Why the Border Matters

 

I’ve been re-reading Confessions of a Heretic, a collection of essays by Roger Scruton that was published in 2016, the year after his death. Scruton’s prose is both entirely accessible—he prefers plain language and straightforward sentences—and so rich that I find myself stopping again and again to savor this sentence or ponder that paragraph. Take the question of borders. I’d always thought of borders as purely utilitarian—the place where our law stops and theirs begins. Crude, but necessary. Scruton demonstrates instead that borders represent one of mankind’s highest achievements:

The national idea is not the enemy of Enlightenment but its necessary precondition. The country is defined by a territory, and by the history, culture, and law that have made that territory ours…. Take away borders, and people begin to identify themselves not by territory and law, but by tribe, race, or religion. In short, Enlightenment means borders.

The bureaucrats who run the European Union, the Biden administration—both seem to suppose that borders represent throwbacks, mere hindrances that need to be overcome, transcended, ignored, removed. They have it backward. The rule of law, a certain level of decency and civilization—all depend on borders. Rip down the borders, Scruton shows, and you rip down civilization.

Published in Immigration
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 41 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Peter Robinson: Rip down the borders, Scruton shows, and you rip down civilization.

    Begging the Colonel’s pardon, but some of us have been demanding this stance from our own party for years, even right here on this site.  You could say that it was the most pressing issue for some of us who were not going to accept yet another gang-of-anything border sell-out.

    We voted accordingly.

    • #1
  2. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Peter Robinson:

    I’d always thought of borders as purely utilitarian—the place where our law stops and theirs begins. Crude, but necessary. Scruton demonstrates instead that borders represent one of mankind’s highest achievements:

    The national idea is not the enemy of Enlightenment but its necessary precondition. The country is defined by a territory, and by the history, culture, and law that have made that territory ours….

    How can this not be the foundation of any practical political conservatism?

    • #2
  3. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Here’s me asking a key question in 2014: Do Americans have a right to America?

    Ball Diamond Ball (View Comment):

    [Former Member FC] you asked.  This is the statement of [Former member MH]’s which I referred to and quoted.  In this brief passage, he disparages the difference between citizens and non-citizens, derides as insane the preference to govern ourselves as a sovereign nation, and posits the tyranny of democracy as the basis of rights.

    I’ll ask you directly, [MH], since there seems to be a question: do you feel that American citizens have a right to America which non-citizens do not have?  I’ll suggest that a re-phrasing (at your option) would be Do citizens have a property in the nation?

    I assert that we do.

    This was the beginning of a lively back and forth.  Use the link there (“View Comment”) for three pages of goodness.  This is all in the past, so nobody hunt down the perpetrators.  As much as I admire Peter Robinson, one need not be Scruton to have figured this out.

    • #3
  4. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    And starting a little earlier in that thread:

    Ball Diamond Ball (View Comment):

    $3.7 Billion will buy a lot of ammo. Fences are big, expensive, and useless if they are not manned. Nobody has any business coming across the fence outside of a checkpoint. Either this is a nation or it is not, and nations have borders that they defend. Otherwise [FC], there is no difference between a citizen who works on this side of the fence, or that, and an illegal who works here or there.
    We cannot regulate a system of laws through magic. At some point it comes down to findings of fact and actions. A fence with guards is both a signal and an obstacle; it makes the act of crossing a clear act of intent, and it gives a point beyond which a border guard is in his duties to press an attack.
    Well, either we will defend our borders or not. For those who say “But it’s not *that* sort of ‘invasion’, you kook!”, the fact is this is going to wipe out this country.

    To be, or not to be?

    …and …

    Ball Diamond Ball (View Comment):

    Despite my cheery assessment from the previous comment, I am not so optimistic. The miserable McClellan / Quisling Republicans will not hold the administration to any such deal; if they begin to, they certainly will not finish that way. There will be no E-Verify, there will be no enforcement, and there will be no dislodging the new crop of disease-ridden invaders. But there will be $3.7 Billion worth of services delivered to people who hate us, do not speak our language, will not adapt our culture, and will destroy the country. And if they don’t start out in that condition, public education and the welfare state will certainly get them there with a rapidity that will shock all but the most jaded post-Republican Tea Partiers.

