Why a Nation Needs Strong Border Security

The need for strong border security is a simple proposition to consider. Imagine someone owns a house. What does one usually have to secure the house? A door. And how is the door secured ever more? It has a lock. And what is a way to bypass the security? There are keys to unlock the door to open the door. Thus, a house has a door and a lock to secure it, but only keys can lawfully open that door.

In a proper world, the house’s owner has keys to open the door and the owner can do what they will with their keys. Would a sensible owner allow their door to be wide open? They wouldn’t. Why wouldn’t they? Because they cannot be in control of who comes into his house and who doesn’t. And why is that a problem? Because a person can commit serious damage into his house if they don’t control who comes into the house. This is common sense. However, an owner can deviate from this logic and be naïve enough to allow anyone into their house.

How Lax Border Security Plays Out

Now, let us see lax immigration policy in a simple illustration. Suppose the owner allows for people to come into their house through entry with their assent or through entering the house without their consent. And suppose further that the owner did this because they wanted to help those who wanted to enter into their house or believe they have rights to the house no different than them and the original residents. What would happen? A variety of things, but let’s suppose the worse scenario because this is how it normally plays out in the real world.

The new residents can take a room and decorate it in a way that initially disagrees with the owner and the original residents. They can punch holes in the wall as a way to express themselves. They can play loud music for their enjoyment. They can turn on the lights all night long and use up the house’s warm water and deprive others from having warm water. These things would enrage many of the house’s original residents and they would want the new residents out, but the owner and other original residents allow for it to go on because the new residents would be homeless or go back to the same abusive house they escaped from if they were to kick them out. In fact, other original residents would tell those original residents that they are intolerant and closed minded and fight hard for the new residents to stay there. But many original residents find the explanation ludicrous and protest the owner’s decision. They don’t want to leave because they believe it is their house and they will not leave the house to the new residents. But the owner doesn’t change their mind and the new residents go on doing their activities that annoy the original residents.

Slowly but surely, the house morphs into the image and likeness of the new residents and many original residents feel their control over the house is slipping away. Eventually, those original residents have lost total respect for the owner and other original residents and take matters into their own hands and seek to remove the new residents of the house and take back what they believe is their house. They fight the owner and the other original residents until the house is a complete mess and no one can live there comfortably anymore. Thus, one can see that this is the logical outgrowth of lax border security. One can see this very scenario in the world today.

Case Study: The United Kingdom

One can see this in the United Kingdom (UK). In that country, there has been strong criticism against the open door policy since the late 1960s. Enoch Powell gave excoriating remarks in his infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech against relaxed standards of immigration for non-Anglos. Professor David Starkey, an English historian, said curtly that mass migration has broken Britain. Nigel Farage, leader of the Reform Party, has sounded strong policies against mass migration and emphasized the need to deport all illegal immigrations from the UK.

Why is the push back against mass migration so strong? Because many migrants fail to assimilate. Enoch Powell stated that lack of assimilation was the principle reason why he was against mass migration. He feared that many migrants would be resentful against the white Briton and use the whip against them. David Starkey said in a podcast that cultural differences have made race relations in the United Kingdom very tense. And Farage has stated that migrants are treated more favorably than native Britons through multiculturalist policies.

And the evidence demonstrates this. Muslim immigrants actively practice Sharia law in the UK. According to one estimate, there are 80 to 85 sharia law courts in the UK. Many immigrants don’t speak English well and wear their traditional garment in British neighborhoods. And the UK government openly promotes policies to favor migrants over native Britons in many respects. And movements such as Black Lives Matter have made the native white British male the source of blame for racism and discrimination and the reasons why many black Britons struggle.

Many native Britons have expressed extreme frustration with the UK’s immigration policy. According to the Migration Observatory in 2023, 37 percent of Britons believe that the UK government should reduce immigration numbers. The same study has shown that opposition to immigration has increased. This has made the UK a deeply divided nation with proponents for mass immigration fiercely contesting critics of mass immigration sharply in protests. Indeed, one can look at the UK as evidence for the consequences of lax border security. When the country has migrants who don’t assimilate well into British culture and are favored over native Britons, the country is ablaze in calumny and infighting to a degree that social unrest will ensue followed by a real chance for a civil conflict.

Conclusion

Strong border security keeps a nation orderly and stable. When immigrants who fail to assimilate come into the country, it changes the country’s culture as the nation must conform to the immigrants rather than the immigrants conforming to the nation. As the many original residents of the house in the example above, many native Britons who reject lax border security object to British culture decaying and fight hard against it. But like the home owner, the political establishment ignores the native Britons and allows for lax border security to proceed. Like the other original residents of the house, left-wing Britons protest against those native Britons and find their disagreement with immigration racist and bigoted. But what happens is the country slowly losing its British identity. Native British birth rates are below replacement value. The UK celebrates Islamic holidays. More children have Muslim names than English names. And Islamic garb slowly becomes the norm. What happens is a reactionary force seeks to stop this trend which usually ignites a civil conflict. And one can see this phenomenon slowly playing out. Thus, to avoid this fate, it is best for leadership to reject lax border security.