THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

The modern map of the entire Middle East was for the most part determined during the years following World War I.  Many boundaries were said to have been simply drawn as straight lines, based not upon "any logical or naturan divisions"; but, rather, "to satisfy the ambitions of European imperialism." (Grenville, A History of the World in the Twentieth Century)  Thus, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria were actually merely "artificial political units," created at the end of the First World War, and fraught with "inbuilt potential for conflict" (Grenville, op.cit.)--which has proven to be more than a valid appraisal.  An amusing postscript lies in the account of Britain and France's negotiations concerning their respective "spheres of influence" in the area comprising Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria.  In 1922, we are told, Britain "decided to divide their sphere along the River Jordan," resulting in the birth of "a new country" on the east side of that river.  That newborn nation was dubbed "Transjordan." 

Furthermore, in a world divided by borders, and comprising a confusing array of independent entities, actions (or non-action) are often motivated by the desire of one nation-state to please (or not to displease) another, rather than by the interests of the people who live there.  Rivalries among imperialist nations, and/or their comparative strengths, often decided the geographic locations of boundaries, as well as the number and location of their respective colonial possessions.  The result has frequently come to comprise racial and cultural minorities becoming "embedded resentfully...[within] nations to which they felt no allegiance."  Thus, after the spoils were divided and traded following World War I, one-third of Poland's population did not speak Polish; more than one-third of Czechoslavakia's populace consisted of Poles, Germans, Magyars, Russians, and Ruthenes; and a million Magyars wound up living within Romania.  A comical picture emerges from a description of the scene at a meeting in Moscow between Joseph Stalin and Winston Churchill, in October of 1944, wherein, "using a piece of paper like a scorecard," Churchill proposed that Russia keep Romania, while Britain would keep Greece.

These jokes continue until our present day.  The second half of the twentieth century alone saw the birth of over a hundred new states in Africa, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific.  Among the fifty or more of today's African nations, most of which having been very recently instituted, bounds have been usually defined by the borders of former colonies.  Thus, a single independent nation-state might enclose "people of many languages, stocks, and customs."  Such randomly created national entities have frequently given birth to fierce struggles within their borders between factions, regions, or tribes.  Overall, today's world consists of at least 196 independent nations.  But they comprise the makings of as many as 1,300 potential national entities.  It is common sense to realize that a world expanded into 1,300 nation-states would probably bring about no improvement to mankind.  And it perhaps suggests that a world consisting of but a single nation-state is the sole remaining alternative.

                                                                       * * * * *

A further disadvantage of the existence of so many sovereign national entities is the extensive parallelism among political jurisdictions, which results in duplications of civil expenditures and consequent taxation.  If twenty independent nations exist upon a continent, there will likely be twenty copies of each of a number of necessary governmemntal bodies and agencies--when logic would declare that one would do.  In the present state of our world, a single governmental function is therefore subject to many incidents of bureaucracy and taxation.  Furthermore, some of these functions may not be performed completely or satisfactorily in every quarter, by reason of the fact that some of the bodies responsible for their performamnce may not possess sufficient resources or personnel or capability to successfully do so.

So long as we are divided into an array of nation-states, there will be nations that have a head-startin one or another technology; and nations that are technologically deficient in one or more departments  Those with such a head start will tend to increase their advantages over time; while those who are thus deficient, especially smaller nations, will find it harder, and perhaps eventually impossible, to catch up.  Such deficient nation-states may need to resort to agreements, alliances, or actions that are less than beneficial to their citizens, or the world in general, in order to one way or anotherobtain what they cannot themselves achieve.  In a unified world, all technological advances would be at the disposal of all--subject, of course, to legal principles regarding subjects such as patent, copyright, and trade secrets.  But there would be no boundary lines constituting a wall between "have" and "have not" places in regard to technological advancement.  Thus, the opportunity for all to eventually acquire or share in all of mankind's progress would be free of hindrance due to political bounds.

