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?

Why such an increase in lawlessness?

While certain crimes appear to be fewer in number, general lawlessness seems on the increase, as does a disrespect for the concept of Law.  Why?

Some argue that increased enforcement of laws has also come with lawless behavior on the part of those enforcing laws.  Is that true...or is that a nurtured perception made possible by the ubiquitous nature of phone cameras and the social networks that make no effort to separate truth from fiction?  Whatever the truth, and I would suggest the impact is relatively small, that does not really help to answer the question as to basic cause.

There is a theory that of the total population in America, there are about 20% that will always try to do the right and just thing, regardless of the law, its enforcement or the attitude of those around them.  That theory also puts forward the likelihood that about 15% of the people in the country are true psychopaths, who ignore the law and attitudes about them with the exception of the care they take to do exactly what they want to, when they want to.  Laws have no effect on them, and they regard the attitude of others as inconsequential.  That leaves 65% of the population.  That 65% is arguably highly influenced by the attitude of those around them and the degree of enforcement that various laws receive; if a law is ignored by the authorities, they will ignore it and break it with impunity and no sense of guilt...if a law is enforced and stringent punishments applied in a timely manner, they will forego breaking that law, even if they would wish to.  While I can not verify the percentages suggested, I have no doubt that the three categories exist and that the vast majority of the populace is affected by laws and their enforcement.

So...back to the question.

It is inarguable that most of the laws in America are NOT enforced effectively; many are archaic and remain on the books, others are spottily enforced to the point where people are fined when caught but the vast majority will break those laws to some degree because of the small odds of being caught.  But these factors have always been around and can be considered a constant.

So, let us turn to the matter of "selective" enforcement of laws...and almost as importantly, the selective "unenforcement" of laws.  Laws were intended to reflect "right" behavior.  Over time the concept or "right" and "wrong" have, for better or worse, gone by the wayside and now the law reflects "legal" and "illegal" behavior.  Often this allows what is clearly wrong to be allowed as legal.  This muddies the waters of any logical mind as they view the power and dictates of a formal society that has a governmental presence to enforce this "Legal" point of view.  Civil Rights is a case in point where for years "wrong" was "legal."  People broke the "law" to point this out.  What was remarkable in the last century, however, was that those who broke those laws expected and were willing to suffer the legal punishment in order to bring attention to the "wrongness" of those laws.  They did not expect to go unpunished; they respected the need of laws to be enforced if they were to have any validity at all...that to not be punished would take away the efficacy of ALL laws.

That is no longer true today.  The Judicial System, including both judges and prosecutors, frees without penalty the vast majority of those arrested by police officers with little regard for the fact of the misdeed in favor of the technicalities that allow them to release most accused.  In truth, such actions have fostered a belief in the majority of our citizens that most laws don't matter and there is little reason to be concerned for, or expect the meaningful enforcement of, the law generally.

Then we have the example set by the Federal Government of the United States of America;  The President ignores laws on the books and directs law enforcement personnel to disregard them; the Congress passes RICO statutes but exempts themselves from the application of them; the Justice Department ignores perjury in sworn statements to Congress on the basis of political alignment, and then fails to elicit facts of disputes before condemning those front line Police Officers around the country tasked to be the first line of defense against lawlessness and crime.   Government employees routinely break the law and are, save for the very occasional sacrificial lamb, never punished in any way, while citizens are routinely charged, have their money and property taken without due process and otherwise abused.  Arguably the Federal Government made Organized Crime illegal because it didn't want the competition.  And now, many would argue that they now are willing to license such activities as long as they get their share.

So why is there any wonder at all as to why lawlessness is on the increase.  There is little, if any, honor of the concept of "what is RIGHT" in Washington.  Instead, it is whether something is legal or...if illegal...proof can be eliminated.  Our "Leaders" set the example and then they complain that we do as they do instead of as the "say".

Our police departments know how to fix this...but they are ignored.  It is the "broken window" approach: take notice and action against the smallest infraction and it will lessen the tendency of more egregious law breaking to take place.  Protect the civil nature of a neighborhood and lawbreakers find it harder to have a disparate impact.  Bring to trial those who are accused quickly so that both the miscreant and the public understand the relationship between the misdeed and the punishment (does anyone other than a victim's family really connect a killer being put to death with the horror of their crime 10 or 15 years ago?).

A true Leader...a Representative Government...trusts the system to discover and prosecute fairly those who break the laws.  They forego pre-judging any matter, as that is for a jury of the citizenry, not an elected or appointed official, to rule.  And even as the quality and training of our Law Enforcement Personnel is scrutinized and their performance analyzed, there is respect and a demand made by all for the well-being and honoring of those who put their safety at risk to protect the rest of us.

ALL lives, including the quality of those lives, matter.  Those who call for the killing of members of the Police Force are inciting lawlessness.  Truly, if they were to be successful and we return to mob rule, it is they who would fall as the first victims of majority mob rule.  Be careful what you wish for.

A cohesive argument can be made that the true cause of the current state of disrespect and disregard for the law lies with the actions and words of the United States Federal Government...and that they should be held accountable.

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?