a regular basis -- and that, given that it does, whatever they tell the folks back home isn’t enough to keep more of those folks from setting out on the same journey.  The people coming across the border with Mexico today aren’t pioneers, in other words -- they’ve been paying close attention for months, or years, and have decided to try their luck.  They come in waves -- contingent on weather, levels of poverty or strife back home, and, naturally, evolving expectations as to their likelihood of success.  These people are not stupid; in fact, I suspect they are among the more clever, resourceful, and courageous members of their respective societies (being at poverty level doesn‘t reflect badly on their abilities, in other words).  And now they are encouraged by various facilitators (AKA cartels) as well as by various NGOs and our own government.  They know things have changed, but they can’t be sure if the change is permanent (not being privy to all of the political nuances in play).  So many of them may feel that it’s now or never -- and if the “now” part lasts for weeks, months, or years, so much the better.  

So what would the equilibrium point be?  It would be the point at which conditions here -- in their new environment -- have degraded to the level of the environment which they left, or, once again, they perceive it to be such.  So… does this mean that the United States has to look and feel like the Northern Triangle -- like El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala?  Well, yes -- not the entire U.S. of course, but certainly the areas where the migrants wind up.  The turning point will be the day when the newest migrant calls home and says, in effect, forget about it -- things are no better here than they are down there.  Save your strength (and your money) and stay put.

So at this point, poverty will have reached its own level and equilibrium will be achieved -- and not only that, but all of the migrant advocacy groups and open-borders promoters at all levels (including in the government) will, hopefully, admit that “fairness” has been achieved at long last -- that Americans are no longer being selfish, exclusionary, prejudiced, bigoted, racist, etc.  We welcomed the world with open arms and, guess what, the world showed up!  (Of course this assumes that open-borders advocates will be happy and satisfied when the equilibrium point is reached.  They won’t be, of course, because they’re never happy -- “happy” is not on the life menu for them.  They will turn on a dime and find something else to be indignant about.  Professional activists are who they are for a reason, and it typically has very little to do with the supposed victim groups whose welfare they express so much concern over.)   

But will that golden day ever arrive?  Because there are people who seriously want this -- and some of them serve in Congress, some in the current administration, and -- I’m betting -- countless in the Deep State.  And of course “fairness”, “justice”, and “equity” are not necessarily on everyone’s mind either -- there are economic and political angles as well (cheap labor, reliable voting blocs, etc.).  Not every one of our problems can be solved with open borders, but it’s a start.  

Now, there are, of course, various objections to all of this, although I doubt if most of the skeptics have carried the logic quite this far.  But even the most basic grasp of history and economics will tell you that migrations -- mass movements of people -- happen for a reason, and as long as there’s a reason migrations will happen, which is the same as saying that as long as there are inequalities among people, they will be motivated to improve their lot.  (When expressed this way it seems totally obvious, doesn’t it?)  The world is not going to be suddenly set in stone just because some people would like it that way; things change, they evolve, they morph -- and yet human nature remains the same.  And as I said, the energy… the power… behind any mass movement of humanity is the desire for something better, and the greater the contrast, or gulf, between what they have and what they see (or think) that others have, the more energy and determination they will possess, and the more likely they are to succeed.  And it turns out, again historically, that the energy and determination of invaders is often more than a match for the determination of those who want to fend them off.  Human waves have, time after time, overcome the best defenses and the most advanced weapons systems.     

What our response is, or should be, to all of this is the question -- and again, we have the “fairness and equity” contingent saying, basically, we should let anyone in who shows up, no questions asked -- and any concerns about sustainability, or the political, economic, and social impact, are just symptoms of racism and selfishness.  People who feel this way to some degree but who aren’t as vocal about it might feel some hesitation about going all the way to the logical conclusion of open borders, but then one has to ask, where do they want to draw the line?  Because the true believers in our midst will say that no line should be drawn, and that you’re just being selfish if you try.  

On the other side of the political spectrum are those who repeat, as a mantra, “A country with no border is not a country.”  And while this is not strictly true from a historical perspective, as we’ve seen, in these times it seems more clearly to be the case.  But then we run into a paradox, as follows:  Again, historically, the Us vs. Them confrontations were based on traditional sources of identity -- race, ethnic group, religion, language, tribe, clan, etc. -- all those things which used to distinguish one people from another, because they were based on easily observable reality and human nature (in individuals and in groups).  The problem we have in the U.S. is that, “E pluribus unum” or not, we have never been united, beyond a certain point, along any of those traditional lines -- the ones anthropologists are so fond of studying.  The rage for “diversity” ignores the fact that we’ve always been diverse… mixed… hybrid… a “nation of immigrants” who are not always all that anxious to jump into the great American melting pot.  Traditional sources of identity survive, but they survive for those who value them and work to maintain them.  For the great number of Americans who have been -- voluntarily, in most cases -- “deracinated”, they may possess remnants -- family, home, hearth -- but otherwise all of the usual connective tissue that has held human societies together for millennia has frayed, decayed, and disappeared.  What’s left, for anyone who even feels a need for them, is ideas -- the American Experiment, the founding fathers, the founding documents, the flag, the National Anthem, and so on -- but these are only so consoling if the basic, organic culture is gone (or if it was never firmly established to begin with).  People down through the ages have fared quite well without all of these ideational trappings; they had their myths, legends, rituals, customs, and cultural features like music, dance, art, clothing, and so on… but again, these were rooted in reality, i.e. in the sort of reality that human beings need and instinctively respond to.  Not ideas, not abstractions, and certainly not politics as the be-all and end-all, but organic reality and a sense of place -- of belonging.  This is what is sadly lacking in our society, and the irony is that these hordes of migrants showing up at our border may well have a greater sense of all these things than we do.  And therein lies their hope, perhaps.  