                                                      8 8 8 8 8

(PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT--HERE, OR VIE E-MAIL, TO ONEWORLD@TAMPABAY.RR.COM)


    

THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

As I have said many times in the past, our present world is a fragmented place, consisting of a vast array of independent self-interested national entities.  It is composed of a conglomeration of nation-states, many of which having been formed arbitrarily, geometrically, and illogically from a sociological standpoint.  As a mere casual reading of history to date readily illustrates, a great many national boundaries have come into being via discussions and decisions among diplomats and officials having little or no knowledge about, or relationship to, the territories involved or the peoples affected thereby.  Subsequent to much of this foolish map-drawing, there has frequently arisen strife, conflict, and even bloodshed within, and between the "citizens" of, these various "nations" thus concocted.  Most foolish of all are instances of resort to violence in attempts to maintain the sacred status of these actually meaningless boundaries against violation or intrusion by neighbors.

Many North African states were created by European rulers to suit their own administrative and economic purposes, and based upon no other criteria.  The net result has been the creation of unwieldy shapes, and post-colonial friction.  One example among many is the set of lines arbitrarily decided upon by delegates from Britain and Italy as the boundaries of Somalia.  We are told that said delineation has never been accepted by the people living there; and has resulted in much conflict, six million refugees, and loss of countless lives.  In fact, many of Africa's nations were conceived via
processes of European colonial partitioning.  Tribal, cultural, and religious aspects were ignored; and  boundaries are  described as running "like fault-lines" through a great many regions.  This has caused numerous border and civil wars, with their attendant carnage, and creation of large refugee groups as well, on many occasions.

The same can be said of the Middle East.  In August, 1903, Theodore Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, declared Palestine to be the best site for a Jewish state in a speech before the sixth Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland.  Parenthetically, during the same period, Britain had offered a tract of land in Uganda for the same purpose, which was declined.  (This is not to say that Jewish people ought not be permitted to live, work, worship, and so vastly improve physical conditions, as they have done in that part of the world--or anywhere on earth for that matter.  But the concept of "nation"--the impression that the right to occupation and use of a giant parcel of real estate was  exclusively granted to a particular group or organization--and the resultant boundaries, division, and separation--seem to have become the actual cause of much of the objection, conflict, and struggle that has taken place there subsequently.

                                                                   * * * * *

THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

Much of what I have been describing during the last several days is attributsable to the principle known as "balance of power"--which is an effect of, and companion to, the division of the world into a group of numerous nation-states of various sizes and degrees of political, economic and military might.  Its purpose has been to achieve stability for particular nations, and equilibrium within the international community.  In the past, the maintenance of balance of power was characterized by flexible maneuvering regarding the formation and termination of alliances, together with what has been referred to as "amoral diplomacy" among the various participants therein.  Combinations were intricate, and alliances were said to have been readily made and unmade as necessitated by emerging situations.  Smaller, less powerful countries of old, such as Hungary, Savoy, Spain, and Venice, among many others, would often ally themselves, now with one--now with another--more powerful nation or nations in order to maintain their independence and security.  However, this practice of multifarious treaty-making took place between and among the larger, more powerful, nation-states as well.

 In 1890, Germany cancelled its earlier treaty with Russia in favor of a similar agreement with Austria-Hungary.  This abandonment by Germany enabled Russia, in 1894, to enter a similar treaty with France.  Ten years later (i.e., in 1904), France and Britain made a like agreement joining them together as allies.  During this same period, Russia and Germany had begun discussions once more.  However, attributable to a gesture of seemingly childish behavior, the talks broke down (i.e., when Russia insisted on consulting with its current ally, France, in regard thereto).  A couple of years later, Germany continued in the cultivation and pursuit of its belligerent plsans, in response to Britain's announcement that it would support France, should France be attacked by Germany.  A few years after that, in 1914, the famous assassination in Saravejo brought about war between Austria and Serbia.  And, as a result of the aforedescribed web of alliances that existed throughout Europe, this conflict between two nations shortly transformed into a vast war involving most of the European continent. 

This same sort of mindset again affected Europe shortly prior to the Second great War.  In 1939, Britain sensed reason to fear that its alliance with France might be abandoned in favor of France making terms with Germany.  And in 1944, while the War was still in progress, a comical episode  
was witnessed by the world when Romania, till then an ally of Germany, "changed sides," and declared war on her former partner. 