    Now look back at all the times somebody like Senator McCain said “Well (heh heh heh) we can’t deport them all now can we? That’s ridiculous!”, and imagine what the effect would be now, if we had made a stand then, instead of entertaining harmful and bad debate on how to “bring them out of the shadows”.

    Bold emphasis added throughout in [current year].

    • #4
  5. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Peter Robinson:

    I’d always thought of borders as purely utilitarian—the place where our law stops and theirs begins. Crude, but necessary. Scruton demonstrates instead that borders represent one of mankind’s highest achievements:

    The national idea is not the enemy of Enlightenment but its necessary precondition. The country is defined by a territory, and by the history, culture, and law that have made that territory ours…. Take away borders, and people begin to identify themselves not by territory and law, but by tribe, race, or religion. In short, Enlightenment means borders.

    The bureaucrats who run the European Union, the Biden administration—both seem to suppose that borders represent throwbacks, mere hindrances that need to be overcome, transcended, ignored, removed. They have it backward. The rule of law, a certain level of decency and civilization—all depend on borders. Rip down the borders, Scruton shows, and you rip down civilization.

    @peterrobinson, after this Damascene conversion, would you say that you hear arguments such as the comments above in a better light than your “I’d always thought..” implies you had back then?

    First you realize that borders are right and good.  Then you realize that Democrats and Eurocrats are actually suppressing that defense intentionally.  Eventually, you see that the GOP is just as bad, for different but allied reasons.  Finally, you decide to do something about it.

    Not naming names here, but uh…

    • #5
  6. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    “Take away borders, and people begin to identify themselves not by territory and law, but by tribe, race, or religion. In short, Enlightenment means borders.”

    Claire Lehmann (the founder & publisher of Quillette), asserts that Nationalism is the antidote to racism.  (video)

    Discussed here.

     

     

     

     

    • #6
  7. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    This video shows the death of a microscopic animal of some kind. What happens is a little disturbing to watch but the microscopy is excellent. You can see the animal in three dimensions, clearly wrapped in a membrane. Its little cilia push it around vigorously. 

    Then a tiny piece of the membrane breaks off (I’d have missed it except for the narrator) and the animal starts leaking its guts. It continues to swim around almost normally as it sheds pieces of itself, but the hole opens wider and you know it’s doomed. Eventually it runs into something it might have eaten once, and dissipates into the medium.

    Peter, the first thing I thought about when I read this, after our southern border, was how the Soviet Union deflated when the Germans tore down that wall. 

    • #7
  8. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    I’m glad you figured it out and I’m impressed you admitted to your misunderstanding of it.

    But I’m flummoxed. I don’t know how you can not come to the Scruton conclusion.

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    • #8
  9. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Barfly (View Comment):

    This video shows the death of a microscopic animal of some kind. What happens is a little disturbing to watch but the microscopy is excellent. You can see the animal in three dimensions, clearly wrapped in a membrane. Its little cilia push it around vigorously.

    Then a tiny piece of the membrane breaks off (I’d have missed it except for the narrator) and the animal starts leaking its guts. It continues to swim around almost normally as it sheds pieces of itself, but the hole opens wider and you know it’s doomed. Eventually it runs into something it might have eaten once, and dissipates into the medium.

    Peter, the first thing I thought about when I read this, after our southern border, was how the Soviet Union deflated when the Germans tore down that wall.

    This is a wonderful video.  It’s remarkable how haunting and poignant it is.  Thank you for posting this here!

    • #9
  10. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Stina (View Comment):

    I’m glad you figured it out and I’m impressed you admitted to your misunderstanding of it.

    But I’m flummoxed. I don’t know how you can not come to the Scruton conclusion.

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    I suspect that Robinson as a member of what Codevilla calls the protected class (but one of the nicest!) has just never been confronted with the everyday significance of borders.  Perhaps if it’s not the Berlin Wall, it just doesn’t seem like such a big deal.

    But it is a big deal.  Which is why it matters so much that even W’s attempted amnesty in 2007 (?) was rejected so vehemently by the rank and file, and why many of us will never trust Rubio again.  Hell, no.

    • #10
  11. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    BDB (View Comment):
    This was the beginning of a lively back and forth.  Use the link there (“View Comment”) for three pages of goodness.  This is all in the past, so nobody hunt down the perpetrators.

    I miss some of those members quite a bit.

