We Global Citizens

Everyday, millions of schoolchildren across America recite the Pledge of Allegiance

before studying American history and the Constitution. We hear the American national anthem
before each and every sporting event. People hang flags from huge flagpoles outside their
homes. A few times a year we have national holidays that celebrate freedom, democracy, and
American excellence. We are, at our very core, proud to be American. But also at our very core
is the inability to put our money where our mouth is. Behind every wave of the flag and every
verse of the national anthem is an unfulfilled promise. That promise, made by our Founding
Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, is left unfulfilled by our exclusionary border politics.
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Happiness. (Cahn 801). Surely, any person who attended any type of school in America for
any period of time would recognize those hallowed words. Surely, most would agree that the
intentions of that statement have been fulfilled by the American government and by the
American people. They would not necessarily be wrong. However, most Americans do not
expand that all men beyond that all Americans This is a tragic limited reading of one
of the most pivotal texts in modern history. If we are to truly fulfill the promises made by our
noble forefathers, we must extend these unalienable rights to include each and every citizen of
the world.
The globalization of universal human rights is inevitable and imperative in the modern
day. History knows no resting places; what does not advance must sooner or later decline,
declares Henry Kissinger in a warning against isolationism (Safire 1042). We are certainly still
advancing, for the expansion of the powers of technology has allowed us to connect with other

parts of the world faster, more efficiently, and more often than ever before. Due to this, we find
a deeper reverence for respective cultures and an unignorable similarity between people who live
a world away. We also find the urgency of eliminating global poverty and oppression of peoples
of whom we would never otherwise have heard. Establishing a world in which the individual
person thinks of him or herself primarily as a world citizen and secondarily as a national citizen,
effectively terminating national borders, is crucial to eliminating global inequality, climate
change, and international violence and terrorism.
First, this paper will examine the logical fulfillment of the liberal principles outlined in
the Declaration of Independence and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It will then
argue in favor of eliminating borders so that we may live in a less divisive, more peaceful world.
When the dissenters of 1776 declared independence from England and wrote that
irrefutable sentence, they clearly did not wish to include everyone in the phrase all men. All of
the Founding Fathers were white men, many of whom were slave owners. The liberties outlined
in the Declaration and later in the Constitution were to be extended only to white men. How is it
feasible, then, to use the Declaration as a way to argue in favor of the elimination of borders to
ensure the emancipation of humanity? In order to do so, one must expand upon those words as
they have been expanded upon time after time throughout American history. The original
Constitution upheld a limited account of so called universal rights. Freedom was not granted
to black men until 1865 with the thirteenth amendment. The unalienable right to vote was not
granted to black men or to women until 1870 and 1920, respectively. The right to marry was not
granted to same sex couples until just this year. Clearly, what began as an attempt to apply
universal rights to an exclusive group of people has naturally become more inclusive. It follows

that the narrative of human emancipation in America will expand to include the human
emancipation, of, well, humanity.
An example of the logical evolution of the liberalism concerning universal rights is The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Adopted in 1948 by the the newly formed United
Nations, it furthers the American (Western) project of making actual the recognition of Kantian
universal rights. The preamble to this document seems almost to quote the assertion made by the
Declaration of Independence, declaring that recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal
and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice,
and peace in the world (Cahn 826). Much of the rest of the document seems to echo the
Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, such as the third article, Everyone has
the right to life, liberty, and security of person (Cahn 826). Here is the application of American
ideals to the world at large. The UN also acknowledges freedom of movement and seems to
predict the opening of the global society when in article thirteen it asserts, Everyone has the
right to movement and residence within the borders of each state (Cahn 827). The document
which is the advancement and expansion of the ideals outlined in the Declaration of
Independence also declares the inalienable right of freedom of movement. When it comes to the
evolution of the morals of universal human rights, a global society with open borders will follow
close behind a society which recognizes the individuals freedom of movement.
The courses of American history in particular and world history in general are those that
prove the theory of the fulfillment of liberal egalitarian ideals. In fact, the assertion that the
individual has inalienable, irrevocable human rights necessarily invokes an open border policy.
If we are to recognize each individuals worth worldwide, we need a global society which allows
us to do so. In other words, the principle of moral equality logically implies open borders

