The Word For The Day Is BORDERS

That's right, kiddies, the Geek's word for the day--and many days--is "borders." Roll it around in your mouth, taste it, savor it. Better do it quick, because the force of the word, if not the word itself, may soon be of interest only to antiquarians.

The very concept of a border, a line of demarcation separating nation-states, has become the next thing to anathema in the minds of academics, some politicians, and other members of the self-appointed elite of the chattering class. To many--advocates of economic globalisation, mavens of multi-culturalism, and the High Minded--who see the independent, sovereign nation-state as the root of all evil, the idea of borders is iconic of reactionary long-outdated thinking.

Aren't we all "passengers on spaceship Earth?" Aren't all the real problems, the all-caps problems, global in nature? Isn't the nation-state the roadblock on the highway of progress?

Back when the Geek was a sort of urbanite, he discovered through experience that Robert Frost was right: good walls make good neighbors. The construction of an eight foot wooden palisade fence around the modest hooch occupied by the Geek and Geekess reduced to zero the frictions caused by the straying of neighbors dogs and chickens. Without the friction, harmony was increased, coinciding interests were discovered, and collaborative efforts to solve mutual problems enhanced.

A good fence did make for good neighbors and through joint efforts a better neighborhood.

The Geek now lives in the land of his ancestors, less than a hundred miles from the more controversial borders of the United States. As a result, he has been watching the debate over the Great Fence of the Southwest and the linked matters of illegal immigration and smuggling closely.

As part of his observation, the Geek has paid particular attention to the attitudes regarding these subjects in Mexico. He has viewed them with increasing dismay.

The Mexican government as well as many of that country's politically articulate elite despise and loath both the Great Fence and related attempts by the US to control and limit the amount of illegal immigration flowing north of the border.

He has come to the conclusion that it is the conscious policy of the Mexican government and its supporters to reverse the verdict of the Mexican-American war.

"But, wasn't that war a war of gringo conquest? Didn't it mark the coming of American imperialism, an unprovoked act of aggression by a large country against a small and weak one?"

That sure is the conventional wisdom here in the US. It is mouthed repeatedly even by those who should know better--professors of US history in our universities and colleges. It is given as the reason for war (in the rare event the war is even mentioned) in high school history texts. And, it is taken as an article of absolute truth down in Mexico.

This conventional wisdom, this piece of Mexican faith, is a lie. A big lie. A big lie which has been given the patina of truth only by virtue of repetition. The Mexicans wanted the war. The Mexicans prepared for the war. Motivated by a deep need to regain Texas, Mexico not only put an army much larger than that of the US into the field, they prepared an excellent plan of attack.

Urged on by the French and British governments who desired to see the US limited in its drive to the Pacific, the Mexicans used a pretext for war which was every bit as phony as that used by the Israelis to justify the Six Day War. The Mexicans were faced by an opponent which was relatively weaker and internally divided.

(Recall that the New England states which had the best equipped and trained militia forces refused to allow their troops to be used lest it work to the benefit of the "slavocracy." Remember also that the southern states kept their militias at home from fear of a slave uprising.)

The Mexicans lost by a combination of American generalship being superior and the lack of martial skills within their own army as well as political divisions. At war's end, the US in principle could have taken all or most of Mexico. Some Americans (primarily in the slave owning South) wanted to do just that. Others, motivated by anti-Catholic sentiments wanted only California and the landlines of communication between that prize and the American frontier. So the US scarfed up the sparsely populated (by Mexicans if not by Native Americans including some of the Geek's ancestors) of New Mexico and Arizona.

For one hundred sixty years the Mexicans have stewed over their defeat. The stewing was in no way lessened by the vast American presence in Mexico during the long years of the Diaz dictatorship. The Mexican army might have been defeated, but not Mexican pride.

While illegal immigration can be seen realistically as an economic and social safety valve for a country with more people than jobs and great wealth unequally distributed, that is not the only motivation at work.

