An Interview with Simon Hankinson
Simon Hankinson is a Senior Research Fellow in the Border Security and Immigration Center at The Heritage Foundation. From 1999–2022, he was a Foreign Service Officer who served in India, Fiji, Ghana, Slovakia, Togo, Washington, D.C., Marseille, and Nairobi. Hankinson holds a master’s degree in modern history from St. Andrews University, a degree from the College of Law in London, and a master’s degree in international security affairs from the National Defense University.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
SALIENT: We have heard competing views at the Conservative and Republican Conference on topics such as American identity, foreign policy, and the economy. What does conservatism mean to you, and who on the national stage best represents your view?
HANKINSON: Conservatism, for me, means conserving that which is good and changing only when that change has proven to be an improvement. Conservatives are naturally weary of change for change's sake, whereas progressives–it's built into the name–careen toward some kind of utopian imagined future. I don't think they even know where they want to go with each excess–whether it's trans or race or universal basic income.
They keep going forward, whereas conservatives will look at a policy issue and say, “How is this going to make America safe, prosperous, and free?” If it doesn't do one of those three things, then maybe we shouldn't do it.
And as to who represents that, there's no doubt that Trump, at the moment, is the conservative movement. He's the tip of the spear, but behind him is a coalition of people who have the same view on many things, differ on aspects of some policies, but realize that at this moment, there just isn't anybody else. There wasn't anyone else who could have won that election and undone the madness that we saw under President Biden and Vice President Harris, whether it's the gender ideology, the open border, student loan giveaways, rampant government spending, and so on.
SALIENT: You were a Foreign Service officer. In that capacity, what experiences shaped your view of America's place in the world and of the function of American diplomacy?
HANKINSON: The function of American diplomacy is to make America safe, prosperous, and free. If we can do that while also helping our allies become more prosperous, safer, and freer, that's great–so we have allies. I think Gladstone once said that Britain has no permanent allegiances, only interests, and I think that should be true of the United States. There should be no countries to which we are allied only because we like them or have some historical ties to them. It's that our interests are in common. We share fundamental values. When that changes, then we have to change our policy as well.
What I learned was how lucky we are to be Americans. Much of the world is unfree. It's not just poor, but it's unfree. You can't say what you want. The largest number of murders of journalists is in Mexico right now, our neighbor. In Russia, China, and all kinds of countries, you cannot tell the truth. If you're a journalist, you'll be jailed. We have tremendous opportunities and advantages just by being Americans, which you see more starkly when you travel all over the world. It's not a coincidence that we have these things: they are what makes us prosperous.
It's not just that we're prosperous and so we can afford to have free speech and open markets and treat people with respect. I was reading a story yesterday about Lebanon: they were hiring for certain jobs. An American was there, and it was explained to him that you have to hire your cousins. That's kind of the way things work. They’re a tribal society. They can't just hire someone because they're good at the job.
For us, DEI has blown that apart, and that's why it should be stomped out. We do believe in meritocracy. We do believe that people should work hard and that if you work hard and are smart and are lucky, you can end up doing extremely well. Even if you're only one or two out of those three things, you can live a very good and fulfilling life.
That's not true in many countries in the world. There's just no opportunity in some countries because of the structure–and because of the lack of freedom, the lack of opportunity, the corruption, the nepotism. You learn practically as a diplomat that we have these things not just because of happenstance. We didn't just happen to sit on the right chair in the game of musical chairs. We have them because we protect these fundamental values that allow us to be free and prosperous
SALIENT: Turning to the border and immigration, are there any countries that you think we should try to emulate in terms of immigration policy? Is there anyone who's doing it right?
HANKINSON: There is no other country in the world that has a first-world country on the northern border and a developing country–one that is channeling people up from all over the world–on the southern border. We have challenges that other countries don't. But when it comes to refugee policy, I think we should look to Australia's model of not allowing anyone in.
