Close the Borders?… No Way!… That Would be Intolerant!



Does anyone remember when former Governor Schwarzenegger had the temerity to say, “We need to close our borders”? Back in 2005, it unleashed quite a turd tornado in the mainstream media. But then he quickly retracted it by admitting that he didn’t know the English language well enough and didn’t really mean what many “deplorable” Americans, in fact, actually hoped he really did mean. 

Given his retraction, many journalists cut The Terminator some slack. After all, he was only a governor. Perhaps they reasoned that a mistake like actually thinking borders should be enforced should only really become a matter of national importance if such a belief were to be held by someone like, say, the President, which, obviously, he was not. 

Perhaps for those who today are either progressive liberals and/or millennials, however, that was not the end of the matter. It left them to ponder in their collective developing cortexes what to them may have been more interesting issues. Like why would a grown man like the Governor feel a need to retract a notion like closing our borders? Or, put differently, would he be doing something wrong if we were to enforce our immigration laws at our borders?

You never know. This line of inquiry could then lead them on to ponder even deeper issues. Like, if we have borders, what are they for? Likely they would respond that surely borders are not to keep people out, are they? If they were, wouldn’t that be really exclusionary, and so, really… like… intolerant? And that’s not who we like to think we are, is it? For sure, man… are we not a people who refuse to exclude anybody no matter who they are or what they may want to do for us, with us, or even TO us? 

And, in fact, so their thinking seems to have gone. Maybe this is what The Arnold was getting at by his retraction. America must be made to stand for anything people who live here (legally or illegally) want it to stand for. And we must want it to be inclusive and tolerant of anybody who wants to live here regardless of whatever incompatible ideologies they may support or wish to advance upon their arrival. For only then can we take pride in being a people that has voluntarily chosen to champion diversity and tolerance over all else and, thus, to stand for… nothing.  

Well, hold on a minute. That doesn’t sound so good. Let’s start over. 

Perhaps it would be better if America were to simply redefine the term “border.” Surely, if we are a people that have already demonstrated an ability to redefine concepts like “marriage” and “when life begins,” certainly redefining a term like “border” to comport with a progressive agenda cannot possibly be beyond the pale of our abilities.  

So here we go. To make the liberals and millennials happy, let’s try.

Border, bor-der, noun: Presently, an essentially meaningless and porous — yet, when appearing on maps, decorative — geographical boundary located along the outlying perimeter of what historically used to be, prior to its enlightenment, an affluent, powerful and influential sovereign nation before it permitted the money and jobs of its lawful citizens to be sucked out of its communities to other “disadvantaged” countries, (but, that also just coincidentally happened to offer cheaper labor to our previous employers), while simultaneously enabling a massive influx of citizens from those same countries to join legal American citizens (whether legally or illegally) and take up a good number of the remaining jobs that have not been exported (notwithstanding the minor inconvenience that some among these new arrivals may also be criminals, drug traffickers and terrorists who are foreseeably intent upon doing us harm) — all to facilitate our fulfillment of this recently adopted, yet overriding, conviction held by a self-appointed chosen few progressive liberals and/or millennials that for some unknown God-forsaken reason have come to believe that it is of overriding importance that we all must be forced to accept as reality an illusionary harmonious balance with the folks we have permitted to enter our country illegally, but that the same self-appointed chosen few also hope will allow all of us to become a nation that will display to the rest of the world the appearance of its having embraced evolved notions of compassion, inclusivity and tolerance, notwithstanding the fact that it will also necessarily lead to America’s ultimate decline to Third World status.

O.K. I’ll admit it. It could use some refinement. But while we’re at it, don’t we also need to start reworking the definitions of terms like “sovereignty,” “rule of law,” “citizenship,” and “United States of America”? Oh, heck… this is getting out of hand.  

To make the progressives happy, why don’t we just grant statehood to all the other countries in the world, and get it over with? Or, we could just expand upon the notion of Sanctuary Cities and declare ourselves to be a Sanctuary Nation. Wouldn’t that be easier? Who knows, it just might make someone who would propose such a thing popular enough to be elected President.  

But, then the question remains, will she actually win? Sure, she could. But only if on Election Day, she doesn’t get trumped by a candidate who wants America to return to being a great country again, instead of allowing it to become the diverse, inclusive and tolerant country the enlightened globalists among us and around the world would seem to prefer.

© 2005–2016 Clifford C. Nichols. Cliff Nichols is an attorney licensed to practice law in both California and New Mexico. He may be contacted at