More lately, modern times in general, and the Cold War era in particular, were said to have brought about a progression of traditions regarding balance of power to one of greater rigidity in international affairs.  This was marked by a polarization of memberships into the camp of one or the other of the two superpowers of the day, America and Russia.  But the underlying purpose was described as nevertheless continuing to be "held back by no ideologies or sympathies...[the principals] aiming only to protect their own independence or enlarge their own interests."  (Alfred DeGrazia, Political Organization) 

We see the same concepts illustrated in other parts of the world over the years as well.  Treaty-making and alliance-formation is not an exclusive prerogative of European nations or regions,  Such would be the case when, in 1956, France resorted to secret diplomacy with Britain and Israel in an effort to promote a war with Egypt.  In keeping with the atmosphere of childish "plotting" that surrounded these secret plans, Israel proposed to attack Egypt, on condition that Britain and France intervene on Israel's behalf, in the role of "impartial policemen."  Ten years later, in the Middle East, we observe another example of utilitarian alliance-makingt, when Egypt's Gamel Abdel Nasser concluded a surprise alliance with King Hussein of Jordan.  Prior thereto, they had been bitter enemies.  But increased hostility with Israel during that period was instrumental in turning former rivals into "bedfellows."  Subsequently, Jordan broke ties with Egypt, when the latter entered an accord with Israel.  Yet later (in 1984), Egypt and Jordan became friends once more, despite the aforesaid.  All of this once again resembles a group of schoolchildren, squabbling and "making friends," over and over, in the schoolyard that is our world

But if there were no nations, there would have been no need for nations to ally with one another for the purpose of protection and/or maintenance of a balance of power.  Sovereignty and national pride would be put aside in favor of the dignity of all mankind, and pride in resultant human accomplishment--much more worthy goals!

                                                                  * * * * *

THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

An interesting but disturbing effect of the present division of our world into a myriad of independent or semi-independent nation-states, is the complicated, and sometimes comical, situations that have arisen therefrom throughout history.  In a word, our world has often resembled a patchwork quilt--wherein different assemblages of nations would join together into groups or alliances having common interests or goals; later lose some members, or totally break apart; and still later rejoin in new and different combinations.  Or to state it another way, nations can be said to frequently behave like a group of quarreling schoolchildren--taking each other's parts against one or more of the others, and often "changing sides" as events unfold.

A typical complicated example may be related in regard to the events that took place in Europe during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, culminating in World War I.  It is but a brief outline--but it demonstrates the similarity between the behavior of modern nations and that of urban youth gangs. 

(I capitalize and designate a number to each country's name when it appears for the first time.)

In the latter part of the nineteenth century, GERMANY (1), AUSTRIA-HUNGARY (2) (known as the "Dual Monarchy"), and ITALY (3) had joined together in what was dubbed the "Triple Alliance."  By reason of this, Austria-Hungary, who had been experiencing conflict with RUSSIA (4) of late, could feel assured that, if war with Russia broke out, she could count on Germany and Italy for help.  Furthermore, as a result of different conflicts between FRANCE (5) and Germany during the early years of the twentieth century, it could be considered that, if such a war should break out, France would join in the fray on the side of Russia.  Next, to further alarm Russia, we are told, Germany made overtures to TURKEY (6).

GREAT BRITAIN (7) was said to sit idly by during this time; although she had had late nineteenth century quarrels with France and Russia.  But Great Britain and France subsequently "made friends" once more, in the early part of the twentieth century--via Great Britain trading a free hand to France in MOROCCO (8) in return for France giving Britain a similar "free hand" in EGYPT (9).  At the same time, Russia sought and attained a like prize, in the form of an agreement with Great Britain granting Russia a 'free hand" in PERSIA (10).

While all these friendships were renewing at this time, Britain also found the inclination to enter an alliance with JAPAN (11)--in order to enhance English ambitions in the Far East.

When, in 1911, Germany sought to herself establish a claim to the southern part of Morocco, she was "backed" by SPAIN (12); but opposed by France, who claimed her own interest in Morocco by reason of her agreements with Britain.  France thus, in turn, sought and received "backing" in this regard from Great Britain.

At approximately the same time, SERBIA (13) proceeded to pursue territorial gains in the Balkans, effectively expelling Turkey's presence in that region.  These moves were denounced by Austria, with the "backing" of Germany and Italy.  At the same time, Serbia sought and obtained the "backing" of France and Russia.

In 1914, following the assassimnation of the Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand in Sarajevo, Austria declared war on Serbia.  Shortly thereafter, Germany sought to invade France.  When the route Germany took in its invasion constituted a violation of BELGIUM's (14) neutrality, Great Britain declared war on Germany.  Following this, Japan joined the melee on the side of Britain and France (the "Allies"); and the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) did the same on the side of Austria and Germany (the "Central Powers").

