Borders

My name is George Payne. I am a graduate of Colgate Rochester Crozer School of Divinity, published writer, dedicated humanitarian, and active peace promoter. <!--break--> Borders I favor opening the Mexican and Canadian border. I also favor amnesty for those willing to work hard and obey the law. But there is a unique historical circumstance that makes U.S. borders nessesary. Take for example the centuries of atrocity that Native Americans have withstood e.g, Red Jacket's slaughter, Jackson's Indian Laws and the Trail of Tears. There was an American genocide. All persecuted tribes that remain are entitled to private, non-government controlled &quot;borders.&quot; If we had not broken so many treaties, and if we had not systematically exterminated so many Indian families, then perhaps they too need to embrace open borders. But who can justly deny that Native Americans require a sanctuary today? Never the less, one can also justly argue for relaxed-if not vanquished borders i.e., in the case of impoverished, goal oriented Mexicans, starving Hatians, and all other fleeing peoples of the world. I am one of those crazy idealist who believe that America's ideal purpose is to be an asylum of freedom. Second point: History proves that all land is purchased with blood. If not for a massive military expulsion, would Spain not rule New Mexico today? Would Mexico control Texas if Gen. Zack Taylor had not fought for the Rio Grande? I say not! But my thesis is more complicated then these examples determine. The question I raised at the outset has to do with a &quot;Situational&quot; problem in American historry that supports no clear ethic: Can amnesty, and hence, open borders, be compared to the bordered lands of Native Americans? I have no formulaic way of answering this. All I have is a gut instinct that there is a difference. It is for rational, Samaritan-minded Christians to discern this difference-no matter how subtle.

<p>My name is George Payne. I am a graduate of Colgate Rochester Crozer School of Divinity, published writer, dedicated humanitarian, and active peace promoter.</p> <!--break--><p>Borders </p> <p>I favor opening the Mexican and Canadian border. I also favor amnesty for those willing to work hard and obey the law. But there is a unique historical circumstance that makes U.S. borders nessesary. Take for example the centuries of atrocity that Native Americans have withstood e.g, Red Jacket's slaughter, Jackson's Indian Laws and the Trail of Tears. There was an American genocide. All persecuted tribes that remain are entitled to private, non-government controlled "borders." If we had not broken so many treaties, and if we had not systematically exterminated so many Indian families, then perhaps they too need to embrace open borders. But who can justly deny that Native Americans require a sanctuary today? </p> <p>Never the less, one can also justly argue for relaxed-if not vanquished borders i.e., in the case of impoverished, goal oriented Mexicans, starving Hatians, and all other fleeing peoples of the world. I am one of those crazy idealist who believe that America's ideal purpose is to be an asylum of freedom.</p> <p>Second point: History proves that all land is purchased with blood. If not for a massive military expulsion, would Spain not rule New Mexico today? Would Mexico control Texas if Gen. Zack Taylor had not fought for the Rio Grande? I say not! But my thesis is more complicated then these examples determine. The question I raised at the outset has to do with a "Situational" problem in American historry that supports no clear ethic: Can amnesty, and hence, open borders, be compared to the bordered lands of Native Americans? </p> <p>I have no formulaic way of answering this. All I have is a gut instinct that there is a difference. It is for rational, Samaritan-minded Christians to discern this difference-no matter how subtle.</p>