National Borders:why?

Do you have your own "space?"  Maybe, if you're homeless, it is a tent, a bench, a grate or a grocery cart...but do you consider it "yours."  Do you have a home?  Do you rent a house or an apartment?  Maybe you rent a "room."  These all have one thing in common: most consider the area involved as THEIRS.

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.

Group behavior mimics the desire for boundaries.  Villages, Towns, Cities, Counties, states and countries all have boundaries and borders.  People living within the various boundaries share the common costs of the given area: police for protection, road creation and maintenance that benefits all, utility maintenance and rate control oversight, building codes, school costs and other needs and agreed upon desires; by renting or owning property you agree to the rules of these "boundaries."  And it benefits all who qualify.

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?

Would you?

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:

1. Secure our borders
2. prevent as well as remove any and all persons who cross our borders illegally.

Can any government or society survive without borders?

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?

When did "citizens" get downgraded to second class status?

Way more than a half century ago I studied the Constitution.  It didn't excite me, failing as so many of my homework assignments were want to do, and while I now appreciate the assignment, as it helps me find particular sections more quickly.  When in school, the Constitution seems quite simple and quite clear: three branches of government, each with their separate responsibilities, and a check and balances element to keep the government from becoming the threat to individual liberty that Thomas Jefferson so deeply feared.

And the purpose of the Federal Government was to defend the Citizens and the borders of the United States of America, providing for the common defense and common good.

I spent some time looking through my dog-eared copy of the Constitution the other night, looking for the Amendment that vacated that last purpose.  I couldn't find it.  That still puzzles me, because it surely must have been repealed, or somehow eliminated.  Why?  Well, because the Federal Government is now taking steps to protect non-citizens as a priority over protecting citizens.  Apparently my citizenship now grants me second class status.  I think this is wrong.  I never heard any discussion about a change.  I was never consulted...or given an opportunity to vote on such a change.  So...why is it so.

Do I hear some of you saying "You are wrong; there has been no such change, ... what are you talking about!"?  Well...Consider the following factual points:

First: our borders are "protected" inadequately and those assigned to protect the border actually help and provide aid to people "sneaking" across and into our country;

Second: our federal administrative courts and tribunals release in the general public most of those apprehended with no certainty or, apparently, expectation that they will appear at their next scheduled court appearance and with no way of knowing where they might start looking for these people who are in our country illegally;

Third: while our economy is barely holding steady and we have millions of citizens who cannot find work in their fields or with the sufficient hours that would enable them to support their families, the Federal Government now is going to allow  a minimum of 5 million people who have come into the country illegally to get Social Security accounts and work permits so that they can compete head to head with the law-abiding citizens of this country.  Our President actually is defying Congress in this step to provide greater difficulty for citizens to find work and jobs that they so badly need;

Fourth: the federal government, when presented with State activity to protect their borders, their businesses, their roads, their homes from people present in their states illegally, prohibits and takes to court those states and prevents those states from protecting its citizens.

Fifth: the federal government provides aid...paid for by money paid in taxes by the citizens of this country...to those here without legal permission.

Now, maybe I just don't understand the situation.  However, absent a Constitutional Amendment that makes citizenship a second class existence, I am waiting for anyone in what is presumably MY (and every other citizen's) government to explain why I have been told to stand still while the welfare of non-citizens has been made a priority over my, and my family's, welfare.

Exactly when, and WHY,  did the cart get put in front of the horse?

A "probable" solution to the flood of minors coming over our Southern Border

Let us forget the "blame" game regarding the overwhelming flood of minor illegal aliens crossing our southern borders.  The first question should be "how do we stop it and get control over our border?"

The only logical solution I have heard so long has been presented by Senator Flake, from Arizona.  His answer:  Ship a couple of planes to each of the major source countries for these minors chock full of those very same kids.

Consider that families have paid many thousands of Dollars to human smugglers and the cartels to send their children to the "land of milk and honey" expected that we will take them in, and they will have a chance for the American success story.  I can't blame them.  And, truth be told, our current administration has given those parents every reason to think this country will "wink, wink, nod, nod" and allow them to stay.

But...if suddenly those children start showing up back home in planes sent by the United States Government, those parents have just thrown thousands of dollars away...dollars they had to skimp and scratch to get in the first place.  They will not throw...perhaps cannot...that kind of money away again without the likelihood of success.

The result would be that within 30 days the flood would start to abate, and within 90 it would virtually come to a halt, and the border would normalize.

That is not to say that there would not continue to be the ongoing drug smuggling and adult crossings, but that would be a matter for another, much longer, discussion.

Two or three plane loads to each country...9 plane loads tops...and this problem starts to go away.  Mr. Obama, you can fast track  that many kids in two months...get to work.  It would help mightily if you were to discipline yourself to stay in the Oval Office and actually work at this...but even if you have to assign it to someone else, get it done.  Fix this.  You can do it.

Napolitano to aid Afghan Border Security?

