Donald Trump’s alleged would-be assassin, Ryan Routh, is an American citizen. Presumably he was born in the United States. He obviously traveled across state lines to get to Florida.
That raises an important question: Should the U.S. Constitution be amended to enable each state to establish border controls around the state to protect the citizenry from violent people from other states?
In other words, given the large number of American citizens who commit acts of violence, why not abolish America’s centuries-old policy of open borders between the states? Wouldn’t that help keep people safe within each state, just as border controls along our Southern border supposedly keep us safe from violent foreign criminals? After all, it is entirely possible that a Florida Border Patrol could have prevented Routh from entering the state to possibly inflict harm on Trump or anyone else. It’s also possible that state Border Patrols in every state could help keep violent Americans from other states from entering the state and doing harm to the citizenry.
Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
Of course, the question arises: Would it be morally right to destroy or infringe the right of freedom of travel of millions of Americans who don’t commit acts of violence against others as a way to protect citizens from the small minority of people who commit acts of violence against others? The answer that statists would give would be the same answer that they use to justify America’s system of border controls along our Southern border — that there is nothing wrong with destroying or infringing the rights of the vast majority of foreign immigrants who do no harm in order to protect us from the small minority who would do us harm.
Some years ago, there were two snipers killing people at random here in Northern Virginia, where I live. Anyone who was just pumping gas into his vehicle could be suddenly shot for no reason at all. Officials were certain that the snipers were coming into Virginia from Maryland and then returning to Maryland after killing someone. Yet, to the credit of Virginians, there was never any demand for a system of border controls between Maryland and Virginia as a way to keep Virginians safe. Rather than sacrifice the right of freedom of travel, Virginians were willing to take their chances with the snipers. Ultimately, they were caught, prosecuted, convicted, and punished, but only after they had killed several people.
Theoretically, a system of state borders controls might keep us safer by using state Border Patrols to monitor and control who comes into a state from another state. But if someone truly wants to do someone harm or commit some other act of violence, the probability is that he will be able to circumvent the border controls, just as any foreigner who is determined to inflict harm can circumvent America’s immigration police state and illegally enter the United States.
What would end up happening is that each state would have a police-state system surrounding the borders of each state, which would be similar to the police-state system along America’s Southern border with Mexico. There would be state Border Patrols in all 50 states monitoring and controlling who comes into each state. Highway checkpoints. Warrantless trespasses and searches of property along the state borders and near the state borders. Berlin Walls around each state. The criminalization of hiring people from other states without official permission. The criminalization of transporting, harboring, or caring for people from other states who have entered the state illegally. And all the other police-state measures that are found along the U.S.-Mexico border. And, of course, ongoing, never-ending, perpetual border crises all across America, including massive traffic jams on the Maryland-Virginia border.
Would the destruction of liberty be worth it? I say no. Throughout history, people have been willing to trade their liberty for what appears to be security. What ends up happening is that they end up with neither liberty nor security. After all, in the quest to be kept safe from violent criminals through the trampling of the rights of the innocent, the question naturally arises: Who keeps people safe from a police state?