“A Nation Needs a Border”
Excerpted from The Case Against the State by Tanner Cook
Proposition:
The claim that a “nation” (which is a presupposition that collectivizes individuals, and in itself, carries a burden of proof) needs a border, is an assertion which must be reasoned, and when the evidence is examined, especially when compared to the cost and incompetence of the State’s attempt at implementing this border, it’s clear that not only does a “nation” not require a border, but the State has failed miserably in regard to producing one.
Reasoning:
It’s funny, being raised in Minnesota, I have much more in common with someone from Winnipeg, in Canada, than I do with someone from San Diego, California, yet, it is the Canadians who pose an inherent threat to me because they come from a land that’s not an incorporated territory of the United States, even though, geographically, it is much closer to me. They must have permission from the government and be subject to searches before they can be allowed to visit me, or I, them. But the individual from San Diego, who may as well be from Mexico, can travel virtually unobstructed to my residence. The arbitrary lines drawn by the State separate friend from alien. This distinction is not based on any other reason aside from legal dictate. For if the State annexed the area of Winnipeg, all other factors remaining constant, they would no longer be aliens, rather friends. They would cease being treated as a potential threat to my safety and instead be permitted to associate with me just as freely as the individual from San Diego. Likewise, if Mexico were to incorporate San Diego, the individual who was, just moments ago, free to associate with me, would now be viewed by the State as an alien. It becomes evident that State borders are not implemented for our safety and protection; the perceived threat is entirely arbitrary as far as security is concerned. It would seem as though the true purpose is to control the movement of humans, just as a farmer’s primary purpose of fencing in his animals isn’t to protect them from wolves, it’s to keep his source of revenue from wandering off. When did the injustice of borders begin?
For the first century of its existence, the United States had an open-border policy and did not regulate or restrict immigration at all. It wasn’t until 1882 that the first immigration restriction was set in place. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was enacted to restrict the number of Chinese laborers from entering the country as well as impose a fifty-cent tax on each immigrant.1 We didn’t even have agents patrolling the border until 1924.2 In less than ten years, the government’s immigration regulations became so numerous and complex that an agency needed to be created to manage it. The Immigration Act of 1891 established the Office of the Superintendent of Immigration to direct the newly created U.S. Immigrant Inspectors stationed at the principal ports of entry around the United States.3 This act also placed further restrictions on travel by barring those suffering contagious diseases, persons convicted of “moral turpitude” as well as polygamists.4 I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Immigration Act of 1903; as an anarchist, I found it most interesting. This law barred all those who, “disbelieves in or who is opposed to all organized government.”5 From an authoritarian perspective, this only makes good sense; but I digress. Just like every other government agency, the budget never ceased expanding either. Since the beginning of the federal takeover of immigration, the regulatory agency grew exponentially but had always been sustained by a tax placed on those seeking entry, not U.S. citizens. Even with a substantial increase on the tax imposed on immigrants from fifty-cents to two dollars, by 1909, it was no longer able to sustain the growing agency, and the funding for immigration services became annually appropriated.6
Getting into the United States had become increasingly difficult since the creation of immigration regulation but getting out of the U.S. was never an issue. Up until 1918, U.S. citizens were not required to have passports in order to travel. This all changed following America’s entry into World War 1, after the signing of the Wartime Measure Act made it, “unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States unless he bears a valid passport.”7 This lasted until 1921, but upon entering World War 2 in 1941, the requirement was enacted again.8 The World Wars essentially marked the end of the freedom to travel without government permission. Following the end of World War 2 in 1945, the passport requirement continued in the name of “national emergencies”9 and later, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, passports were now required for all citizens departing and entering the United States. Exceptions were made for travel to certain countries in the Western Hemisphere,10 however, most countries within the Western Hemisphere required American travelers to have a valid U.S. passport in order to enter.11
Fast forward to today, and over 100,000 employees are allotted over 28 billion dollars to enforce the ever-increasing restrictions and regulations.12 Immigration and Customs Enforcement has offices in 46 foreign countries.13 This doesn’t even include the multitude of other agencies that support immigration enforcement such as the Transportation Security Administration with over 53,000 personnel and a budget of over $7 billion,14 or the U.S. Coast Guard with over 86,000 personnel and a budget of over $11 billion.15 The Border Patrol has even gone so far as to establish checkpoints up to 100 miles inside the U.S. to inspect travelers at will, without probable cause.16 This clear violation of the Fourth Amendment,17 alleged to protect against searches without probable cause, was dismissed by the very individuals who are supposed to be charged with upholding it. The 1976 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Martinez-Fuerte officially sanctioned the checkpoints.18 Keeping in mind that the Constitution is said to be the highest legal authority and that the Fourth Amendment of said Constitution clearly forbids searches without probable cause, notice the overt contradiction in the Border Patrol’s declaration of the “legal authority” they claim to establish interior checkpoints while referencing the Code of Federal Regulations:
“Immigration Officers, WITHOUT A WARRANT, may within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States…board and SEARCH for aliens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle.”19 (Emphasis is my own.)
