Concerning the border issue:
The reason "government" is responding (or not responding) to it the way it is
George Hegel's statement (as quoted in Consensus―about when a state becomes a state) makes it clear that immigration is out of the question when it comes to dialectic 'reasoning.' That under the control of those who 'reason' dialectically, people can no longer flee from the pressures of compromise, they can no longer look for a new place where they can continue what they are accustomed to (seeking a place of freedom and liberty where they can be out from under the tyranny of despotic government control, out from under the control of those of dialectic 'reasoning'). The border issue is not to prevent people from illegally "fleeing" into America (to gain money and freedom), it is about keeping American's from "illegally" fleeing (to keep their money and freedom) from the hands of the dialectic government of tyranny (of 'change').
The issue is all about money. You can leave the country (maybe) but your money (which includes physical, mental, and social capital, that being your expertise which will aid their cause) can not go. The Berlin Wall (which was put up to keep people from fleeing the tyranny of communism, i.e. fleeing the tyranny of dialectic 'reasoning') did not "come down" because communism was defeated. It came down because communism had succeeded. It is the walls of freedom and liberty (of inalienable rights) which must come down if the world is to become a place without walls (transparent, which means no privacy, as in private property, business, or family, as in "Mine, not yours"). The key to understanding communism is that Traditional Marxists build walls to preserve communism, Transformational Marxists tear walls down when communism has transcended them.
As Obama stated in Berlin, way back in 2008 (a position which he has not changed from): "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christians and Muslims and Jews can not stand." (Obama in Berlin, July 2008; a one minute audio excerpt) Note: he made that which is social and that which is spiritual one and the same, negating the right of freedom of religion. For the Muslim, killing infidels for the kingdom, taking over the whole world, for the Jew, killing animals for the kingdom (soon to come―animal rights people are having a "cow," pardon the pun), taking over the promised land for only themselves, and for the Christian, 'redeemed' by the the blood of the lamb of God, the only begotten Son of God, 'reconciled' to His Heavenly Father by His resurrection, seeking the kingdom of God which is to come, established according to His power and for His glory, according to His righteousness alone, that no man, Jew or gentile can boast―nowhere in the gospel is a believer to kill or oppress anyone for the faith. (If anyone is oppressed and killed it is the believer, because the world does not want to hear his preaching and teaching of God's judging and condemning it for its wicked ways.) To the point. The Constitution, limiting the power of government, can only come from the last religion mentioned (see Max Horkheimer's remarks, as quoted in 09-03-2012 "Education Nation," before you jump all over me―it's strange that I have to turn to a Marxist to defend the truth, shows you where we are today, i.e. ignorant, more like, in denial of our history). In other words the patriarchal paradigm of sovereignty, which gives us inalienable right's, under God, must be negated by the heresiarchal paradigm of tyranny, of 'change, of dialectic 'reasoning,' if universality ("human rights" under totalitarianism AKA globalism, communitarianism, democratization, conscietization AKA democracy, socialism, communism, all the same in theory and practice, just some are slower to the gun than other) is to become a 'reality.' As Obama put it: "These hallowed walls we must tear down." (ibid.)
People put up walls to maintain privacy. According to dialectic 'reasoning' nothing is private except the government of tyranny's right (a government under the control of dialectic 'reasoning's' right) to negate privacy, to negate "Mine, not yours," replacing it with "Ours, not just yours." Just as two tried to do in a garden in Eden―God having to get the point across that the garden was "His, not yours, mine, or ours" (from where we get the right of private property, i.e. "Mine, not yours") by kicking them out (Hint! Hint! Hint!), i.e. they can spend their money on what they want to do but they can't do what they want to do on my nickel.
