(Note: This was originally posted on January 19, 2025 at a different site when I was temporarily locked out of this one.)

Some nations defend their borders with a stern ferocity but take little to no interest in the borders of other nations.  Switzerland is an example.  Their armed forces are prepared to defend the country against attack – watch it, Liechtenstein – but Switzerland does not engage in military action anywhere else.  Switzerland did not even join the U.N. until 2002, and only after a national referendum authorized the action.

Other nations who guard their borders jealously are less careful about those of their neighbors.  Mexico and Russia are two nations that take this approach.  Mexico guards its southern border but provides generous assistance to the millions of its citizens, residents, and visitors who would prefer to live in the United States.

Russia takes its border seriously, although it does not have to deal with an influx of migrants: a slow afternoon on the Rio Grande will see more migrants than Russia would encounter in a decade.  On the other hand, in the last 20 years, Russia has meddled aggressively in the affairs of its neighbors.  It invaded Georgia during the Bush 43 administration, Crimea during the Obama years, and most recently Ukraine in 2022.

Then there is the United States, which for the last four years has done little to control the unlawful flow of some ten million persons across its southern border.  Indeed, Biden’s people actively encouraged the flow by dismantling the physical, legal, and diplomatic controls that Trump 45 put in place.

This attitude contrasts with the reaction of Biden’s people to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  The protection of Ukraine’s borders, in their view, is worth hundreds of millions, “as much as it takes” in the words of the highly decorated General Mark Milley.

In addition, the U.S. has given Ukraine offensive weapons, capable of striking targets inside Russia, and has authorized Ukraine to use them even though we have no obligation to defend Ukraine.  Russia has the world’s largest collection of nuclear weapons.  The nation that put Mr. Biden in the White House must rely on the willingness of Vladimir Putin to exercise patience and restraint, qualities for which he is not well known.

During the last four years, we have not heard a rationale for either policy that stands up to analysis. 

If the United States is going to use military force, either directly or through proxies, it should be for the purpose of defending the country’s national interest.  What is the interest of the United States in maintaining the borders of Ukraine in the location they occupied in February 2022?

Why did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine require the U.S. and its NATO allies to arm Ukraine?  We are told that the U.S. is defending democracy.  That premise doesn’t survive the reflection that Ukraine’s government has outlawed opposition parties. 

We are told that the U.S. must defend the international order.  There is no question that we should defend the internation order.  What is left unexplained is why the imposition of economic and financial sanctions was not enough to satisfy this obligation.

What is the interest of the United States that would be damaged by the relocation of Ukraine’s border with Russia?  Unless we can point to something concrete that would be lost by adjusting those borders, we should limit our response to economic sanctions.

Compare Ukraine to Taiwan.  As with Ukraine, the U.S. is not party to a treaty that requires the U.S. to defend Taiwan.  (The U.S. has enacted a statute that makes the defense of Taiwan the policy of the U.S.  That policy does not give Taiwan the right to call upon U.S. military power as a matter of right.)  Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan produces something we need: advanced computer chips that are vital to the continued development of information technology and computing systems throughout the developed nations.  The disruption of the information processing capabilities of the United States and its allies would have a significant adverse impact on a vital interest of the United States.

The use of military force to defend that interest would be amply justified if Taiwan were invaded.  The justification for military action in that event would not be based on a generality like the defense of democracy, the preservation of international order, or our feelings of solidarity with the people of Taiwan.  Those are sentiments, not interests. 

The use of force would be justified to repel (and the threat of force to discourage) an enemy action that adversely affects a vital national interest.  No vital interest been cited as a reason for the supply of arms to Ukraine during the three years since Russia invaded Ukraine – to be clear, without justification and in violation of civilized norms.

When it comes to the borders of the United States, Biden’s people have taken a different approach.  They occasionally invoke sentiment – the poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty is useful for this purpose – but the principal approach has been stout denial.  They insist that the border is under control.  The Secretary of Homeland Security has made this claim numerous times, including under oath in testimony before Congress.

Making this statement and others like it has provided the administration with two benefits, one strategic, one tactical.  The strategic benefit is that it helps to soften the mind of followers and supporters.  Theodore Dalyrmple (the penname of Anthony Daniels) points out that totalitarian governments force their citizens to believe obvious lies as part of a general plan to weaken their will and their ability to reason.  What totalitarians accomplish through force and terror can be achieved by leaders in freer societies through guile and deception when supine journalists are willing to cooperate. 

The tactical benefit of stout denial is that the administration is not called to justify an open border policy.  If you deny that something is happening, you don’t have to explain or justify it.

Nevertheless, some ten million persons entered the country unlawfully during the last four years to join the ranks of perhaps twenty million others who arrived during previous administrations (including Trump 45, although his numbers are better than those of his two predecessors).

We can ask the same question we did about arming Ukraine: what benefit does the United States derive from the entry into the country of some ten million persons without legal authority?  While there are some individuals among them who pose danger – inmates of Venezuelan prisons, members of drug cartels, agents of unfriendly foreign powers, including China – the majority are people whose skills are not essential to the functioning of an advanced economy.  Our cutting-edge industries may need immigrants with critical skills – that’s the subject of the intra-party debate about H-1B visas – but the people with those skills are entering with visas through ports of entry.  They are not pouring through holes in the fence on the southern border.

Biden’s people will remain silent on the justification for this policy right up to the inauguration on January 20.  There simply isn’t a justification for this lawless policy.

How will Trump 47 deal with the presence of so many unlawful residents?  We have been promised mass deportations.  Polling indicates that significant majorities of the public favor this policy.  Will that support continue when the news media begin to show footage of crying mothers and screaming children?  I expect that the footage is ready for broadcast as soon as the new administration gets beyond the deportation of felons and violent offenders.  That’s what happened during the previous Trump administration when the media began showing “kids in cages”.  The video showed scenes from the Obama years, but it was Trump who was blamed for separating “mommas and their babies” as Senator Elizabeth Warren put it in her folksy way.

Majorities will be happy to see action on “Day One”.  We will find out quickly whether that enthusiasm will continue as the process of deporting millions stretches into months. 

                                                                                Gerry Bresslour

                                                                                January 19, 2025