The few individuals who ruled in favor of the checkpoints may think it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment, but the travelers who actually pass through these checkpoints feel differently. According to an ACLU report, which investigated Southern Arizona border sectors “Tucson” and “Yuma,” documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed that between the fiscal years of 2012 and 2013, over 81 complaints involving alleged Fourth Amendment violations occurred at just two of the Border Patrol’s twenty sectors in that area.20 Of course, the Department of Homeland Security only disclosed three such complaints nationwide to Congress during that time.21 Furthermore, these checkpoints appear to be terribly ineffective and inefficient in their stated cause. The ACLU report reviewed the Border Patrol’s own data and concluded that the Tucson Sector checkpoints only produced 0.67 percent of the sector’s total apprehensions.22 9 out of 23 checkpoints didn’t produce any arrests at all.23 In the Yuma Sector, 8 U.S. citizens were being arrested for every non-citizen.24 In 2011, it was 11 U.S. citizens for every non-citizen.25 Is the Border Patrol even effective in securing the border? The 16 billion-dollar agency with over 60,000 employees only manages a 64 percent success rate as of 2016.26 Considering the mass scale of human rights violations and cost to the taxpayer, this is certainly not a passing grade.
After reviewing the astronomical cost of immigration control and border enforcement and the flagrant violations of our right to travel freely, one must ask, is the threat outside our border even real? Following the attacks on September 11th, terror was the boogeyman of the State. The Border Patrol has doubled its agents at the border since 2001 in response to the 9/11 Commission Recommendations.27 However, a 2016 policy analysis from the Cato Institute gathered data from a period of 41 years and found that the chances of an American being killed by a foreigner in a terror attack on U.S. soil were 1 in 3.6 million per year. The chances of being killed by a refugee, 1 in 3.64 billion, and the chances of being killed by an illegal immigrant in a terror attack, 1 in 10.9 billion.28 Just to put that in perspective, the chances of being struck by lightning in the U.S. is 1 in 700,000.29 Interestingly enough, of the (19) 9/11 hijackers who were allegedly responsible for 88 percent of all terror attack deaths in the U.S., the State approved all of their entries into the country.30 The report accounts for five more attacks that have occurred post-9/11, killing 24 people. All of these terrorists were permitted to enter the country by the State as well.31
Terror isn’t the only concern though. What about crime? How many times have we been subject to the fear mongering of media pundits and politicians concerning illegal immigrants murdering and raping our citizens? But do they commit crime at higher rates than U.S. citizens? A study published in the Criminology journal shows that between the years of 1990 and 2014, states with higher percentages of undocumented immigrants actually had lower crime rates. The report summarizes:
“Increases in the undocumented immigrant population within states are associated with significant decreases in the prevalence of violence.”32
A study from the Cato Institute also discovered that illegal immigrants in Texas were much less likely to commit crimes than their native-born citizen counterparts. The report’s author Alex Nowrasteh concludes:
“As a percentage of their respective populations, there were 56 percent fewer criminal convictions of illegal immigrants than of native-born Americans in Texas in 2015.”33
And then there’s the issue of welfare. This concern, expressed mostly by the Right, is so inconsistent with the data and so self-contradictory that it’s almost not even worth arguing, but I’ll take a moment to address it for the sake of due diligence. First off, illegal immigrants are not eligible for federal benefits by law.34 Second, if there are benefits which they receive legally, then they are not in violation of the law in regard to welfare. So, if legality is your measure of what should be permitted and prohibited, then the illegal immigrants aren’t actually doing anything wrong by accepting the public benefits, and therefore, you cannot take issue with welfare handouts, only their illegal status. And finally, it isn’t the illegal immigrant that’s forcibly confiscating your money, it’s the officials of the State. When assessing moral culpability, the condemnation falls on the actor whose actions violate you. If it goes against your convictions to subsidize the welfare of an illegal immigrant, then refuse to contribute your money and see who comes knocking on your door; will it be an illegal immigrant or an agent of the State?
