Exactly...

Thanks Doc...

I respect "The Star-Spangled Banner" as the national anthem, but I could do without the theocratic message in the final stanza (which is rarely performed). Also, I have heard that the third one, with its reference to "hirelings and slaves" is not, as I had thought, merely a reference to European subjects and mercenaries, but a slam against American blacks, whom the enemy had tried to use.
Still, the first and second stanzas are fine; and I stand proudly for it when it is played in public.
Still, I would prefer a marching tune. And yet, I think that the ideal national anthem for this country has yet to be written.

Incomplete education, relying on catch phrases, is the problem with so many people who fall for "Imagine", Just as schools failed to read Maslow to his conclusion, when he said his group therapy was "dangerous" if not done in a licensed therpist's office.Schoools went ahead and let teachers conduct sessions in a classroom. So too with John Lennon, who came to regret writing "Imagine" and o longer believed it later in his life. He came to admire Reagan.Since these utopia babies never studied real philosophy, they have come to believe all the quick to grab onto catch phrases, and all that goes with them. They have no idea no utopia has, or ever will exist. They are without background on Stalin or Lenin, and how people were treated under these ruthless men..

The one thing everyone seems to have left out is economic and personal security differences. The USA is still Reagan's "shining city on the hill," seductive and beckoning to those who live in poverty and crime-ridden communities. It's estimated that there are 35 million residents of South and Central American countries who would relocate to the USA if there were no immigration restrictions.

The Berlin Wall comes to mind, to prevent East Germans from fleeing to the freer and more prosperous West Germany. The reason West Germany didn't build a wall was because of shared history, language, and racial makeup of their Eastern cousins, and the ease of those educated escapees fitting in and being productive.

Our problem is different. There is the culture clash and language barriers discussed in the article. Education is also a problem. Many of the illegals from the south are illiterate, even in their own language, so training for anything other than grunt labor is difficult. Growing up in communities where criminal activity is the order of the day makes our society of laws strange to many of them, so they lack the comprehension that our sense of order and respect for others' property is what makes our society so much safer than theirs.

A major issue is that these illegals carry diseases foreign to our population. We lack immunity to many parasitic, bacterial, and viral infections common to this population of invaders, creating a real possibility of a pandemic. The visa "overstayers" don't present this problem because they've been screened for disease prior to visa issue.

Canada presents no such issue, as we share a common language similar culture, and roughly the same level of individual affluence. That's the primary reason why there's no rush of Canadians across our Northern boder.

They want to vanquish YOUR right to property, YOUR right to your own mind and thoughts.

Not THEIRS. It has always been that way in any communist regime.

Got to admit, when I saw the title of this post, my first thought was of this: https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...

"And no religion, too." That would preclude those to demand that you convert or else. Let me suggest that Schrödinger's cat and all that being as it was, how come the grad students did not throw bombs into the Bierstuben of the opposing theory? The reason is thatthey accepted the same standards of proof.. They accepted the standards of proof. They did not demand religions.

Ayn Rand excoriated the philosophers whom she regarded as betrayers of capitalism, Bentham, Mill, Spencer, and of course, the American conservatives around Naitonal Review.. Granted that, but look at how the left deals with it. It is why the former communists wrote a compilation called The God that Failed. Communism and socialism are more like religions than they are like the scientific disciplines they claim to be.

No fan of Spanish culture nor language but if they just behaved themselves and knocked upon our door to visit or live...I'd be fine with that.

A billboard at the border should read: BEHAVE YOURSELF!

Have traveled a good amount overseas both for business and as a tourist. I never wanted to eat at McDonalds even after a year of travel in other cultures. However, after a couple weeks of living as a tourist in France (and I am unable to speak French) I was overjoyed to spend a long evening over dinner and wine with two English speaking couples from Canada and Australia. I was like a man who had been in the desert without water for 2 weeks and the English language was a clear mountain stream. I have traveled in Mexico, central america, and south america as a tourist, and I have no desire to live there. There are very pleasant places to live there, but I'm not inclined to convert from the culture I know and enjoy to the one(s) in Mexico, CA, or SA. Completely unappealing. Build the wall. Protect the existing culture and limit legally those immigrating to productive people with a desire to protect individual liberty and free markets. Those are cultural traits that are more valuable than anything offered by illegal immigrants.

Forgot to mention: The rewards of his own efforts, in the last line.

Thanks for the history, Mike. Accurate as always.
I also agree with your ending premise.