    • #11
  12. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    This was the beginning of a lively back and forth. Use the link there (“View Comment”) for three pages of goodness. This is all in the past, so nobody hunt down the perpetrators.

    I miss some of those members quite a bit.

    Aw, don’t be blue — I just changed my name is all.

    • #12
  13. Charlotte Member
    Charlotte
    @Charlotte

    BDB (View Comment):

    Charlotte (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):
    This was the beginning of a lively back and forth. Use the link there (“View Comment”) for three pages of goodness. This is all in the past, so nobody hunt down the perpetrators.

    I miss some of those members quite a bit.

    Aw, don’t be blue — I just changed my name is all.

    Several times.

    ;-)

    • #13
  14. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    Here’s me asking a key question in 2014: Do Americans have a right to America?

    Ball Diamond Ball (View Comment):

    [Former Member FC] you asked. This is the statement of [Former member MH]’s which I referred to and quoted. In this brief passage, he disparages the difference between citizens and non-citizens, derides as insane the preference to govern ourselves as a sovereign nation, and posits the tyranny of democracy as the basis of rights.

    I’ll ask you directly, [MH], since there seems to be a question: do you feel that American citizens have a right to America which non-citizens do not have? I’ll suggest that a re-phrasing (at your option) would be Do citizens have a property in the nation?

    I assert that we do.

    This was the beginning of a lively back and forth. Use the link there (“View Comment”) for three pages of goodness. This is all in the past, so nobody hunt down the perpetrators. As much as I admire Peter Robinson, one need not be Scruton to have figured this out.

    Apparently you just… no, I better not.

    • #14
  15. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Peter Robinson: The country is defined by a territory, and by the history, culture, and law that have made that territory ours…. Take away borders, and people begin to identify themselves not by territory and law, but by tribe, race, or religion.

    History, culture, and law are pretty much the same thing as tribe and religion.

    You have your people.  Your people share your culture, language, history, religion, morality, traditions, and law.  That’s a country.

    The so-called Enlightenment idea is to throw all of this away, supposedly in the name of reason, which is building on a foundation of sand.  Reason doesn’t tell you what you should value.  The principles of the so-called Enlightenment, at least as understood in the 20th Century, apparently preclude teaching our culture, faith, traditions, and history — well, perhaps except as a source of shame and guilt.

    Oh, but all points of view get equal billing, and no one can object to anyone else’s behavior.  Except for the intolerant, of course.  You don’t have to tolerate the intolerant.  Which means that the only thing objectionable is to hold to any standard of decency or decorum.

    I’m not sure if the racial gap can be bridged.  The experiments in multi-racial societies don’t seem to be going very well.  I’m not convinced that they are impossible, but they seem very difficult.  A few minority groups hold to their own distinct identity, it seems.  

    • #15
  16. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):
    History, culture, and law are pretty much the same thing as tribe and religion.

    Jerry, I’m happy to agree with much of your comment (not all of it).  I would add that language (if we may separate that from what you’ve already mentioned) is an enormous part of this.  There is no such thing as an accurate translation.

    • #16
  17. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Stina (View Comment):

    I’m glad you figured it out and I’m impressed you admitted to your misunderstanding of it.

    But I’m flummoxed. I don’t know how you can not come to the Scruton conclusion.

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

     

     

    I never thought of it quite that way before, though I have planned that the next time I hear someone say, “I’m a citizen of the world,” or “I’m a citizen of the planet,” I’m going to emphasize that I most certainly am not a citizen of that entity. 

    I also agree that good fences make good neighbors. 

    • #17
  18. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Stina (View Comment):
    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    He probably didn’t write THAT one for Reagan.

    • #18
  19. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    Just a boring editorial comment.  Peter writes that Confessions of a Heretic was “published in 2016, the year after his death”.  In fact, Scruton died in Jan. 2020, although Confessions was published in 2016.

