The Night of the Dawn of the Return of the Living West

|

Patrick Buchanan exhumes the West (which died, recall, in his 2002 opus The Death of the West) to rebury it again, with his new book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, more dire warnings that waves of brown will, unless we build huge walls (a "double-line" fence, yet) and throw a bunch of people out, kill us. ("Us" being, I guess, the people in this country who don't have family, or aren't themselves, originally from south of here.) This fine Monday morning, this is the big headline news at Drudge….

My assessment of Buchanan's last funeral for the West from the Washington Post here.

Reason's more sensible and less frightened take on the meaning and effects of immigration here.

Advertisement

NEXT: Rod and Todd Flanders Nightware

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. cue John screaming about how unreasonable it is to let people live and work where they choose in 5…4…3…2…

  2. cue John screaming about how unreasonable it is to let people live and work where they choose in 5…4…3…2…

  3. cue John screaming about how unreasonable it is to let people live and work where they choose in 5…4…3…2…

  4. I don’t like most of what Patty’B has to say, but I think there is a question to be asked about the likely outcome of uncontrolled influxes from the borders. I’ve read an argument (someone pitch in if you remember who this was) made about how libertarian ideals are best and most offen spread in societies with stable social and economic climates.

    It seems cavalier to suggest that libertarians should support exclusionary immigration policies based on, well, the idea that a shifting political climate could impact the libertarian policy movement negatively. But, all ideas on the table, is tactical thought like this packed with too much kyrponite? To clarify: If our philosophy is open immigration, but the result of open immigration is likely to translate to a less favorable environment for libertarian-friendly policy (unproven hypothesis), to what degree should tactical thought guide our actions?

    I haven’t seen an open debate on a pure tactical level, and maybe that’s something we lack. I’d love to hear some ideas. Anyone care to throw down some opinions?

  5. When you talk to people stirred up by Minutemen, Buchananites, etc., they real problem with is with illegals and with the perception many of them are draining taxpayer reasources – hospitals, education and the like. Which are things libertarians oppose too. So don’t we have to figure out how to take advantage of the immigration debate to further our fight against
    entitlements? Seems that a lot of people who will never do away with entitlements for “humanitarian” reasons, will oppose them for
    illegals.

  6. So, umm, why exactly am I supposed to care what Patrick Buchanan has to say?
    (Listens while all the reasons are given.)
    (Wakes up.)
    Oh, I’m sorry, were you saying something?

  7. Do libertarians not believe in culture at all? I consider myself to be more libertarian than not, but I think it is foolish to not realize that culture matters. Many cultures have simply not shown themselves amenable to capitalism (note, they are not all brown skinned, look at Russia). To the extent that immigration is dominated by such cultures (current immigration majority South American, a real capitalism bastion, eh?) I predict bad things. Also, immigration today is dominated by very poor people, who have usually tended towards statism (poor education + hope of goodies). The Progressive Movement with its unprecedented expansion in government was largely in response to what were seen, at the time, to urban ills associated with mass immigration.

  8. People who don’t believe that different sorts of folks can liver and work together peacefully, are generally people who, themselves, lack the ability to live and work peacefully with those different from themselves.

    It’s a shame so many people confuse conformity with equality.

    Damon,

    I think libertarian ideas (broadly defined) will flourish best in a climate in which the interaction and synthesis of different ideas and cultures is a familiar part of people’s lived experience. In America, this multi-culturalism (true multi-culturalism, not just bi- or tri-culturalism) has always been powered by immigration.

    ken,

    Until very recently, almost all of Latin America was organized according to a feudal system of governance and exchange. It seems a bit, well, racist actually to blame culture, rather than material conditions, for the lack of political development south of our border.

  9. This gives me a chance to hawk my favorite book of the last ten years:

    The Idea of Decline in Western History
    Herman, Arthur, 1956-

    Publisher: Free Press,
    Pub date: c1997.
    Pages: 521 p. ;
    ISBN: 0684827913

    The book, probably due to the cumbersome title, went nowhere when it was published. I think it’s out of print now. Still, I encourage everyone to read it. It points out the dubious “intellectual” history of Mr. B’s ideas. One of my favorite parts is where Herman points out that the Comte de Gobelin, who originated one form of the “Aryan” myth and who hated democratic France and the middle class, was in fact the grandson of an wine merchant who got a patent of nobility from one of the last Louis. In contrast Alexis de Tocqueville, who was an ardent defender of democracy in France before he wrote our book, was the scion of a family that had been aristocratic since the 800’s.

  10. I’ve always wondered about guys who want to keep the white race pure. Don’t they ever look at Latino, Asian, African and other “exotic” women and think they are just astoundingly beautiful?

  11. Here’s a serious question for serious people only:

    If we haven’t been invaded, how exactly could we deport even just a few million illegal aliens if we had to? Give me an outline of what we’d have to do and your contingency plans.

    [BTW: It seems I can’t post using my usual URLs or name. Perhaps I’ve finally been banned, or perhaps it’s just Reason’s technical brilliance on display. To read more remove the underscores from my name and replace “dotcom” with “.com”]

  12. If we haven’t been invaded, how exactly could we deport even just a few million illegal aliens if we had to? Give me an outline of what we’d have to do and your contingency plans.

    The only possible reason I can see for “us” to deport millions of illegal aliens is if they were agents of a foreign or terrorist power acting to invade or overthrow the United States. In that case, it’s war, and the allowable methods widen considerably. It should be no surprise that, if it has to be done, you won’t like how it has to be done.

    But “if we haven’t been invaded,” there is no right or authority for mass deportation. Your premise is broken.

  13. Lonewacko: Stiff penalties for anyone employing an illegal alien. Free green card for any illegal alien who turns in his boss.

    I don’t support it-I like immigration-but it would work.

  14. Congratulations to Jadagul for being the very first Reasonite to actually try to answer the question I’ve asked many times.

    Of course, now Jadagul has to answer how exactly we could implement his plan. I don’t think it would work even if we were able to implement it. In fact, I think it would require martial law and literally tanks in the streets.

    Be that as it may, why are we unable to do what Jadagul suggests? Haven’t we in fact been infiltrated by Mexican partisans, and doesn’t Mexico in fact have a great deal of political power inside the U.S.?

  15. Be that as it may, why are we unable to do what Jadagul suggests? Haven’t we in fact been infiltrated by Mexican partisans, and doesn’t Mexico in fact have a great deal of political power inside the U.S.?

    Because the demagogues in Congress have yet to form a cohesive block across both Houses and the Presidency. No, and no.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.