We should strive for open borders, here’s what’s needed
Dear Reader,
“Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”, a battle cry of the free west to rally behind the ideals of individualism over the rising sentiments of collectivism that was dominating the Soviet Bloc. Yet only thirty years later a leader of the same party is elected with the promise of building a wall instead of tearing one down. How could this be and why does it seem our values have shifted so drastically during that time?
Unlike the wall that is so controversial in America today, the Berlin Wall was not meant to keep people out. The Soviets constructed the wall almost overnight to keep East Germans from fleeing to West Berlin, it was a wall meant to keep people in. East Germany at the time was nothing short of a failed state, a puppet society created to send money and materials to Moscow while receiving no federal aid in return. The other side of the wall thrived, West Berlin was a market economy that had backing from the free societies of the west. Never in history has there been such a stark contrast in a single place, one side of the wall suffered from collectivist brutality while the other prospered under the principle of a market economy.
The American border wall is also the result of collectivism, in fact where collectivism occurs — a wall often follows. The U.S. started out the first 100 years of its’ existence without borders going so far into the days of Ellis Island where any person from any place could immigrate to the land of the free. At the time this was a mutually beneficial relationship, the more people came the larger the labor pool grew and companies needed to increase their supply to meet the market demand of a larger population. This obviously is not the common sentiment in the U.S. today. So why has this attitude changed?
The role of government changed near the turn of the century, up until FDR state services were restricted primarily to the utility of the justice system and the military. This attitude changed with the New Deal and government now played a leading role in how employment worked, how cities were structured, and a large welfare system began to form that continues to this day. This creates the crux of the issue when open borders make sense and when they do not.
1913 marks the first widely collected tax and many taxes we pay to this day arose from the New Deal age of the 20’s and 30’s. Suddenly there was a measurable price to being an American which isn’t necessarily an issue as long as you are gaining services from the government in exchange for your taxes. However, without borders there is no way to know if your fellow man is being taxed or if he is simply gaining government services off of your state contribution. This uneven system leads to a scenario where the minority are paying for the welfare of the majority based on the vote of the majority in a contract that wasn’t agreed upon by both parties.
In a scenario of taxation with no borders the social contract a government has with its citizens is null. The only way a thinking person can advocate for open borders is if the government funds itself without taxation, so until that is achieved it won’t be a realistic position to take. The collectivist position requires borders to maintain any kind of agency amongst its citizens.
So why not revert to the individualist Identity of the early America? It’s possible to do but it would take an upending of society not seen since the 20’s. Not until the individualist society is achieved would we be able to return to a society with open borders. I hope to see it happen one day. However, I’m not optimistic.
