The Question of Borders

I watched an interview with the prominent guitarist Carlos Santana this past week wherein Santana presented his view that national borders are a myth created by unscrupulous people when the reality is that humans are one species occupying a planet together, each human wishing simply to live and thrive. He said that the reality is that there are no borders as evident when viewing the planet from space. I thought about his provocative claim throughout the week and asked myself if I, a person who considers myself to be a global citizen, was also in favor of a border-less world. Given the crisis we face on our own southern border, I really needed to consider my own stance. I care about other human beings and so I questioned the origin of borders and the purpose they serve, if any. What I learned and considered over several days helped me formulate my position.

First, I acknowledge that human history follows a cycle of human migration, community building, unrest, and migration. It is widely believed that humankind began in Africa and gradually spread throughout habitable parts of the world. Many also believe that humans evolved as tribal beings for survival in a harsh world, segregating ourselves on the basis of agreed upon social norms with each tribe protective of its way of life, believing its culture to be superior to others. I surmise that borders were created in order to mitigate conflict between people groups. As long as that tribe stayed on their side of the river, they could worship as they please and live by their own rules. But borders always crumble when human survival is at stake and migrants will resettle where they are most socially comfortable. In my estimation, nothing has changed.

While the drivers of human migration have not changed (for example, poverty, natural disaster, war, oppression, persecution, and lack of opportunity), the ability to migrate has at times been limited by those in leadership. But for much of human history, people have moved freely to find better life. Early on, rulers of growing population centers welcomed newcomers as assets who added wealth through their contribution to taxes, the labor force, and even to serve in armies. There were times when the need for labor was so great that rulers even offered incentives for people to emigrate.

In fact wasn’t until the introduction of serfdom to ensure adequate labor remained where it was needed that the freedom of lower class people was restricted. The Romans were the first to introduce passports so as to limit the mobility of it’s labor force. As new societies emerged, so did the need for labor and it is no wonder that those with guns forced the migration 8-10 million Africans from the 16th – 19th century to the Americas to fill that need as slaves. Mind you, the Islamic states had been using African slave labor since 650 AD so the concept was not new. In addition, great masses emigrated from Europe and Asia fleeing poverty and seeking opportunity in America.

But inevitably, resentment towards newcomers, especially during an economic downturn and times of unemployment grows and newcomers are perceived to be a threat to the livelihood, culture, values, and way of life of majority populations. The ability of some people to assimilate is rewarded with acceptance and citizenship while others, based on skin color or religion remain forever in the category of the foreigner. The rise of nationalism in the face of real demographic and cultural changes is also part of our shared human history. Examples of mass deportations and even genocides or ethnic cleansing by the nationalist leaders who emerge by stoking tribal fears have been repeated throughout human history. These heinous acts are continuing today in places like Myanmar where some 700,000 Rohingya refuges have fled violence and persecution, crossing the border into Bangladesh. The cruelty we are witnessing on our own Southern border and then in the mass shooting in El Paso is the result of this nationalist thinking as opposed to paying careful attention to our shared humanity.

So, borders are indeed a man-made creation. I see them as man’s way to carve out a section of the world where people of like-mind can live together in relative peace. The problem is that the human family must begin to use its capacity to expand what it means to be of like-mind. We should know by now that the values of freedom, democracy, hard work, safety, and respect for others transcend the superficial notion of skin color or blood relations or native language or religion or sexual orientation.

The problem is that governments are too slow to recognize that people will migrate for a better life. The problem with borders is not the border, but the many restrictions being placed on migrants because of the color of their skin or religion. Migrants all over the world are being characterized by nationalist as dangerous when they could actually be assets. History has shown us that human migration is generally good for humanity and that borders should be treated as they once were, a suggestion of what lies within them. Violence only follows when we allow our prejudices to get the better of us and when we make maintaining a more border more important than the humanity for which it was created to serve.

John Locke once questioned the right to restrict the movement of individuals. I am solidly questioning it, too.