Is an international border where one country stops and another begins or...?

Question

..is it where one country defends his side against the other successfully. USA border is being attacked. The border is fluid. USA military has been ordered to stay. You figure out what is going on I am tired of explaining what it is that "you do not understand" about illegal.

Answer 1

An international border is where one country ends -- and it may or may not be where another country begins.

For example, in international waters, where the border of one country exists, there is no "other country" on the other side -- same for some regions in the arctic circle.

The area that a country controls via its military may or may not be the same as its recognized international border -- and that is even more true during periods of active conflict, when the area of control is fluid becaues of ongoing battles.

The US border is not being attacked -- nobody is trying to change the lines of what is and is not US territory -- many people are trying to cross the border, and some of them are doing so without filling out proper paperwork -- which is a misdemeanor in the same general category as driving without a license.

But nobody is trying to change the definition of the US border -- and there is no foreign army trying to take territory away from the US.

Answer 2

The neat lines drawn on maps which represent international borders do not necessarily match up with reality on the ground. The maps which we see in atlases and in newspapers are often out of date as soon as they are printed. By that, I do not mean that the official border has moved, but the de facto, or effective border has moved.

In school, we are taught that the border drawn on the map is the real border. No distinction is made between de facto (in reality) and de jure (according to law) borders. Which is more real? That depends.

The international borders on maps are only meant to demarcate the extent to which various federal governments can enforce their legal power. They do not, and cannot, demarcate human migration, animal migration, commerce, weather, or types of civilizations. These things have their own lines of demarcation, which usually do not conform to legal borders. Borders have never been able to perform this duty. An artificial line drawn on a map cannot prevent these types of movement.

Is the United States under attack by Mexicans? That depends on how you look at it. If you believe that the line on the map is supposed to prevent human movement, restrict trade, halt communication, etc., then the answer is yes. The border is not effectively stopping those types of things from crossing into or out of the USA.

But the border can't do those things. Only an airtight physical barrier can stop people from moving from one side of a line to another.

During the Cold War, the communist East Germans tried to prevent people from escaping into capitalist West Germany. They built an electric fence guarded by soldiers and dogs. It failed. People found ways around the fence. They dug under it, they glided over it, they bribed the soldiers, they forged documents. They turned the power off and climbed over the wall. The border between East and West Germany only represented the extent of control of these two federal governments. It was impossible to prevent human migration, communication, or trade. Smuggling continued across the wall throughout the Cold War.

The border is doing what it is designed to do - keep Mexican federal authority on one side and American federal power on the other side of the line. In no way can this legal line prevent the movement of money, pollution, people or anything else. A legal line only has legal power. It has no physical power.

If the Mexican military started building forts in Arizona, or if the Canadian government tried to enforce the use of French in Vermont, that would be war. Those countries are not allowed to do such things. The border prevents them from doing so. The Mexicans and Canadians know that if they tried something like that, they would be forced back across the line. Within US national territory, no other country may enforce its laws or use its physical power.

The same goes for other countries. This is why when the United States imposes its laws on other countries, they get angry. When US authorities issue arrest warrants on British or Canadian citizens because they have broken American laws, without leaving their home countries, this is illegal. The United States government is overstepping its authority.

When the United States declares war on sovereign nations, unprovoked, it is breaking international law. It has absolutely no right to do that. There is no such thing as a 'law of pre-emption'.

When the United States stations troops in foreign countries, many people in those countries are deeply offended and scared, in the same way that Americans would be offended if the Saudis, the Afghans, the Cubans, started building bases and mobilizing troops on US soil.

Answer 3

Paula is correct in a sense. If the government thought illegal immigration was as bad as the citizens do, do you think we'd have so many illegals? No we wouldn't. A much stronger effort would be waged to combat it. Instead individual states are having to try and deal with situations and making laws which get overturned on a federal level. Doesn't that raise any questions or flags in your mind? It does me.

Answer 4

If the gov't had balls...They could take the influx of illegals from Mexico as an invasion and declare war on that crap country. That is thinking abstract, but technically it's true. sending in millions to disrupt the economic fabric of the US which is a form of sabotage which can be taken as an act of war.

Answer 5

That is according to the old world order - there are no borders in the new world order.

Answer 6

It's an imaginary line that gives a country the option to defend that line if they want.