Bill Collier


There are those who believe that borders are bad, that there should be no borders.  Indeed, they go on t elaborate that there should be no states or “national homelands” for that matter. Ron Paul and others like him are of that same mind, at least regarding open borders.

But states can and must exist, and, separate from states and governments, homelands for Peoples can and must exist. This is of practical necessity, and it is Biblical. Consider the whole Tower of Babel and how God Himself punished the first attempt at a universal global state. Consider Acts 17 where the Apostle Paul actually says that God pre-determines the “habitation” (or physical territory) for “nations” (Peoples or national peope groups). Consider that Romans 13 actually prescribes the role and God-ordained functions of a state or government.

Whether one believes the Bible to be of Divine inspiration or a collection of writings which express generationally-obtained wisdom, it should be clear that such institutions as governments or sovereign states and homelands that are exclusive to national people groups are a necessary part of the human experience.

If states and homelands are necessary, whether because we have learned so from God or thousands of years of human experience, then borders are also necessary. When you remove a border, you both destroy the sovereign state and any national people’s homeland.

Indeed, the reason the natives who occupied the North American continent lost both their pseudo-states and their homelands was because they could not or did not maintain a border. The people who use the fact that “white men” came in and “took” these lands have simply forgotten or ignored that the lack of a border means that the land is in fact “up for grabs.” This is not a moral statement or value judgment, this is just an unavoidable reality.  If you cannot preserve  your borders, you cannot preserve a contiguous national people group or sovereign state.

The current border crisis is one of an open border. It is being left open for many reasons, among which are the desire of one political group to obtain a new voting block by importing supporters, as well as the interests of an economic class who wants to keep the labor pool over-filled to keep the cost of labor down.

Those short term advantages however, will result in exactly what happened to the former “owners” of these lands; without a border, the sovereign state cannot maintain its security and national people groups lose their exclusive control over their homeland.

When one removes themselves from the purely political view of this crisis and looks instead at the historical view, it is easy enough to see that the current open border policy can only lead to the importation of hostile and dangerous elements (criminal. as well as terrorist) who wish to harm the sovereign state and facilitate the loss of the once exclusive homeland to the mass of invaders. The future for both the American sovereign state and any homeland for its national people groups is dim.

Ironically, the “Native Americans” who make being a member of their tribe a condition of residence in their “reservations” are better equipped to weather whatever storm is coming: their now truncated homelands are least likely to be over-taken.  And if the American sovereign state is threatened, their reservation governments can act as an alternative to that withered state, should it ever come to that.

The future for both the American state and any national homelands for ANY of its national people-groups (save the “native Americans”) is dim so long as the present open border policy prevails. Without a secure and well controlled border neither the state nor any homeland can survive.