(Basik 413). Open borders on the world level and a recognition of a persons inherent worth and
dignity on both the international and individual level is crucial to fulfilling Enlightenment ideals
adopted by the US Founding Fathers and later by the United Nations.
The fulfillment of Western ideals of human equality by means of the establishment of a
globally focused society will lead to a less divisive, more peaceful world. Much, if not all, of
global conflict stems from differences in ideologies. Theocracies and other anachronistic forms
of government still attempt to impose their beliefs on countries that have evolved and adopted a
system of democracy and liberty. Peoples who wish to impinge upon unalienable, intrinsic rights
wish to impinge upon both the present and the future. Therefore, it is our duty to help pave the
way for a more globally minded world. It is our duty, as members of free societies, to establish a
world in which the universal ideology of freedom of the individual is the uniting factor between
particular geographical areas and cultures. To do this, first we ourselves need to continue to
recognize both our freedoms and our role as global citizens. We dare not get tied up in outdated
philosophies of jingoism and forget our unity as members of the free global society. We cannot
regress. Carl Sagan, in a plea for the reduction of nuclear arms, observed, It seems very clear
that if we do not destroy ourselves first, the unit of primary identification of most human beings
will before long be the planet Earth and the human species (Safire 742). He accurately points
out our need for unity in the face of violent tendencies in order to achieve a sort of global
identification.
The next step towards a free, global society is the expansion of those ideals that we hold
dear. We need to defend ourselves against those that would infringe on our rights and inhibit our
growth as a species. Franklin Roosevelts Interior Secretary, Harold Ickes, describes this
obligation to freedom in his 1941 speech calling for intervention in WWII in order to defeat

fascism. He eloquently states, An American is one who loves justice and believes in the dignity
of man...one who will fight for his freedom and that of his neighbor...one in whose heart is
engraved the immortal second sentence of the Declaration of Independence (Safire 68-69).
Ickes is arguing against the the nature of exclusionary and isolationist politics. He believes that
freedom is a right inherent to not only Americans, but to everyone. Furthermore, he believes that
it is our obligation to help individuals around the world achieve their freedom. Today, we face a
similar threat in the form of medieval terrorism. The archaic beliefs that these terrorists hold
dear directly infringe upon our natural born rights. The two cannot coexist. Ickes would argue
that the struggle we now face is a desperate struggle for the possession of the souls of men
(Safire 70). Archaic belief systems, held by both medieval terrorists and border fanatics alike,
need to be expelled if we are to fully realize the individuals unalienable rights.
The most common argument against open borders and thereby universal emancipation is
the framing of this expansion of morality as a cover for Western imperialism. There are a few
sound answers to this argument. All morality must originate from somewhere. Therefore, it is
invalid to reject a morality based on the somewhere in which it was formulated (Booth 53).
Booth also argues that an idea might be intrinsically powerful. If that is the case, which he
believes it is, then it is the power in the idea that move(s) people, not the material power
pushing the idea (Booth 54). This implies that the spread of certain ideas, such as those that
expand human liberty, do not spread because of the idea-holder. Rather, they spread because of
the idea itself. One could even argue that ideas that powerful people attempt to spread-such as
communism, socialism, etc.-rapidly die out. The longevity of the legitimacy of the ideals of
democracy and freedom is not a result of the power of those that hold those ideals sacred, but
rather a result of the power of those ideals themselves.

Many advocates of strong borders and isolationism tend to misquote the quintessential
American poet, Robert Frost, when he wrote Good fences make good neighbors in his famous
poem, Mending Wall (47). However, what they fail to recognize is that the speaker of those
words first heard them from the mouth of his grandfather. By this, Frost seems to suggest that
this belief in the necessity of good fences (strong borders) is outdated. He wonders why men
senselessly divide up nature. This famous American poet seems to recognize the true potential of
those words written by our Founding Fathers. As Americans, we are to be in touch with the
world. We are to honor, uphold, and spread the realization of those universal truths that are Life,
Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Works Cited
Basik, Nathan. "Open Minds on Open Borders." Journal of International Migration and
Integration 14.3 (2013): 401-17.ProQuest. 14 Dec. 2015.
Booth, Ken. "Three Tyrannies." (n.d.): n. pag. Rpt. in Human Rights in Global Politics. Ed. Tim
Dunne and Nicholas Wheeler. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. 31-70. Print.
Frost, Robert. Complete Poems. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964.
Safire, William. Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in HIstory. New York: W.W. Norton, 2004.
Print.