Glass House

Perhaps borders provide an emotional boundary line as well as a geographic one. When we require a boundary or a border it is usually to protect ourselves from something or someone that we perceive of as different or “foreign.” We tend to be disturbed by people and things that are not the same as ourselves or with which we are not familiar. This may be why, even in foreign countries with exceptional native cuisine, tourists will still eat at MacDonald’s or Burger King. Because it is a relief and a respite to interact with what is known and, presumably, understood. It requires less of our active intelligence when we do not have to sort out information coming our way, interpret it and then act upon it while adjusting our actions based on the new information we are still processing.
By this logic, when we open our borders to “foreigners” we risk that we will be confronted by their differences and will be discomfited by this and forced to adjust and adapt. I think most of us realize that over time the differences will no longer seem so strange and we will begin to accept and integrate “the foreigners” into our world view. It is also probably less obvious but also another benefit that we are forced into adaptation. A life without adaptation is a life of complacency, frozen by comfort and fulfilled expectations. In such a posture we do not experiment or invent ideas, products, etc. that may help us in the long run. Intellectually we know that the process of adaptation and acculturation is the driving force behind our historic prosperity. Can we apply our historical perspective and personal experiences to our border policy? Can we not only become friends but also support a fair distribution of resources in exchange for the vitality that something new and "foreign" brings to us?