When the topic of immigration appears in a casual conversation most people reiterate what they’ve heard. What we fail to notice is that immigrations isn’t a factual debate, it’s a moral issue. Oh, how it must look to those who have traveled the disputed path. When Americans disregard the sacred and sensitive nature of the subject, how barbaric, how benighted we must seem. This eternal issue is not for any politician to speak about, but for those who posses sympathy and compassion. Immigration isn’t a topic to be discussed in a news room, a congress room, or any auditorium that refuses to echo the voice of the ignored. 
There are countless reasons to ban immigration, to slow it, to become more exclusive. Along with those causes, there are many that support immigration, many who plea for less difficulty. Yet, who are we to say what should be done about it? What right do citizens of one nation have to exclude citizens of another country? To understand the complexity of this argument, we must first, grasp the idea of jurisdiction. Not only the jurisdiction of separate governments, but the rights and responsibilities of citizens that call a nation home.
In fifth grade we are taught the responsibilities of each branch of the U.S government. Our government has three branches: legislative, judicial, and executive. Despite the repetition of each branch’s power, teachers often forget to mention the extent these powers reach. We neglect to acknowledge our limits, our boundaries. Borders are described by Manuel Velasquez from Santa Clara University as conventional, justified, sovereign rights of the country and the people. Edges of jurisdiction are purely conventional, human artifact. So, with reason, borders have a purpose, borders serve the benefit of humans. It is when we become territorial and supercilious do our perimeters become confining.
Every human wants to be better, every human wants more, at least more than what we have now. Of course, when we say that, it is...