Another way of expressing this is that organic culture builds resistance.  It’s a natural fortification against alien influences, especially those that are bent on attacking traditional customs or ways of thinking, watering them down, declaring them “outmoded”, “reactionary”, “racist”, etc. -- and, in extreme cases making them illegal and subject to punishment.  Among the many battle fronts in the culture wars of our time is that between those who value tradition, however expressed, and the globalists, who, despite their prating on about “diversity”, actually have as their goal the elimination of all differences and distinctions, and, ultimately, a totalitarian state composed of a ruling elite and a vast, gray army of serfs with no identity and no hope.  It’s no surprise, then, that when the globalists lay an axe to the root of any cultural tree, they always begin with religion, and then work their way up to race, ethnic group, family, and language.  All of these must be eliminated -- i.e., the idea of them must be eliminated -- the idea of them having value and being a source of identity.  Among the final acts in this drama -- the cherry on the top of the cake, if you will -- is language, and we see at this moment how language is being distorted, turned upside down, and “cancelled” of all rational meaning.  Language is the basis of thought, after all -- and a people without a functioning, reliable language is rendered incapable of rational thought -- or of any thought at all.  Try defining a value, or a tradition, without using words -- sure, you can point to things, but that’s not the same as describing them, declaring them to be of value, and adopting them as a mark of one’s own identity.  

And what about these globalists, after all?  What about the moguls of Silicon Valley and the mainstream media talking heads?  What about the denizens of the boardrooms of large mutinational corporations?  Aren’t they human too?  Well yes, in the strictly biological sense.  But somewhere along the line they opted out of any sort of traditional markers of identity and decided to be self-made -- which means that their only thing of value is themselves, and this is almost always expressed as a lust for power -- not only power over the physical world but over other people.  The natural human longing for the spiritual has, in them, been distorted to the point where we can say that power is their religion, and there is no other.  But they are not satisfied with being self-contained in their bizarre world where everything is its own opposite.  Perhaps on some deep level they realize they are living the most profound lie of all, but rather than give it up they defend it by hunting down anything that might expose it -- that might shed light on what it really is and how little it amounts to.  This is why they are constantly at war, and this, of course is what the “culture wars” are all about.    

The globalists’ weakness is not that their power is not real -- it is very real.  But it’s parasitic.  It cannot stand on its own, but needs a host -- and that host is, simply, the vast array of humanity -- confused, discouraged, and powerless though they be -- that follow orders because they haven’t a better idea, and that live always with some degree of chronic fear.  And yet they are a resource -- they work the land, if you will, whereas the globalists work… what?  Paper, electrons, images, illusions, fantasies -- all aimed at creating and perpetuating fear, mollifying it to some extent, then creating more and even newer and novel species of fear, in an endless cycle.  So any resistance to the globalists, their march through the institutions, and their assault on culture and the eternal verities must be based on that very culture and on those eternal verities, because that’s where the real power of the people resides.  Individual rights, ambition, initiative, creativity, etc. are all fine things, and necessary -- but those will not overcome the tidal wave… the onslaught… from globalists and their programs and instruments.  Only re-unifying in a solid, organic way will work -- but do we have the strength, motivation, and insight to do this?  A few seem to, but the bulk of the citizenry at this point seem to have already given up, capitulated, and retreated -- thinking, wrongly, that there is some place to hide, whereas in fact there is none.    

Just remember, the globalists fear us more that we fear them.  They may threaten our livelihood, or our very lives, but we threaten their view of the world and of their place in it; we threaten their reality.  I always imagine them looking down upon the simple folk and feeling a pang of envy and regret -- like, that’s what I once had, or could have had, but I gave it up for the proverbial mess of pottage.  So they react with blind rage, because they don’t realize that it’s not too late to repent.  

So with regard to open borders -- there are more ways to be conquered than by sheer numbers.  A weak and frail culture is ripe for replacement with something more vigorous and firmly rooted.  When we see these migrants trekking up through Mexico, making their way across the Rio Grande, and dropping from exhaustion in squalid holding centers, we may in fact be seeing our future.  Their lot will, eventually, improve -- and the resultant leveling may not be to everyone’s taste, but it will occur; it has to.