Leland R. Beaumont is an independent wisdom researcher who is seeking real good. He is currently developing the Applied Wisdom curriculum on Wikiversity.
Introduction
The United States, as a nation built by immigrants, has historically been a symbol of hope and opportunity for people seeking a better life. However, in recent times, the difficulties faced by the U.S. border control system have become a glaring indication of the failure to advance human rights worldwide. This essay delves into the various ways in which the challenges at the U.S. borders reflect the broader global failure to protect and promote human rights.
Escalating Migration and Asylum Crisis
The rising number of migrants and asylum-seekers attempting to enter the United States is a clear manifestation of the global human rights crisis. Individuals and families fleeing persecution, violence, and poverty in their home countries embark on perilous journeys in search of safety and dignity. The inability of their countries of origin to protect their basic human rights compels them to take extreme measures to secure a better future, often leading them to face harsh conditions at the U.S. borders.
Exploitation by Human Traffickers
Human trafficking, one of the gravest violations of human rights, thrives in regions with weak governance and lack of opportunities. Many migrants attempting to cross U.S. borders fall victim to human traffickers, who exploit their vulnerabilities and subject them to various forms of abuse and modern-day slavery. This crisis is a stark reminder of the global failure to combat trafficking and protect the rights of the most vulnerable populations.
Family Separation and Detention
The controversial practice of family separation and detention at the U.S. borders has garnered widespread condemnation, drawing attention to the impact of policies on human rights. The separation of children from their parents underlines the failure of governments worldwide to uphold the rights of families and children, especially those displaced by conflict and persecution.
Lack of Access to Asylum
The stringent immigration policies and limited access to asylum in the United States reflect the broader failure of the international community to provide safe havens for refugees. Many asylum-seekers are denied the opportunity to claim protection, leaving them exposed to further risks and human rights abuses.
Inadequate Support for Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs)
Apart from those attempting to cross the U.S. borders, millions of people are internally displaced within their own countries due to conflicts, disasters, and human rights abuses. The inability of the international community to provide adequate support and protection for these IDPs exacerbates global human rights challenges.
Economic Inequalities and Lack of Opportunities
Economic inequalities and lack of opportunities in many regions contribute to the desperate quest for a better life in the United States and other developed countries. The failure to address global poverty and ensure equitable economic development perpetuates a cycle of migration driven by the pursuit of basic human rights such as food, shelter, and education.
Conclusion
The difficulties faced by the U.S. border control system serve as a stark reminder of the broader failure to advance human rights worldwide. Escalating migration and asylum crises, exploitation by human traffickers, family separation and detention, limited access to asylum, inadequate support for internally displaced persons, and economic inequalities all underscore the pressing need for greater global cooperation and commitment to human rights.
Addressing these challenges requires concerted efforts from governments, international organizations, and civil society. Advancing human rights worldwide demands comprehensive strategies to address the root causes of migration, promote equitable economic development, strengthen protections for vulnerable populations, combat human trafficking, and ensure that the rights and dignity of all individuals are upheld.
Only through collective action and a commitment to human rights as a universal value can we effectively address the difficulties at U.S. borders and build a more just and compassionate world for all.
This essay was written by ChatGPT responding to the prompt, “Write an essay describing the many ways that United States border control difficulties are symptoms of a failure to advance human rights worldwide”
image of U.S. President Donald Trump is displayed on a digital billboard in Times Square in New York on April 8, 2026.
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people
Normally, I worry that events may overtake a column. But not so with the Iran war.
I don’t worry about running afoul of a headline or Truth Social post from the president because what is said about the situation is no longer very relevant to the reality.
On April 8, Nick Catoggio, my Dispatch colleague, dubbed an earlier stoppage with Iran “Schrödinger’s ceasefire.” This was a reference to the famous thought experiment by the physicist Erwin Schrödinger, who was trying to explain the weirdness of “superpositionality” in quantum physics. A cat in a box is both dead and alive at the same time until you open the box. Schrödinger meant to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that particles aren’t any one thing, but a “cloud of probabilities.”
The Trump administration is stuck in a word cloud of probabilities of his own making. The war is over. The war is on. The war isn’t a war. We have a deal, but we don’t have a deal, but we’re about to have a deal. We destroyed Iran’s military. No, we left it intact. We want regime change. No we don’t. We already accomplished it. We “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program a year ago. We had to go to war in February to prevent nuclear war. The Strait of Hormuz is open, closed, or something in-between. No deal without “unconditional surrender.” Let’s make a deal!
This everything-all-at-once vibe can be disorienting, particularly since most Americans didn’t have a war with Iran on their bingo cards until the shooting had already started. President Trump didn’t prepare the country or consult with Congress beforehand because he thought it would all be a smashing success in a matter of weeks.
The miscalculation that started it all: killing Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and much of Iran’s senior leadership, on the first day of the war. To “the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand,” Trump announced on Feb. 28. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations.”
I support regime change in Iran and shed no tears for Khamenei or his goons. But when you start a war by killing the regime’s top leaders, it’s not unreasonable for the remaining ones to conclude that you really intend regime change.
Khamenei was a murderous fanatic, but he was a fairly cautious one. He liked to threaten closing the Strait of Hormuz or attacking our regional allies, but he was reluctant to actually do it, fearing it would invite a regime change war. The mullahs and IRGC goons believed, not unreasonably, that if they lost their grip on power, they’d be lynched by the Iranian people they’ve brutalized for decades.
By starting with a regime change war, Trump removed any reason for the regime not to go for broke. When you have nothing to lose — particularly when you are a millenarian religious fanatic — a Persian Alamo strategy makes a lot of sense.
So Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz and attacked its neighbors.
But it turns out this wasn’t the Alamo. In the contest of wills, Trump blinked. The Iranian regime’s tolerance for punishment proved — so far — to be greater than Trump’s and that of our gulf allies. Militarily we could finish the job, but that would require ground troops and much greater economic turmoil. In a conflict Trump launched unilaterally without the prior support of Congress, NATO or the American people, Trump doesn’t have the political capital for that.
But that’s only half the problem. Trump wants the war over, but he doesn’t want to pay — militarily, economically, politically — what that would cost. So he wants to make a deal that ends it. But there is no deal available that wouldn’t come at an equally undesirable cost. Any deal that looks like what President Obama struck with the Iranians would be too embarrassing to bear. But the Iranians are convinced that they can get just such a deal, and they’re willing to drag things out as long as it takes.
The result: Trump’s in a box of his own making. He thinks he can talk his way out by simply asserting a reality that doesn’t exist. When the financial markets get nervous, he announces a breakthrough that is, at best, a possibility. When the Iranians agree to a deal that looks similar to one Obama might negotiate, Trump goes back to his threats.
It can’t go on forever. But I’m sure it’ll last until long after this column is forgotten.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.