Consider the Palestinian analogy. Demographics are seemingly on the side of the Palestinians. The birth rate is arguably greater than that of the Israelis. The introduction of millions of descendants of Arabs displaced during the 1948 and 1867 wars would tilt the demographic balance irrevocably in favor of the Palestinians. It is no wonder that the Israeli government rejects any peace agreement which would provide for the return of the dispossessed.

Hispanics are a larger minority population in the US than that composed of Americans of African ancestry. The Hispanic (predominently Mexican by heritage) community enjoys a high birth rate, much higher than that of the Anglos. It is a community well known for tight extended family ties and a will and ability to work hard and save for the future. The immigrants of the past years and centuries as well as their descendants are a fine addition to the American gumbo.

The Hispanic community has shown its political power. Arguably, the wholesale defection of Hispanics from the Republicans (their natural political home given social conservatism which is a hallmark of Mexican culture) to the Democrats was critical in the latter party's success in several closely contested states--including New Mexico.

The critical issues were the Great Fence and illegal immigration. The Great Fence is seen as a humiliating slap in the Mexican face. The question of immigration reform and in particular the regularising of the status of the some ten or eleven million illegals now in the US is seen as crucial in defining the role and status of La Raza in the US.

Removing the Great Fence and instituting a variety of immigration reform can also be correctly understood as a stealth way of reversing the decision of the Mexican War. In that respect, it is akin to the Palestinian insistence on a Right of Return existing under any comprehensive peace settlement with Israel.

This past weekend the Institute of Mexicans Abroad, which is closely affiliated with the Mexican government, announced plans to construct a major lobbying effort to be called The National Coalition For Immigration Reform. The goals of this entity are expansive including both measures to regularise the status of illegal immigrants already in the US and a "temporary" guest worker program with the option to become citizens. The Institute pointedly noted that "eighty-three percent of Mexicans with US citizenship" voted for Obama.

Almost simultaneously, the Mexican government's Office of Migration (note the name) listed all the economic and civic accomplishments attributable to Mexicans resident in the US. While not wishing to deprecate even by implication the genuine contributions or patriotism of American citizens of Mexican descent nor the positive benefits which have accrued to the US as the result of Mexican "guest workers" or illegal immigrants, the Geek was a bit overwhelmed by the Office of Migration's attempt to prove that US prosperity generally was based on the sweat and brains of Mexicans.

Also last week in an event not noted by the MSM outside of Dallas, former Mexican president Vincente Fox gave a speech to a civic group. The high point of his remarks was the demand that the Great Fence be removed. This implies a return to the essentially unregulated and un-patrolled border of a few years ago. In essence, Fox demanded the removal of even a pretense of a line of demarcation between Gringoland and Mexico.

Borders are important. Very important. A border, a real barrier between one nation and another is critical to the existence of both nations. Way back when, three and more centuries ago, the British and French arrived in North America. Both countries had a well-developed concept of borders, of saying, "This land is mine." The Native Americans had no such concept. The very idea that land could be claimed for eternity by one people for its sole enjoyment was outside their worldview.

As a result the Native Americans could never say, "This land is mine." They had no secure and defensible borders (to use the Israeli formulation.) Thus, they lost all. The British, the French, and, in the Southwest, the Spanish, kept moving the fence always at the expense of the natives.

Nearly two centuries ago, both the Mexicans and the Gringos understood the nature and necessity of borders. The Mexicans wanted to move the fence at the expense of the Americans. They tried. They failed. The fence was moved to the south and west.

And there it has stood. There it must continue to stand. Nations as well as individuals must live by the concept of good fences making for good neighbors.

The vexing problems of the border, of illegal immigration, of smuggling assorted forms of contraband can and must be solved. While the details of the solution are still lost in the fog of the future one thing is certain.

They can not be solved by removing the border. Get a grip on that, president-elect Obama.