Think back to the 2008 U.S. presidential campaign.

One of the issues that generated a lot of heat was the immigration debate. While the debate touched on several other issues, such as unemployment and national identity, at its heart the debate centered on this: the rights of those who were not U.S. citizens but live within its borders, or of those who do live outside its borders and are trying to get in. After all, borders are there to establish who’s in and who’s out, right?

Now, fast forward nearly almost one year. Now, in the last quarter of 2009, the immigration debate has taken back seat to another debate: the debate over the global economy and climate change. As a prime example, consider the G-20 summit which took place earlier this year in London, where world leaders tried to figure out how to prop up and even stimulate the global economy without doing further damage to our terrestrial habitat.

If we compare the global economy to the Titanic, the main question that world leaders seem to be asking is not, Who should be allowed to enter the boat?, but rather How can we keep this boat from sinking?

Now, I’m coming at this as a U.S. citizen and a permanent resident of Brazil. Brazilians themselves are divided into two big groups: those want to get on board the Titanic (or build a newer, better one with Captain Lula at the helm) and those who want to “jump ship” and find a smaller, more sustainable way to navigate the chaos. (But that’s another post altogether.)

The point I want to make is this: The more I hear and read about these matters (both the immigration debate and the one over global economy/climate change) the more it strikes me that we are talking about 2 different types of boundaries: BORDERS vs LIMITS.

First, borders. The boundary line between the U.S. and Mexico is an obvious border. It exists. It’s there. It divides two countries, two citizenships, two official languages, etc.

But, at the same time, it’s not hard to see this boundary as an arbitrary one–especially when you take into account how many times the border has shifted along the way (See Mongrels, Bastards, Orphans, and Vagabonds: Mexican Immigration and the Future of Race in America, by Gregory Rodgriguez).

Of course, to say that it’s an arbitrary boundary doesn’t mean that it is insignificant. It really is there. It really has shaped people’s lives, their identity and sense of belonging. All national borders tend to do this, as well as the other types of borders, such as the color-line in the U.S. A half century after desegregation, there is no longer a legal boundary that separates races in public space. Yet, the border still exists, and 11 am on Sunday morning still is the most segregated hour of the week.

It seems that whether it’s a national border, the market, or the color line, borders don’t just divide up places or separate people. If we are not careful, they ask us to pledge allegiance, as well.

What are we to make of this?

Borders, according to worldly wisdom camp, serve the necessary function of making boundaries in order to establish security. But, I can hear the voices of my anarchist friends whispering Tolstoy in my ear — “Government is the association of people that does violence to the rest of us.” Some of them would suggest that borders be eradicated; others that they should be ignored.

Let me make a more modest proposal:

First, take any border you like — from the ones that make the headlines to the ones down the street. And ask yourself these questions:

1) What do these borders say to us? (Keep out…. Stay within you network of relations…. OR: You can be like us…)

2) Would you describe these boundaries as a) real / arbitrary or b) real / eternal and god-like, or c) other?

3) Can we live with them without having to be loyal to them?

In other words, are they “crossable”?

(In Part 2, we will shift gears and discuss limits.)