In return for promises of Austrian territory, Italy joined in on the Allied side.  Next, ROMANIA (15) and GREECE (16) entered as Allies; while BULGARIA (17) did the same as a Central Power.  And when Germany declared war on PORTUGAL (18) in 1916, it too became an Allied combatant.  Subsequently, as we know, the UNITED STATES finally also joined in the brouhaha on the side of the Allies. 

When it was over, this "Saturday night free-for-all" resulted in the sacrifice of over twenty million  human lives (eight million military, and twelve million civilian men, women, and children), as well as a vast amount of physical waste and ruinition to a major part of Europe.

Similar formations of like associations have continued on afterward as well--as a comparable thumbnail sketch of events leading up to World War II would demonstrate.  And they go on to this very day, as our persisting international troubles serve to illustrate--including, of course, the current tragedies still unfolding in the Middle East.   

                                                                 * * * * *

THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

There are many people who must, often reluctantly, leave their homes and seek to live somewhere else, in order to avoid persecution or warfare in their native lands.  Others have left home voluntarily, perhaps temporarily;  but subsequently find that they can no longer return home due to intervening events that have taken place where they used to live.  We refer to these unfortunate persons as "refugees." 

The United Nations Convention on Refugees, established in 1951, issued specific standards governing the definition of people who might be considered "refugees," and who ought thus be entitled to obtain haven somewhere else.  These standards limited the classification to people with "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, nationality, membership within a particular social group, or political opinion," who were currently outside of their native lands, and were therefore unable to return.  It is unfortunate to note that, of late, at least 23 million people match this description.  Furthermore, there are, sadly, many millions more who cannot qualify to be officially termed "refugees," because they cannot return home for other reasons.  Such reasons may include famine, as well as various other sorts of natural disasters.  But, sad as many of these situations may be, such victims are not thereby entitled to asylum in the nation-states wherein they happen to find themselves.

Considered in the light of reason, such rules seem illogical.  For they merely consist of application of principles that stem from a source that is equaslly illogical:  the right and ability to exclude and remove peaceful law-abiding men, women, and children from a place, because they happen to have been born, or were previously living, in some other place other than "our" place. 

Borders may also at times serve as a means of trapping people within a place.  This is what occurred in Nazi Germany, when, after November, 1938, a great number of panic-stricken Jews sought to flee their country.  Unfortunately, all that the rest of the civilized world was able to do was debate issues of nationality and citizenship.  In the meantime, at least 300,000 future victims of genocide were forced to remain within the borders of Germany, until their time to ber shipped to the concentration camps arrived.

A particularly terrifying offshoot of this principle of "my" and "our," as applied to geographic territories, are the bulletins that occasionally break into our news broadcasts to tell us that an airplane bearing markings of country "A" has been shot down for violating the airspace over country "B."  In 1955, fifty eight innocent passengers were killed when an Israeli airliner was downed over Bulgaria.  In 1973, in a similar incident, at least 106 people perished when Israeli fighter jets shot down a Libyan Arab Airlines plane.  Another incident of this nature took place in 1983, when Soviet aircraft shot down Korean Airlines Flight 007, sending all 269 human beings on board to their doom.

                                                            * * * * *

The nineteenth century German philosopher Georg Hegel has told us that, like people, states have long competed with each other for "the possession of importance and splendor."  He also expressed the belief that their usual means of attaining these goals was warfare.  Thus, in keeping with this apparently authentic train of thought, nation-states' desires for economic gain, prestige, security, and power become the principal underlying causes which impel them to initiate conflict and bloodshed.  Another German intellectual, Johann von Goethe, expressed a similar, but less flattering appraisal of this rationale, in deeming "national hatred" to be strongest and most violent in "the lowest stages of civilization." 

In his efforts to encourage and promote a union of the separate states that would compose our nation, Thomas Jefferson warned that, as separate states, the components of the hoped-for union could be likened to "an arena of gladiators."  Jefferson's view concerning the unfavorable potential implicit in an array of separate American states holds doubly true when considered with reference to the array of separate nation-states, each begirded within its own bounded patch of ground, in the playing-field that constitutes today's world.

