Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
We have only to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down.
Actually, in the more complete list, liberty was the last priority listed (out of six). That’s in the preamble to the Constitution:
I wouldn’t necessarily conclude that liberty is the least important of these, as I don’t interpret it as a rank-ordered list. But liberty was just one of six.
Americans were quite significantly regulated for most of our national existence, especially in matters of morality and sexuality. It was considered perfectly appropriate, from the 1770s through the 1960s, to prohibit all sorts of behavior — premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, alcohol consumption, drug use, gambling, prostitution, pornography, and so on.
The list in the preamble is very general as it should be for matters affecting all Americans in common ways. But when discussions and compromising was done, the Virginia delegation thought more specific language and guarantees were needed to insure the new federal government did not infringe liberty of individual Americans so we got the Bill of Rights which over the two and a half centuries of our existence seems to get a lot more attention than the preamble. I would venture that the first and second amendments to the Constitution have garnered the greatest attention and are the most important elements of the Constitution for patriotic Americans. That’s where I took my reference.
IANAL, but I think almost all of the regulation of Americans with regard to the things you note above was accomplished under the authority of state governments, although one must recognize the Feds try at every opportunity to enter the fray.
Not for citizenship, at least not in the early republic. Ron Formisano has shown how it was a closely contested issue (as a requirement for voting) in the early days of Michigan. But it’s understandable how some people thought residency was sufficient back when people were not as mobile as now.
And exactly how much did these laws prohibit these things?
Perhaps this would be a good time to get back to the border.
I personally have no idea about Indonesia and what policies Indonesia should have. (Besides basic capitalism.) So it is a good thing that I don’t vote about Indonesian stuff.
So you should vote about stuff you know and borders accomplish that.
In a lot of those situations, the law provided no protection. Have a child out of wedlock? You are not entitled to the father’s support.
And that’s why the womenfolk where pickier about there menfolk. They needed a man to support them while they were preggers.
Two points — that *is* protection of one sort (but not ideal), and society used to be far better equipped to handle these things.
Single mothers and drug addicts earn nearly equal sympathy from me when the arguemnt devolves to “Well, X didn’t have the benefit of a decent upbringing.” It’s Officer Krupke all the way down, and that’s an important component (similar to a swift ass-kicking for those men who misplace their seed) providing an incentive for people to do right. We didn’t lift ourselves from the Serengeti by letting things slide.
I am IN FAVOR OF shotgun weddings for the usual purpose. Men, take responsibility for your actions. And now with modern technology, I also support mandatory paternity testing for every newborn. Women, take responsibility for your actions.
Um lessee, the topic is borders, so I support these things *within our borders* as a matter of law, and am silent on what some garbage-pit country does. And let them shut up about us.