The power to tax is the power to destroy. It is in the power, the controlling of the environment, people included, that money takes on worth, to build up or to tear down, i.e. to create or to destroy. It is what is being built up and what is being destroyed that is of issue here. Abraham Maslow made it clear that it is "common"-ism that is to be build up and "individual"-ism that is to be destroyed. "In our democratic society, any enterprise―any individual―has its obligations to the whole." "Tax credits would be given to the company that helps to improve the whole society, and helps to improve the democracy by helping to create democratic individuals." (Abraham Maslow, Maslow on Management) In other words, outside of the collective, outside the cause of "common"-ism, the individual has not value or worth. As Hegel put it, dialectic 'reasoning' "contains the essential element of a negation, because to produce is also to destroy; … as Mind passes on from its natural form, it also proceeds from its exact code of morals and the robustness of life [religion, from the way things "must" be, based upon righteousness, doing what is right and not doing what is wrong, according to a higher authority, restraining "human nature," man's "natural inclination" to relate with the world in the 'moment'] to reflection and conception [secularism, to the way things "ought" to be, based upon sensuousness, i.e. man's natural impulses and urges to relate with the world which stimulated them]. The result of this is that it lays hold of and troubles this real, substantial kind of existence, this morality and faith, and thus the period of destruction commences." (Hegel's Lectures on the History of Philosophy Introduction B. Relation of Philosophy to Other Departments of Knowledge) When money is in the hands of dialectic "thinkers" it will be spent on augmenting sensuousness and attenuating (negating) righteousness, i.e. destroying the "top-down" "old" world order (the way things "were"), creating an "equality" "new" world order (the way things "can" be). In the dialectic world, all money's must be spent for the advancement of the "common" cause, for the creation of a borderless, "We, working for Us" society.
Government is good. Yet it is considered a "necessary" evil. The evil lies not in government but in the hearts of the men who are in government. George Washington noted that evil condition (as quoted in "Education Nation") and how it engenders despotism, not liberty, if not restrained by a Godly people. Without a people of conscience, of morality and religion, under God, walls of oppression will eventually surround the people, forcing them to "willingly" participate in the praxis of abomination (consensus), for the "good" of "all" (for the sake of the survival of the world―so much for reading, believing in, and obeying the Word of God).
Those who are in government, who 'reason' dialectically (promoting unity based upon "human nature"), are not there to defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies (no one who 'reasons' dialectically can honestly swear to defend and uphold any document of restraint). They are there to negate the sovereignty of the nation and its Constitution, all for the sake of a "one world government." The use of the media, education, and crisis (and lies, i.e. giving the appearance that they are in office to defend the sovereignty of this nation, the Constitution, small business, and the traditional family when they are in office to negate sovereignty, the Constitution, small business, and the traditional family) is essential to keep them in office to continue their 'quest' for "worldly peace" and "socialist harmony." The crisis of the borders (as Bismarck understood) only serves as a means of unifying "the peoples" of the world at the expense of sovereignty, negating the right of the individual to stand alone with God, to have a clear conscience, to be free of the fear and tyranny of the lawless men of dialectic 'reasoning,' i.e. of totalitarian control. Without the border issue being perpetuated, dialectic 'reasoning' could not end up engendering the outcome, a borderless society. As Hegel, so Marx, so Obama: "It is not individualism that fulfills the individual, on the contrary it destroys him. Society is the necessary framework through which freedom and individuality are made realities," (Karl Marx) "Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice, it is the only way, the one way to protect our common security and advance our common humanity." (Obama, ibid.) For both, apart from collective rights there are no rights, "common"-ism depends on it.
It is as Maslow stated it: "Self-actualizing people have to a large extent transcended the values of their culture. They are not so much merely Americans as they are world citizens, members of the human species first and foremost." (A. H. Maslow, The Further Reaches of Human Nature) "I've decided to get into the World Federalists, become pro-UN . . . One World. A world government with world-shared values . . . Until sovereignty is given up little by little by "nations." This is a realistic combination of the Marxian version and the Humanistic." (The Journals of Abraham Maslow)
© Institution for Authority Research, Dean Gotcher 2012-2015, 2018