The racism is in
assuming that the border is legally set by the US govt, as opposed to America's Natives, even though the US govt was itself established by an (illegal) violation of the borders of America's Natives.
So the relevant analogy is someone invading my home and then demanding that he/she gets to subsequently determine who can come in, even though that person is himself not allowed in.
Kinda silly, ain't it
Grownups debate the
facts, not their fantasies. "The way I wish it were..." is not the topic of this thread. Pretending that things are not the way that they actually are is
truly silly.
Doing so is also hardly a noble struggle against a perceived injustice. It more closely resembles a struggle against reality.
The "home invasion" analogy is a bit stretched as well. Private Property ownership is determined by whose name appears on the deed. Who is allowed to reside within is determined either by the deed, or by a written lease. Both are regulated by, and within the purvue of, governments and courts that decide upon both. "The way I wish it were..." means absolutely zilch in the real world.
Who determines the boundaries of nations other than the governments of those nations? The changing whims of a wandering and nomadic populace? One might as well re-draw the borders based upon whether or not the groundhog sees his shadow in early February.
Governments are instituted for exactly these sorts of tasks. Governments are run by politicians. Politicians are motivated not by sentiment, but by interest. It has quite clearly been of no interest to either of the two national governments to change the locations of our southern border. If changing our borders had ever been in their interests, they would have addressed that change a long, long time ago.
Since those borders were established long before any of us here today were even born, and they have never been challenged in any significant way by the governments of either of the two nations that it separates, it is reasonable to make the assumption that the border is, in fact, quite legal. There is no racism in making that assumption. Just a recognition of reality.
It is ludicrous to suggest that we are conducting ourselves today, centuries after the borders were drawn, with any kind of racism, implied or otherwise. Most of us are recognizing the border for what it is, not trying to re-define it in order better fit it into a fantasy.
The existence and positioning of our southern border is not subject to debate. It exists, it is
where it is, and it is
what it is... a
border. We are not debating the legitimacy of the border here, nor are we debating whether it is "legal". It is both legitimate and legal because both governments have agreed to it. Period.
Don't cross it without permission. Read the signs. This is not rocket science.