In her benchmark work on natiponalism, Liah Greenfeld of Harvard University compares nineteenth century Russia to an aspiring youth, "eager to prove its worth," who, upon experiencing defeats at the hands of Western foes, was left to "return, humiliated, to the world of inner glory, where it licked its wounds and thought of revenge"  (Nationalism, Five roads to Modernity).  We may thus justifiably compare the nation-state to the individual human person, possessing needs and desires, feelings and frustrations, not ulike those experienced by most of us.  If this be true, then just as union amongst a group of people produces results that frequently exceed the sum of those attainable by the individual members of the group, so too will a union of all of the nations, or people, of the world likely produce accomplishments and benefits in excess of that which we have been able to achieve as a conglomeration of competing and conflicting individual nation-states.

                                                                    * * * * *



 

A MESSAGE FROM THE AUTHOR

My hope is to one day witness a transformation of the current complex web of competition, hostility, and need that constitutes our world today, into a united people, freely functioning under an objectively sensible, logical and beneficent worldwide guiding body, who shall implement such resources as are at man's disposal to most reasonably and beneficially deal with such needs, difficulties, conditions, and occurrences as should exist or arise.

I am not speaking on behalf of any religious sefct or belief.

It would be descriptively appropriate to label that which I seek as a "new world order"--but any of today's resultant stereotypes do in no way apply.

Needless to say, I am not an "antichrist," nor a minion of any such fantasy.  Nor am I acting on behalf of a super-rich or super-powerful individual or group seeking to control mankind or the world.

I am not a socialist or communist.

I seek only benefit to, and the advancement of, civilization, mankind, life, and the world.

                                                       * * * * *

This "blog" constitutes the contents of a book I wrote several years ago.  I have recently noticed some "warnings" flash across my screen (a red band, containing words saying something about "ignoring a warning") while I am typing.  I also seem to be encountering attempts to put a "virus" into my efforts.

I am in no wise a "paranoid" type of individual--and I hope I do not come across as such by these statements.

If someone has an objection to any of the material that I am typing, they should please identify themselves, and advise me of the problem, in the form of a comment to my "post."

I harbor no disfavor toward anyone; and only seek to improve relations among us all.

Thank you for your attention.

THE DISADVANTAGES OF POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

Political boundaries consist of lines drawn by cartographers and surveyors, or defined by natural features.  Frequently fences and/or walls were built upon or near these lines in order to limit access across them.  These lines were often drawn following the conclusion of warfare.

Natural features, such as rivers and mountain ranges, were often designated as boundaries, because they usually required more concerted effort to cross.  Both of these sorts of boundaries were obviously established to serve as barriers to one group of people from entering into the lands resided upon by other groups of people.

However, people are often driven to seek to relocate--perhaps across a border, perhaps across the globe--in search of political freedom and/or economic opportunity.  Sometimes even more compelling motivations, such as safety, shortage of food, or other basic human necessities, prompt people to seek relief in new places.  We are, in fact, told that, since 1945, more than eighty million of our fellow human beings have been impelled to seek new places to live due to fear, hunger, or the hope of better prospects

Lines drawn by mapmakers and surveyors may constitute quite unnatural bases for dividing people.  So too do rivers, of which at least 214 happen to flow through what have been designated to be two or more nations.  This concept applies even more commonly to mountains, which are frequently divided among a number of countries.  For example, the Andes comprises parts of seven South American nation-states.  Notwithstanding, up within these mountains, movements of water, soil, weather, and natural life pay little heed to the boundaries that man has devised and imposed to separate us from one another.

Boundaries, and the separation that they represent and promote, are the basis for all sorts of disadvantages, and outright wrongs.  These borders, and at times their accompanying fences, have played various roles in causing distress and despair in various places--usually for naught.  In fact, border disputes were a precipitating factor in many of the international conflicts that took place between 1945 and 1990--which conflicts cost at least seventeen million lives, and many billions of dollars.  And ironically, after all this death and destruction, a number of disputed border situations yet remain:  such as between India and Bangladesh, India and China, India and Pakistan, and Pakistan and Afghanistan. 

