Borderline Thoughts

Stop driving me away
I just want to stay
There's something I just got to say
--Madonna

Interesting questions raised by Pat Buchanan and other about US immigration policy have me thinking once again about the role of borders in society and government's role in maintaining them. Searching these pages for previous missives on the subject, I was surprised by how often, and how long ago, this topic has been on my mind.

This post serves as a lander page of sorts for these previous thoughts that might serve as a useful reference point in the future.

Role of borders in society. Boundaries have been drawn since the early days of civilized society--suggesting a natural tendency of human beings to do so. Possible reasons for doing so include selfishness (inappropriately possessive), security, economic (e.g., facilitate trade), or social (preference for living with similar individuals).

Desirability for borders as a means for creating political competition and choice. The idea is that differing political systems operating in each bordered society compete with each other for citizens. People will leave societies with less desirable political systems in favor of the better ones. Some believe this should benefit liberty over time.

An interesting thought experiment related to the 'borders as political competition' idea above is to imagine that the geography of the continental US is split at the Mississippi River into two countries. One side houses people who believe in liberty. On the other side are those who believe in state-sponsored 'equality.' Over time, the prosperity realized by Liberty will attract people who have become impoverished in Equality. At some point, Equality will have to erect exit barriers to stem the outflow--or, of course, throw off its totalitarian state. On the other hand, Liberty's destiny will depend on the extent to which its citizens can limit the scope of its government.

That conclusion--i.e., the success of a society founded on the principles of liberty is dependent on limiting scope of government--has led to several posts (here, here, here, here) that essentially consider the 'open border' problem. The central conclusion is this. When property rights are well respected and not confiscated to fund welfare programs available to all, then open borders are preferred. Open borders create competition and mobilize labor seeking opportunity. Prosperity will increase. However, if property is being confiscated to fund welfare programs, then borders cannot be open. People seeking a free ride, as well as those ideologically opposed to the notion of liberty, will cross borders (and/or encourage others to cross borders) to consume resources that they did not earn. If borders are not secured, then the welfare state grows ever larger under such circumstances until it collapses under its own weight.

This leads to an issue that has sparked much public debate recently: the erection of physical barriers such as walls as deterrents to unwanted border crossing. One camp likes to argue that 'wall don't work.' Because people can climb, tunnel, fly over, go around them, wall don't keep people out. What this camp conveniently omits from its argument are the words 'all' and 'some.' While walls certainly don't keep all out, they certainly keep some out. We can be sure that most of the very same people who argue against building border walls have fences around their yards, security systems in their houses, and locks on their doors. Few of these people are naive enough to expect these security measures to keep out the most hardened and dedicated criminals. But they will slow some down and deter others. The more formidable the wall, the greater the deterrent to illegal border crossing.

That said, there is a very good case to be made for alternatives to walls. Reduce trade barriers. Barriers such as tariffs increase cost of doing business and motivate locals to cross borders in search of better opportunity. Existing laws that restrain illegal immigration could also be more fully enforced. Finally, reduce welfare state incentives that attract immigrants seeking to live off the production of others.

Most recently, these pages have considered how orchestrated efforts have magnified the border problem. Politically motivated groups are using children as pawns and a complicit media to capture emotional support for conditions that, as noted above, are certain to sink the system: porous borders in tandem with an inclusive welfare state.