    • #19
  20. I Walton Member
    I Walton
    @IWalton

    Yes, indeed and we have a party that denies this reality because they are controlled by fools and a country that wants us destroyed in the next two plus years.  Were it not for the Chinese we could overcome this with time, but we’re not given that choice.  We have to solve our problems this year.  If they steal the next election, they will steal the  presidential election.  We’ll have no choice.  States and pieces of states have to leave.  Pieces of states is key as is defense.   The new states will have most of the bases and the troops.  We’ll have to pay them but think of the savings from not paying the rest of the Federal government.  China is better at top down than any other country but it too will fail and collapse, especially  without the US driving innovation and growth.   We will collapse very quickly as we don’t know how to run things from the top.  The digital companies think they do, but they don’t.  The top narrows, consolidates, gathers around as they attempt to survive, but it won’t work for long.  Until we came along all countries were top down, but the tops were narrow and knew what they were doing and the economies were small and narrow which in some form we’ll return to if we can’t rebuilt a bottom up modern economy again. 

    • #20
  21. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Stina (View Comment):

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    Peter Robinson is a person who actually might be able to enlighten us on how this happened in his case and we could all then work to see if his experience applies across a broader spectrum of things learned in our education approach that are not true. Such things are imaginary.

    EDIT: Have we done about the same thing on the streets and public transportation facilities in our big urban cities that we see on our border?  There were rules that have been abandoned.

    • #21
  22. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    Peter Robinson is a person who actually might be able to enlighten us on how this happened in his case and we could all then work to see if his experience applies across a broader spectrum of things learned in our education approach that are not true. Such things are imaginary.

    Indeed.  Here’s a guy in TPTB, whom we like, and who has self-reportedly (if unbeknownst) just taken a huge step toward Pepenlightenment.  Once you see the civilizational imperative in borders, the pediments of Chamber of Commerce and AEI rationales begin to look increasingly like papier-mache.

    Can anybody help me source this quote, presumably Solzhenitsyn?  “What if the whole fearsome edifice is just so much papier-mache, and if poked hard, will collapse to show how flimsy is our prison?

    Something like that.

    p.s., not the one about “How we burned in the camps…” but in a similar vein.

    • #22
  23. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    BDB (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    Peter Robinson is a person who actually might be able to enlighten us on how this happened in his case and we could all then work to see if his experience applies across a broader spectrum of things learned in our education approach that are not true. Such things are imaginary.

    Indeed. Here’s a guy in TPTB, whom we like, and who has self-reportedly (if unbeknownst) just taken a huge step toward Pepenlightenment. Once you see the civilizational imperative in borders, the pediments of Chamber of Commerce and AEI rationales begin to look increasingly like papier-mache.

    Can anybody help me source this quote, presumably Solzhenitsyn? “What if the whole fearsome edifice is just so much papier-mache, and if poked hard, will collapse to show how flimsy is our prison?

    Something like that.

    p.s., not the one about “How we burned in the camps…” but in a similar vein.

    I added an edit to my reply about what’s happening in our cities.

    • #23
  24. Justin Other Lawyer Coolidge
    Justin Other Lawyer
    @DouglasMyers

    BDB (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    Peter Robinson is a person who actually might be able to enlighten us on how this happened in his case and we could all then work to see if his experience applies across a broader spectrum of things learned in our education approach that are not true. Such things are imaginary.

    Indeed. Here’s a guy in TPTB, whom we like, and who has self-reportedly (if unbeknownst) just taken a huge step toward Pepenlightenment. Once you see the civilizational imperative in borders, the pediments of Chamber of Commerce and AEI rationales begin to look increasingly like papier-mache.

    Can anybody help me source this quote, presumably Solzhenitsyn? “What if the whole fearsome edifice is just so much papier-mache, and if poked hard, will collapse to show how flimsy is our prison?

    Something like that.

    p.s., not the one about “How we burned in the camps…” but in a similar vein.

    Could it be this one?

    “I mean, the ones on trial are not like me in any way: they’re a different kind of human being. They live in a different world, they think different thoughts, and their actions are nothing like mine. Between the world they live in and the world I live in there’s this thick, high wall. At least, that’s how I saw it at first … I became a lot less sure of myself. In other words, I started seeing it like this: that there really was no such thing as a wall separating their world from mine. Or if there was such a wall, it was probably a flimsy one made of papier-mache. The second I leaned on it, I’d probably fall right through and end up on the other side. Or maybe it’s that the other side has already managed to sneak its way inside of us, and we just haven’t noticed.”

    — Haruki Murakami

    • #24
  25. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Justin Other Lawyer (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    […]

    Can anybody help me source this quote, presumably Solzhenitsyn? “What if the whole fearsome edifice is just so much papier-mache, and if poked hard, will collapse to show how flimsy is our prison?