Borders become an issue when either or both sides don't see eye to eye, have conflicting histories and/or one side or the other are taught that the land on one side or the other was unjustly acquired. That is a failure to acknowledge history and an unwillingness to accept the consequences of the time those events occurred...get over it, I say.

And of course, we can't forget the moocher syndrome of which would not be so much of a problem if so much of the American left were not so hell bent on altruism and the "Keeping" of other fellow humans; which as we know, diminishes the potential of those kept, not to mention, at the cost of those not kept.
This issue becomes an issue of not respecting the property, the sovereignty and the lives of others.

Now, the issue of culture and language enters the big picture. On a general scale, we share much with Mexicans and that in itself is not a problem. It's nothing like Western culture and islamic culture which in most ways, is 180 degrees apart.
Language is a big problem, we need to communicate adequately to function properly with one another. Not to mention, the degree to which the different languages allow for integrated thought, behavior, world views and degrees of Conscious introspection or matters of conscience. The latter of which defines one's culture in a way.

Now, my last consideration is respect for the different cultures, the conscious benevolent one's anyway, those that are compatible.
Do we not appreciate, maybe even drawn to, one culture or another?j One cultural history or another.
As we say, when one visits France, you experience being French, or English, German, Swedish, Irish...etc, etc. Is that not an invisible "Border" in a sense?

Do we really want all things to be the same?
The world would be pretty boring if it were in my perspective.

So, does not the issue of respect for the "property" of others really define the issue of borders. The property of others includes his language, his outlook, his behavior, his history and mode of thinking?, (his mind).

"Lennon"
I was going to give myself the pleasure of pointing out your spelling mistake, then I read the article.
'Same difference' as we say here.

Lennon did not do any country's border security and sovereignty any favors by coming up with that globalist glop for a song.
~"And no religion too.
Imagine all the peopler living life in peace."~
Tell that to a headhunting jihadist who freely waltzed into your country with a demands that you convert or else.

THE PROBLEM OF BORDERS
The United States has had a 3000-mile open border with Canda and neither side has a problem.

The border with Mexico is as much a result of Mexico's demand for one. They wanted to be their own country. For one thing, they did not want slavery, which we had. But they also wanted to be Catholic, which they finally gave up (legally) in 1920, but maintain culturally. That cultural inertia explains a lot.

Note that the first million Americans came from the United Kingdom and we fought two wars against them and threatened a third. From 1850 to 1920 immigrants came here from Ireland, Gemany, Italy and Central Europe (largely) and we went to war against Germany, Italy, and Central Europe (twice) but never against Ireland.

Being the arbitrary creation of Versailles, Czechoslovakia found itself happier as two countries. On the other hand, the equally arbitrary creation we call "Belgium" still exists as one nation (supposedly) though deeply divided French versus Dutch. Partition of Belgium background here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partiti.... And yet, for whatever animosities, they are not like the Palestinians and Israelis, who actually share so much it is as sad as it is scary. Meanwhile, Switzerland continues French, German, Italian, and one Canton "Romansh" whatever that really may be... They seem to get along well enough.

When you look at the history of South America, it seems like a law of nature that new nations go to war with each other. They want to flex their muscles. Their borders are not historically settled. Whatever. But why has no Finnish politican risen to annex Estonia? It would be easier to take than Iraq's ill-conceived invasion of Kuwait, which really was part of Iraq for all the difference it made or makes.

If fascism brings war, why is it that Spain and Portugal never went to war when they were fascist? They do have a dispute, 200 years old, in fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portuga... But they do not have a problem with millions of people sloshing back and forth across the frontier to enjoy whatever marginal benefits of relocation may be had.

One of the agonies of Brexit is that now Ireland will have to go back to being partitioned. Think of that. The Republic had its own government. They wanted that, desperately for 400 years, but they still wanted access to British markets.

The lack of Gulching along the borders on the other side of Venezuela begs many questions. Supposedly, the people who have been fleeing socialism for almost 20 years are the producers. Why are the safe margins of Columbia, Guyana, and Brazil not showcases for free enterprise?

We have no internal borders in the USA. People come and go as they please. Something like 200 or 300 people move to Austin every day. On the other hand, since 2001, over twenty thousand people have not moved to New Hampshire. Libertarians like Gary Johnson so much that they nominated him to run for President. But his term of office as govermor in a state with a part-time legislature had no effect on prosperity there, while, in fact, in Albuquerque violent crime including police crime continued to rise.

All of the above (and more could be said) just outlines some of the aspects of a complex N-dimensional problem space. That space is bounded by the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that generated the original post from Robert Curry of "Intellectual Take-Out."

Not exactly the "Lennon" you were thinking of?