The Border Patrol isn’t the only government agency molesting travelers. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) takes a much more “hands-on” approach. After the September 11th attacks, the TSA was established and tasked with providing security primarily to the nation’s airports. If there was ever a glaring example of a failed government program, this is it. Ripe with scandals and failures, the TSA has proven time and again to be entirely ineffective and incompetent. In 2015, fourteen years after the establishment of the agency, Homeland Security investigations conducted at dozens of the nation’s busiest airports revealed that agents failed to detect mock weapons and explosives 95 percent of the time.35 A 2006 audit from the Office of Inspector General confirmed that TSA officials at the San Francisco International Airport colluded with the covert testers to alert the agents responsible for screening passengers to the presence of the testers. The OIG stated in their review:
“We confirmed the allegation that TSA and Covenant Aviation Security (CAS) officials at SFO compromised OIG covert security testing between August 2003 and May 2004 by tracking testers throughout the airport via surveillance cameras and on foot, and then notifying screening personnel in advance of testers arriving at checkpoints.”36
From 2009 through 2013, TSA spent $1 billion on full body scanners37 which, according to a report from research teams of multiple universities, failed miserably. For starters, these scanners violate the travelers right to privacy. As the researchers note:
“It creates a naked image of the subject. Scans can reveal sensitive information, including anatomical size and shape of body parts, location and quantity of fat, existence of medical conditions, and presence of medical devices such as ostomy pouches, implants, or prosthetics. As figures throughout the paper show, the images are quite revealing.”38
On top of the gross violation of privacy, the report also claimed:
“We were able to conceal knives, firearms, plastic explosive stimulants, and detonators. We further demonstrated that malicious software running on the scanner console can manipulate rendered images to conceal contraband.”39
It’s difficult to understand how this type of colossal equipment failure can occur when the TSA assures us that:
“Technology procured by the Transportation Security Administration goes through a rigorous testing and evaluation process, along with certification and accreditation.”40
Lastly, the claim that a nation needs a border not only isn’t supported by evidence but first requires you to substantiate your presupposition of the term “nation.” If by nation, you’re referring to everyone inside the incorporated territory of a State, then you need to prove that every individual within the incorporated territory needs a border. This has not been accomplished or even attempted and furthermore, an individual can provide their own private border if need be.
In conclusion, knowing the minimal amount of risk, or zero risk, illegal immigrants pose to citizens, the ineffectiveness, incompetence and intrusiveness of the agencies charged to regulate immigration, and the astronomical expense to the taxpayers, not only can we dismiss the threat, but a simple cost-benefit analysis would conclude that the State has utterly failed in its endeavor to efficiently and effectively secure the border it claims and protect citizens from imagined wrong- doers.
References:
1 “Early American Immigration Policies.” (2019) History and Genealogy. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/history- and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies
2 “Era of Restriction.” (2019) History and Genealogy. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our- history/agency-history/era-restriction
3 “Origins of the Federal Immigration Service.” (2019) History and Genealogy. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/history- and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/origins-federal-immigration-service
4 Ibid.
5 “Immigration Act of 1903” (2019) Library of Congress. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/57th-congress/session-2/c57s2ch1012.pdf
6 “Origins of the Federal Immigration Service.” (2019) History and Genealogy. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Retrieved from https://www.uscis.gov/history- and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/origins-federal-immigration-service
7 “Wartime Measure Act of 1918” (2019) Library of Congress. Retrieved from https://www.loc.gov/law/help/statutes-at-large/65th-congress/session-2/c65s2ch81.pdf 8 “Passport Application” (2019) U.S. National Archives and Records Administration. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/research/passport
9 “The United States Passport: Past, Present, Future.” (1976) Department of State: Passport Office. (pg. 198)
