By Spencer Mann, Trending Writer
Predicting human behavior is tough, and politics is no different. There is boundless unrest reverberating throughout the world about the future state of immigration. The topic that surrounds the migration of humans on a large scale is usually labeled as being a sensitive issue, as partisan politics goes no deeper than this fundamental matter. The uniqueness of this political talking point is that it has been around for as long as humans have lived in organized groups. Unlike climate change or cyber security, the topic of immigration in politics has shaped the way history has unfolded since the beginning of human civilization. This heavy historical precedence means that a new opinion is unlikely to be thrown into the debate; this issue has been contemplated in every way possible at some point in history. At its most fundamental level, this realization makes sense: this contested issue revolves around the legality of certain other humans entering into a different governed state.
Although the historical nature of this subject shows us almost everything that has been done about immigration, the silver lining is that one who pays close attention may already have seen it before. For either side of the argument, the topics of nationalism, safety/security, economics, civil rights, and compassion have all surfaced. From ancient Greece, through the Roman Empire, World War I & II, the Communist Bloc, all the way to last week’s executive order by President Trump, this has all happened before. This will also happen again. Because of the partisan roots embedded into this issue, when one’s side has current control of the power, it only spurs the strongest reactions. This sentiment makes all actions on this matter happen twofold; when something political is done on immigration, the opposing side interprets the action as a threat to their beliefs and their politics.
The result of this dichotomy between political ideals on immigration is that we live in a world of perpetual counteraction. The struggle of deciding who is allowed onto one’s sovereign territory may be the most divisive issue that the world has ever faced, and the one that humans may be farthest from resolving.
If the average American lives only 18 miles from Mom, should we expect a resolution for the people 18,000 miles away anytime soon?
A version of this article appeared in the Tuesday, February 7th print edition.
Contact Spencer at