Sometimes, like Alice, I am tempted to mutter, "we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto."  Reading an article on Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano's visit to Afghanistan, I actually did say that out loud.  But at least I was not overheard.

Ms. Napolitano arrived in Kabul this morning and ostensibly will meet with senior U.S. and Afghan officials to discuss security progress.  At first I was impressed that Ms. Napolitano was going to people who had experience in security measures, both in country and on the borders, and could give her guidance on how to handle our own difficulties in both travel and how to protect our borders.  Alas, I was to learn that I was in error...and that I had left Kansas (Well, actually I didn't start in Kansas, but I hope you will allow me the metaphor.).

Allow me to quote what came next in this morning's news article...ready?

"Napolitano also is accompanied by six DHS customs and border security agents who will join already personnel in Afghanistan to provide civilian security assistance to local officials. These officers work with the Afghan government to try to secure the country’s borders from militants, as well as from weapons and drug smugglers."(emphasis added)


The person who cannot bring herself to assign more personnel to our Borders to stop smugglers, gun runners and illegal aliens from coming unchecked into the United States is going to provide training to the Afghans on how to accomplish that?  What is this, a parallel universe?  I have never read anything so preposterous in my life.  This is akin to having an illiterate teach another how to read.

Not only that, but when we need additional agents on our own border, why is she sending 6 of ours to another country?  Can we take care of our own border first, thank you?  This is so wrong words cannot begin to do it justice.

I will give the Secretary points for accuracy...at least she used the word "try" rather than promise an absolute result...but that is probably just a political habit thing to leave the door open for escape in the event of failure.

Fallacy of "Immigration Reform"

I am mystified by the acceptance of the term "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" as a label by anyone (other than those in favor of amnesty for those in our country illegally) as a description of the discussion of the failure to secure our borders along with the questions posed by so many people in America illegally.

They are totally different questions and history has proven that they must be discussed and a workable solution found separately.

President Reagan got a so-called comprehensive reform package passed, but Congress reneged on the requirement to secure the borders. Those of us who remember this governmental failure and dereliction of a Constitutional duty will rebel if Congress were ever to try to con us again.

I do not know what constitutes appropriate action on the part of the federal government, but I suspect that most people feel that current law required the Federal Government to control our borders. The are not doing that. Seems to me some smart person who was also a lawyer (or knew of a smart lawyer) might bring a writ of mandamus to require the Federal Government to do its sworn job.

Same thing holds for those in the country illegally. Perhaps a writ to require that Federal Officials track down those in the country illegally and deport them and to track down those in the country who hire them and fine and jail them might be in order? I dare say that if all employers who hire those who are not here legally were fined and jailed, those who could no longer find jobs and were here illegally would leave or take whatever action our law required to become legal. So...exactly what is meant by "reform"?

And...what is with this "if your born here, you are a citizen" stuff. No other country in the world, as far as I know, allows this. Sort of akin to "if you break into the bank and give birth to a child while there, you will be arrested, but the kid can take whatever he or she likes...and later can get you out of jail." Seems just a tad illogical, doesn't it?

Illegal Immigration

When you want to find out what is causing an action, the answer is to "follow the money or the power." The dangers of illegal Immigration are clear:

1) When we have more than enough trouble identifying lawbreakers who are already citizens of America, we now ignore hundreds of thousands who come across our borders with no background check. Look at the horrible crimes that have been committed here that would not have victimized citizens and others if immigration laws were enforced...and we have no idea how many terrorist recruiters have taken up illegal residence.

2)We are establishing an attitude that laws aren't to be obeyed; that we, the people won't enforce the laws; that laws are "optional" in terms of being honored and obeyed. If you don't like a law, work to change it...don't violate it.

3) The silly notion that lawbreakers are entitled to the rights and privileges of citizens is preposterous; The constitution is essentially a contract between the people and the government...anyone who tries to enforce a contract has to show that they have abided by the contract in order to have the other side perform as promised. Illegal immigrants have not abided by the law and therefore should not be entitled to the benefits of the contract (constitution).

Now, look at what and to whom benefits flow if illegal immigration is unchecked and those who are here illegally can vote; where is the money and the power flowing?

1) Business’ gets cheaper labor and therefore can make higher profits or sell at lower cost (in some cases, I am sure, both are true);

2) Those who despise the United States would love to see our country overrun by those who have no patriotic feelings or duty felt to the country;

3) Those of a liberal bent (who want to take other's money and give it to those that they deem in need [as long as it isn't their money]) believe that if illegals are given status and citizenship that the new citizens would naturally vote for those that championed their cause and provide a new and overwhelming majority to sweep said liberals (opps, "Progressives") into power with no threat from "non-like-thinkers."

These are the motivations...money, destruction, and power. And no one is going to do a thing to stop it, because politicians put their own self-interest ahead of the Country...because the last thing they want is to lose an election and have to come back to where they started and have to actually earn a living and live with the laws that they passed.