For friendship or for peace?

Re “Why borders matter,” Opinion, July 31

In his opinion piece, Victor Davis Hanson presents a series of racist views masquerading as realism, because being openly racist is not acceptable. While the title of his piece may be defensible, its contents are not.

His argument boiled down to “Western civilization and ways are the best ways, and we have to keep all the dirty brown people away from it because they will pollute our pure civilization and bring with them all of the problems that make their homes unlivable.” This was not the case for 19th century Irish, German, or Italian immigrants as Anglo and Protestant Americans once feared, and it is not the case today.

Still he claims that “political correctness” (read: being expected to not be racist) has changed the language we use to describe migration for the worse, becoming more “nebulous,” as he says, turning “illegal alien” into “undocumented immigrant,” even though the only change in the term has been to remove its dehumanization. “Undocumented immigrant” describes the same thing as “illegal alien” — that is, someone who has moved into the country without being authorized — just without adding the unnecessary layer emphasizing foreignness and criminality.

We may not be able to rid ourselves of borders anytime soon, but the reasons are not because of a need to protect “Western civilization” from those outside it joining in. Chris Healy

Mission Viejo

Hanson takes a long two paragraphs to get to unchecked Mexican immigration, and spends the rest of his piece hiding his real feelings behind quotes from Plutarch to Jeb Bush.

But his last line gives him away: “Between friends, unfenced borders enhance friendship; among the unfriendly, when fortified, they help keep the peace.” When did America declare Mexico “unfriendly”? It’s amazing how much intellectual handwaving is needed to hide basic race-baiting. Kelley Willis

Venice

Hanson defends borders as intrinsic to human nature, with a long history, and reflecting rather than creating difference. According to Hanson, those who question the value of borders are elites who can erect their own walls to protect themselves and

their property, or discredited communists who once urged universal labor solidarity as a way to prevent war. He dismisses migrants as people who seek only economic opportunity and claims that they fail to assimilate. He is wrong. This is not an either/or issue.

Yes, some migrate for economic opportunity — a worthy goal. Others flee famine, oppression, or war. They seek refuge and deserve it. It may take time, but most do adapt and assimilate. They also invigorate their host cultures and economies. Cultural and ethnic “purity” are never a worthy goal. Our country proves the benefits of diversity and change. Karin B. Costello

Santa Monica

Wow. An essay on why borders matter and a factbased discussion comparing mass shootings in the U. S. to those in the EU. I did a double take to make sure I was reading my Sunday Times.

Do those pieces foretell greater balance? Or are they merely summer replacements with regular programming (pun intended) to be resumed in the fall? Gerry Swider

Sherman Oaks