10 Ibid.
11 “The United States Passport: Past, Present, Future.” (1976) Department of State: Passport Office. (p. iii)
12 FY 2019 Budget in Brief. (2019) Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%20BIB%202019.pdf
13 “Who We Are.” (2019) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Retrieved from https://www.ice.gov
14 FY 2019 Budget in Brief. (2019) Department of Homeland Security. (p.39) Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%20BIB%202019.pdf
15 FY 2019 Budget in Brief. (2019) Department of Homeland Security. (p.45) Retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/DHS%20BIB%202019.pdf
16 Immigration and Nationality Act: Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees, Sec. 287(a) (3) “…within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle.” (‘reasonable distance’ as defined in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Title 8 – Aliens and Nationality, Part 287 – Field Officers; Powers and Duties (2) “The term reasonable distance, as used in section 287(a) (3) of the Act, means within 100 miles from any external boundary of the United States.”)
17 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
18 Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Powell: “We hold today that such stops are consistent with the Fourth Amendment. We also hold that the operation of a fixed checkpoint need not be authorized in advance by a judicial warrant.”
19 “Legal Authority of the Border Patrol.” (2019) U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. Retrieved from https://www.cbp.gov
20 “Record of Abuse: Lawlessness and Impunity in Border Patrol’s Interior Enforcement Operations.” (October 2015). American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. (p.2) Retrieved from https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/Record_of_Abuse_101515_0.pdf
21 Ibid.
22 “Record of Abuse: Lawlessness and Impunity in Border Patrol’s Interior Enforcement Operations.” (October 2015). American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona. (p. 3) Retrieved from https://www.acluaz.org/sites/default/files/documents/Record_of_Abuse_101515_0.pdf 23 Ibid.
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 “Border Security Metrics Report” (May 2018) Department of Homeland Security (pg. 10)
27 “Implementing 9/11 Commission Recommendations.” (2017) U.S. Department of Homeland Security. (p. 57)
28 Nowrasteh, Alex. (13 September 2016) “Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis.” The Cato Institute. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/policy- analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis
29 “Flash Facts About Lightning.” (24 June 2005) National Geographic. Retrieved from https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/flash-facts-about-lightning/
30 Nowrasteh, Alex. (September 2016) “Terrorism and Immigration: A Risk Analysis.” The Cato Institute. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/policy- analysis/terrorism-immigration-risk-analysis
31 Ibid.
32 Light, Michael & Miller, Ty. (May 2018) “Does Undocumented Immigration Increase Violent Crime?” Criminology. Vol. 56 Issue 2 (pg. 370-401)
33 Nowrasteh, Alex. (February 2018) “Criminal Immigrants in Texas: Illegal Immigrant Conviction and Arrest Rates for Homicide, Sex Crimes, Larceny, and Other Crimes.” The Cato Institute. Retrieved from https://www.cato.org/publications/immigration- research-policy-brief/criminal-immigrants-texas-illegal-immigrant
34 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as Amended by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Sec. 401(a) “In General-Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in subsection (b), an alien who is not a qualified alien (as defined in section 431) is not eligible for any Federal public benefit (as defined in subsection (c).”
35 Fishel, J., Thomas, P., Levine, M., & Jack, D. (1 June 2015) “Undercover DHS Tests Find Security Failures at U.S. Airports.” ABC News. Retrieved from https://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-undercover-dhs-tests-find-widespread-security- failures/story?id=31434881
36 “Review of Allegations Regarding San Francisco International Airport.” (October 2006) Office of Inspector General. Retrieved from https://www.oig.dhs.gov/assets/Mgmt/OIG_07-04_Oct06.pdf
37 Mowery, K., Wustrow, E., Wypych, T., Singleton, C., Comfort, Rescorla, E., Checkoway, S., Halderman, J.A., Schacham, H. (August 2014) “Security Analysis of a Full-Body Scanner.” UC San Diego, University of Michigan, Johns Hopkins University.
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Mello Jr., John. (22 August 2014) “Security Researchers Lay Bare TSA Body Scanner Flaws.” TechNewsWorld. Retrieved from https://www.technewsworld.com
About The Author