They had a huge problem with boats. There were tens of thousands of people arriving by boat from Vietnam, from Indonesia, from all over Southeast Asia. Once they got to Australia, they'd claim asylum, and it was the same problem we have. Some of them genuinely had cases, but not many. Most of them were looking for jobs, and they clogged up the system.
And amazingly, the Australians, left and right, agreed that this couldn't go on. If you land in Australia, they’ll take you to Nauru or Papua New Guinea to camps where they would process your case and try to find another country to take you or send you back home. But they did not accept anybody into Australia under any conditions.
I think over the years, there have been a couple of medical emergencies. And of course, some people tried hunger strikes or self-harm or something to try to break the will of the Australians. But they stuck to their guns, and in the end, they saved a lot of lives because people weren't drowning at sea on tiny little boats the way they had been in the English Channel. It's a bit like our Remain in Mexico policy and our agreements with El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. That's a policy that has proven extremely effective and popular. If we could emulate that, I think we would do well.
SALIENT: Recently, President Trump deployed Soldiers and Marines to our southern border to protect it, and he used Air Force planes to carry out deportations. What do you think the role of the military should be in these sorts of operations, in guarding our borders?
HANKINSON: It's not for me to say–it's an executive branch decision. But there's no doubt that the military has a logistical capacity that no other agency does. Look at the transportation capacity of the Air Force–even the Army has enough helicopters and planes to fly a substantial number of people and goods. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the past has relied on charter flights, and I'm sure they'll still do that, but if they have a short-term goal, I think the military, logistically could be very helpful. They won't, as far as I know, be doing actual enforcement at the border. They'll be doing backup roles–helping the Border Patrol do their job. For example, I've never quite understood why we would let someone from Mexico come to the wall on the border and start sawing away at it. Both sides of that wall are in the United States. It's not like Mexico's on one side and the United States is on the other. The wall is usually built inside the United States for various reasons–often just due to the geography. I never understood why we don't get a little more aggressive. When I was down on the border–I went about five times–I saw a lot of Texas National Guard troops, but they were really only there to help bring people in and hand them over to the border patrol. Texas did more than any other state to do what the federal government wouldn't, but they weren't able to do it on their own. The military can be a force multiplier for Border Patrol and Customs Border Protection.
SALIENT: The United States is a country where our regions are very, very different. In the northeast, most communities don't feel the effects of illegal immigration and are kind of agnostic about it, if not supportive. In the border states, Texas and Arizona, they generally do feel the effects and are angry. And in places like southern Florida, there’s a unique relationship between the Cuban illegal immigrants. Do you think there will be any instance where the country will get on the same page and be united on this issue? Or do you think the differences are so profound that we will always be on different pages?
HANKINSON: I don't ever see us getting to full agreement on any aspect of immigration, but look at the polls in the past few years, as every state has become a border state. We have a preventable crime map at Heritage of crimes committed by people who are here illegally. There was a murder in Maryland. There was a murder in Texas. They're all over the country, in places you wouldn't expect it. Boston is constantly having cases of illegal immigrant gang members and criminals being arrested for sex offenses. They had been put up in hotels thanks to the Massachusetts governor and the taxpayer’s dime. Then they'll molest a kid, and then they'll be released, and then they'll molest somebody else.
I think the realization is penetrating way beyond the border: that you cannot have open borders and a welfare state forever. Even the most liberal, left-wing states are realizing that unless there's a federal sugar daddy willing to pay these bills forever, they're gonna have to make some hard decisions.
The world has 8 billion people, of whom 2 billion would probably want to come to a developed country if they could tomorrow. Those countries just simply don't have the capacity to absorb them. So on that, we're at least agreeing. If I look at the polls, most Americans believe that people here illegally should be deported. It's over 50%, and a much higher number believes that people who are criminals, who've committed a crime and are here legally, should be deported. Those numbers have gone up a lot in the last four years, just as a practical result of the facts on the ground.