Putrid Politics: The Wall

When I was in high school, I remember a specific field trip. We all had to arrive at school earlier than normal, and then sit on a bus for several hours until we arrived at the destination. I actually don’t remember what the destination even was, but I do remember that a specific rule was emphasized that no entertainment, such as handheld game systems or media players, was allowed on the bus. Despite the fact that I thought this rule was stupid, unfair, and pointless, I followed it. I did not bring my game system that morning.

However, once I was on the bus, I saw people using their own game systems. I asked one of the chaperons supervising the trip, and they told me that if you already brought a game system, you would be allowed to use it.

This event stuck in my mind because it was so incredibly frustrating as a kid, and it was just one of the reasons why the authorities at my school had so much trouble controlling the problem students or getting respect from any of them.

Rules are made for a reason. They are meant to describe proper behavior for people within a sphere of influence. For my school, one rule was no entertainment allowed during school trips. However, they did not enforce this rule, and so the rule breakers benefited while I, someone who had followed the rule and not brought any entertainment, had to sit on a bus for hours with nothing to distract myself with.

This is analogous to my thoughts on the wall. We have rules in this country surrounding immigration. People are breaking those rules, and jumping the border. That’s why I support the wall; I want to prevent people from willfully and deliberately breaking rules we have established. If we want to allow more people to immigrate, then fine; that’s an entirely different issue. But a physical barrier does not affect the immigration policy, it only aids in the enforcement of whatever policies we decide upon. People are still perfectly able to go through the various ports of entry should the border guards verify that crossing is legal.

Currently, we have people immigrating legally who spend years and large amounts of money in order to go through the proper channels. Meanwhile, people are jumping the border and demanding full rights and citizenship normally reserved for legally recognized citizens. If we give blanket amnesty to these rule breakers, you are not only incentivizing such behavior, you are not only rewarding people for ignoring the rules… you are spitting in the faces of the people who did follow the rules.

It’s a shorter blog, but I don’t think this subject is complicated enough to warrant much additional rationalization. I think this is more than enough to validate the right for the United States, as a country, to enforce its immigration laws. Every other country does this, and the fact that so many people view the United States as the land of opportunity does not void the right to have borders.