In 1934, Bolivia and Paraguay went to war over an ill-defined border region called "Chaco," at a cost of six thousand lives.  In August of 1960, Somalia and Ethiopia clashed in what was described as "bloody border fighting."  A month later, Jordanian and Syrian troops gathered on both sides of their common border in anticipation of armed conflict.  In 1980, a long-smoldering border dispute between Iran and Iraq, over a waterway that served as an outlet for Iraq to the Persian Gulf burst into a war that lasted for eight years, and wasted over a million lives.  Between 1981 and 1995, Peru and Ecuador participated in many fierce border clashes concerning their common boundary.  In 1994, Armenia and Azerbaijan engaged in warfare over a disputed territory called Nsagorno-Karabakh.

Thus, these altercations concerning the concept of boundary continue to rage on today, in a variety of places and dimensions, year after year, all over the world. 

                                                        * * * * *

Borders stand as symbols of mankind's persistent somewhat selfish mind-set, whereby we strive to exclude most of our fellow humans from territories we call "ours."  They come and go over time.  They are far from permanent or enduring--because they are expressions of a concept that is faulty to begin with.

That is not to say that we shouldn't be able to exclude others from our private property, such as our homes or places of business.  Nor does it apply to fences or restrictions erected or enacted in order to keep out those who may wish to enter a place in order to do physical harm or property damage.  In these instances, such barriers are necessary and proper.  However, as a general principle, and under ordinary circumstances, civilized human beings should not be excluded by lines, fences, or policies put into place by other human beings, around what they consider to be "their" respective portions of our world.  For preventing my fellow human being from residing, or carrying on his or her occupation or business, lawfully and peacefully, next to me, is illogical--when it is based upon the fact that he or she  was born on the other side of some line--or even halfway around the world.

To be sure, migration by "have-nots" has for ages been viewed with dread and consequent disdain by the "haves"; as these indigenous perceive migrant newcomers as threats to their culture, and especially to their livelihoods.  Prime examples are observed  in the history of the American colonies--when people from a few places in Europe emigrated to take up residence in a strange and distant land--a land, by the way, whose natives had not established a system for ownership of real property.  These early colonists proceeded to call this real estate their own--but were not always similarly sharing as regards the people who came afterwards.

For example, as early as 1882, when Chinese laborers began to compete for jobs with people already here, the Chinese Exclusion Act forbade further entry of workers from China.  And in 1907, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed an immigration bill to prevent further immigration by Japanese laborers to our West coast.  In 1917, the state of California issued a further obstacle to the Japanese in the form of a law forbidding them to own land in this country.

By 1917 as well, we had devised a more acceptable rationale for our attempts to exclude, by means of a "literacy bill."  By only admitting individuals who could read and write, we claimed to be declining admission to people with less chance of fitting into "American culture."  But the actual, and desired, effect was to reduce the numbers of people coming here from southern and eastern Europe.

Later, exclusionary policies expanded further, closing the door to people adjudged to be afflicted with "unsatisfactory moral standards," "radical leanings," or "poverty."  Yet, our credo has always been, and continues to be, freedom to behave as one pleases (so long as noone is harmed thereby); freedom to espouse different or unusual beliefs (so long as noone is scandalized, offended, or otherwise harmed thereby); and freedom to attermpt to overcome poverty via hard work and sacrifice (so long as one's endeavors are honest and lawful).  In 1952, our legislators--many of whom being themselves second and third generation descendants of similar eagerly aspiring entrants--slammed the door once more, via the McCarren-Walter Immigration and Naturalization Act.  It was, by the way, carried despite President Truman's protests and subsequent veto.

As time went on, U.S. immigration policies have grown increasingly restrictive, engendering hostility toward America and Americans on the part of much of the rest of the world.  And in 1974, following a similar path, Canada expresseed concern over "changing racial patterns," and likewise tightened its immigration controls.

Currently, much protest and debate is being carried on concerning the entry--usually illegally--of great numbers of people from Mexico and other places south of the U.S. border.  Most of them are merely seeking opportunities to work--quite hard, for minimal pay.  But the recent terrorist activities and threats across the globe, as well as the occasional illegal entry of trespassers for the purpose of dealing in the drug trade, has caused most Americans to become quite vocal about America's porous borders.  It is of course obviously necessary for any governing entity to exercise dilligence concerning the movement of people--from any place to any place, regardless of whether such movement be a few miles, or halfway around the world--in order to guard against terrorism as well as illicit drug trafficking.  But this dilligence should be directed to and applied towartd the activities that are sought to be prevented--as opposed to complete exclusion of certain people, or people from certain places, by reason of--or worse, as a substitute for--such dilligence.

                                                                * * * * *