    Something like that.

    p.s., not the one about “How we burned in the camps…” but in a similar vein.

    Could it be this one?

    “I mean, the ones on trial are not like me in any way: they’re a different kind of human being. They live in a different world, they think different thoughts, and their actions are nothing like mine. Between the world they live in and the world I live in there’s this thick, high wall. At least, that’s how I saw it at first … I became a lot less sure of myself. In other words, I started seeing it like this: that there really was no such thing as a wall separating their world from mine. Or if there was such a wall, it was probably a flimsy one made of papier-mache. The second I leaned on it, I’d probably fall right through and end up on the other side. Or maybe it’s that the other side has already managed to sneak its way inside of us, and we just haven’t noticed.”

    — Haruki Murakami

    Ooh, could be.  Thank you!

    • #25
  26. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Do you know we actually put together a nation in the late 1700’s where individual freedom was enumerated as the highest priority right to be guaranteed to the people by the government?

    Border control was not high on the list of priorities perhaps because of the transportation difficulty associated with any potential interference with that right to individual liberty but as things changed the need for border control changed. So, once upon a time, we actually had a world where we were able to separate those who cherished individual liberty from those who preferred group dominance. In that world, there were always those who chose to migrate to America, not so much going the other way.

    Now we face the possible loss of that choice.

    • #26
  27. BDB Inactive
    BDB
    @BDB

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Do you know we actually put together a nation in the late 1700’s where individual freedom was enumerated as the highest priority right to be guaranteed to the people by the government?

    Border control was not high on the list of priorities perhaps because of the transportation difficulty associated with any potential interference with that right to individual liberty but as things changed the need for border control changed. So, once upon a time, we actually had a world where we were able to separate those who cherished individual liberty from those who preferred group dominance. In that world, there were always those who chose to migrate to America, not so much going the other way.

    Now we face the possible loss of that choice.

    I’ll raise you one there — the importance of borders was so well understood that nobody thought it needed to be spelled out, and more than the need for food.  Same for citizenship.

    • #27
  28. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    BDB (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    This video shows the death of a microscopic animal of some kind. What happens is a little disturbing to watch but the microscopy is excellent. You can see the animal in three dimensions, clearly wrapped in a membrane. Its little cilia push it around vigorously.

    Then a tiny piece of the membrane breaks off (I’d have missed it except for the narrator) and the animal starts leaking its guts. It continues to swim around almost normally as it sheds pieces of itself, but the hole opens wider and you know it’s doomed. Eventually it runs into something it might have eaten once, and dissipates into the medium.

    Peter, the first thing I thought about when I read this, after our southern border, was how the Soviet Union deflated when the Germans tore down that wall.

    This is a wonderful video. It’s remarkable how haunting and poignant it is. Thank you for posting this here!

    Nostalgic! When I was younger I spent many  hours of my life watching scenes like that. Later I got to enjoy introducing that world to children and their parents, and helped develop related materials for classroom use. But that, too, is now in the distant past. 

    • #28
  29. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    Peter Robinson is a person who actually might be able to enlighten us on how this happened in his case and we could all then work to see if his experience applies across a broader spectrum of things learned in our education approach that are not true. Such things are imaginary.

    EDIT: Have we done about the same thing on the streets and public transportation facilities in our big urban cities that we see on our border? There were rules that have been abandoned.

    I like Peter, so I was trying really hard not to resort to a derisive reaction. And I hit on the same thought as you – that if anyone possesses sufficient intellect and self reflection to shed light on how we got here, it would be him.

    • #29
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Stina (View Comment):

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Stina (View Comment):

    I would be very interested to hear what, in your education, contributed to the priors that had you accepting the utility only concept of borders.

    This feels very much like too much education led you to accept as true things that just aren’t so.

    Peter Robinson is a person who actually might be able to enlighten us on how this happened in his case and we could all then work to see if his experience applies across a broader spectrum of things learned in our education approach that are not true. Such things are imaginary.

    EDIT: Have we done about the same thing on the streets and public transportation facilities in our big urban cities that we see on our border? There were rules that have been abandoned.

    I like Peter, so I was trying really hard not to resort to a derisive reaction. And I hit on the same thought as you – that if anyone possesses sufficient intellect and self reflection to shed light on how we got here, it would be him.

    Maybe so, if he’s willing to go that far.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.