If someone comes into that area, that room, that apartment, or that house without your permission or an invitation, you feel disrespected, annoyed and perhaps even at risk. In the case of the homeless, they react to an trespass of what they consider to be the borders of their space as if they have been invaded. Those of us who rent a room, an apartment or a house consider the space inside those walls as OURS. We have locks on the doors to secure OUR space.
Those who own houses consider even the property around their homes as theirs and often put up fencing around the yard or property that they own and on which their house sits, so they have the fencing AND locks on the doors to their homes; these all establish the borders of what is THEIRS and the law provides that they can protect that property, that house, apartment or room from the unauthorized, uninvited presence of others.
Groups of people create Towns, Cities Counties and states that also have borders to publicly declare and define the public areas for which the group is responsible, and for which the group will pay maintenance and protection. And for centuries, groups of people have formed countries, establishing borders and also establishing the requirements necessary for people living elsewhere to meet to a) visit, b) work, and./or c) become a member ( a citizen) of that country. Borders around a country are clearly an extension of the same universal human practice of defining, controlling, maintaining, enforcing laws and protecting property against all not members of the defining group.
In recent years we have heard so many comments, and read opinion pieces in the media, regarding the existence of borders. State borders, County borders, the borders of countries are all commented on, and the conversation or discussion always starts with those who think that they are an anachronism and even where they exist, they should not be "guarded" or "controlled." The United Nations "Agenda 21" program targets changing the world-wide perception of borders of countries as "dividing" to one of simple "address" concerns with the emphasis being on World Wide Unified governing.
Is this natural? Is it logical? Does it sound..."right"? The policy of enforcing borders of a country creates strong emotions...both for and against.
Those having these disparate viewpoints rarely communicate (they both talk, but rarely does either "listen"). It seems appropriate to look at and evaluate both viewpoints, their goals, and the effect on every man, women, and/or child that lives with what is now and what may be to come.
The most compelling observations on this subject involve observing and evaluating human behavior at all ages; consider the following:
- As soon as children begin to socialize, they experiment with sharing and establishing the idea of and promotion of "mine!" That is an ongoing concept every child honors naturally. They need parents or other adults to teach and then enforce the concept of sharing.
- As children reach the age of schooling, they do learn to share and cooperate for a purpose. The sharing or giving is arguably never self-less; it is to gain something (this can be money, return gifts at a later time or even an emotional reward of feeling good about giving someone something. But always there is a purpose that is seen as desirable by the one "giving" something with the parallel judgement that nothing bad can result from the giving.
- As we grow, the natural establishment of borders and boundaries continues. Notice how quickly children(s)' rooms become theirs; there is a cry of "can't you knock" from kids as their parents open the door to their bedrooms, and the whining only increases if a parent goes into that room without permission or searches through the possessions in that room. Again...borders.
- Leaving the family home and establishing other quarters exhibit the desire to establish and defend borders even more intensely. NOW there are locks, and violation of the borders results in societal enforcement (the Police and Courts get involved and they enforce the borders by fining or imprisoning the offender(s).
- Purchasing property further extends creating borders. And those borders are enforced by society by laws against trespassing, burglary and robbery, even as many home and property owners erect fences to delineate and prevent trespassing and other prohibited forms of invasion.
- Even in business the human race establishes borders: desk space, cubical space and formal offices with doors and locks. Violating the established boundaries can result in losing one's job.
The United States of America is just such a group. We fought to remove the "boundaries" or borders of England in order to create out own "group" with our own set of rules for living together. In our case this was the Constitution and the ideals presented so succinctly in the Declaration of Independence. Today's United States of America was created by wars, by purchase and by treaties. Once acquired, we established "boundaries" and "borders" that reflected "ours" and an implicit warning that "outsiders" would only be allowed if they abided by our rules and requirements for entering, visiting and immigrating to our country. Our government was and remains in charge of defining and enforcing those rules, which have changed over the years.
Respect for law and a desire to abide by laws is only natural to about 30% of us; and lack of respect or desire to abide by any laws rules another 20%. The remaining 50% will govern their lives by whatever the laws and rules governing behavior declare to be acceptable. But it is only the laws that are written, but the enforcement of them that makes them real and governing. It is arguably the failure to enforce laws that has reduced the general respect for all laws in today's America that has resulted in so many crimes and so much disrespectful behavior. To many in positions of authority had refused to enforce laws because they believe them to be wrong; they have never worked to get our legislature(s) to change the laws or write new ones with which the disagree. Yet the voters have continued to return to office the people who have abdicated their oath's of office to enforce our laws and protect the citizens.
Would those who argue for no border enforcement allow strangers onto their property and/or into their homes? Would those same people give up their security services, fences and locks to allow anyone at all to come onto their property, into their homes, take possession of rooms in their houses as living and entertainment quarters without objection?
What the "no borders" supporters want is identical to the goal of the United Nations "Agenda 21." The goal is a world government where a country's borders are equal to State, or county, or Town boundaries: for maintenance and policing only with no legal prohibitions of free movement from one to the other of any sort.
The Laws of the United States as of this moment require formal permission to enter our country if you are not a citizen of the United States. And if not a citizen, you have no right to vote in our national elections upon punishment of law. If you want to change that, it is our Federal Government that must vote changes in border enforcement and immigration law. In the meantime (until and unless the law is changed) our Congress and President must:
- Secure our borders
- prevent as well as remove any and all persons who cross our borders illegally.
My opinion (and I could be wrong) is...yes, but not for long. All of us want freedom for ourselves and, as long as it doesn't cause us harm or discomfort, for others. But if the freedoms granted (or appear to be granted to) others becomes a violation of our own freedom, that attitude not only vanishes, but reverses; if there is going to be some loss of freedoms, then let it be by "others," not us. Over time, the resentment builds to the point where the governmental entity that eliminated the concept of "borders" loses general public support and respect. Revolution or "Coups Detat" cannot be far behind and will be led by those advocating the re-imposition of enforceable borders and immigration rules that protect the present "citizens" of the area withing those borders, provided we preserve our Second Amendment Rights to Own Firearms.
What do you think? And why?