America First

America First = American Imperialism

Trump's escalating sanctions against Iran and threats against Mexico prove this.

|

From day one of his presidency, one of Donald Trump's mantras has been "America First." He even invoked it during the rally to launch his 2020 re-election campaign in Orlando, Florida, this week. His supporters on the isolationist right have always insisted that there is nothing sinister about this—all it means is that America should quit meddling in other countries and devote the government's resources to fixing its own problems at home.

But Trump's recent "deal" with Mexico to stop the growing flow of Central American migrants at Mexico's southern border shows that America First is just code for using America's considerable soft and hard power to force other countries to do his bidding. It's a formula not for ending American imperialism, but for replacing a seemingly high-minded one with a nakedly self-serving one.

Trump has never made any bones about the fact that he's an ardent nationalist. In fact, he's been insisting that every country should put its interests first. "A great reawakening of nations" he said at the United Nations, would allow "strong, sovereign nations…to not just coexist but work side by side on the basis of mutual respect."

That's a nice fantasy. In reality, stronger nations freed from rules of international engagement will be showing not their "mutual respect," but their power and their demands. And that's exactly what's been happening under Trump.

The Trump administration tore up the nuclear deal that President Obama signed with Iran, condemning it as "defective" because it would eventually let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Why a "sovereign nation" shouldn't have the right to these weapons if it deems them necessary for its national security, especially given that Israel, one of its hostile neighbors, possesses them, Trump has never explained. He reinstated sanctions on Iran and then amped them again this weekend, barring it from selling oil and other products to the United States. Worse, he announced a suite of sanctions targeting other countries, many of them U.S. allies, that want to do business with Iran, disrespecting their sovereign decisions.

But at least Trump is punishing Iran in the name of preventing it from acquiring weapons that one day, someday, may pose a threat to U.S. security. That, however, isn't remotely the case with Mexico.

Trump is wielding the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law that was meant to retaliate against foreign enemies in hostile situations, to threaten Mexico with sanctions. Trump proposed imposing a 5 percent tariff on all Mexican goods right off the bat, going up another 5 percent every month to a maximum of 25 percent until Mexico reduced the flow of fleeing Central American migrants to his satisfaction. Given that the U.S. is Mexico's biggest export market (beating Canada, its next biggest, by a factor of 24), Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (a nationalist in his own right) is now scrambling to show results before Trump's July deadline.

To this end, Mexico has agreed to expand their cooperation with Trump's "Remain in Mexico" policy and warehouse even more migrants as their asylum petitions wend their way through America's broken and backlogged immigration system. The living conditions in these camps, often in the middle of towns, are of course abysmal. Food, water, and medical help are all in short supply and migrants live off handouts from poor locals. They can't work—not only because they don't have work permits buts also because there are no jobs—and their kids have no schools to go to.

Beyond that, Mexico has dramatically scaled back the transit visas it issues these migrants, insisting that they undergo a much longer—and harder—process to obtain humanitarian visas instead. This forces many of them to travel through the country without proper authorization. That becomes a real problem when they have to pass through interior checkpoints that Mexico has hastily constructed to check the papers of anyone who looks like a migrant. Thanks to U.S. pressure, big portions of Mexico are becoming like the 100 miles adjacent to America's border that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) calls a "constitution-free zone," where immigration authorities have sweeping powers to stop and question people.

That's not all, however.

Mexico has never really maintained a border police force. Although it is tight-fisted in handing out guest worker visas to its southern neighbors, its border with Guatemala has been a porous sieve that residents and commercial traffic from both sides travel through relatively unencumbered. Because of Trump's arm-twisting, Mexico has agreed to deploy 6,000 National Guard troops to enforce this border. There is even fear that Trump may demand that Mexico turn its meager fence into a full-fledged wall down the road.

In short, Mexico is setting up detention camps, erecting checkpoints, expanding the police state,  potentially militarizing its border and generally turning itself into a fortress just to appease its superpower neighbor.

Trump's isolationist base loathes neocons because they tried to export American democracy—impose a "new world order"—at gunpoint. But Trump's America First-ism is forcing Mexico to turn itself into an extension of America's border police. It's becoming a buffer state to protect American sovereignty. If neocons wanted to turn other countries into America's protectorates, Trump wants to turn them into America's protectors.

Over time, an America that plays by no rules except narrowly selfish ones will breed resentment and anger. It will certainly force a reordering of the world—but around an anti-American axis. Trump's saber-rattling against Iran is already bringing Russia and China closer together with both countries blaming the U.S. for heightened tensions. Mexico may be succumbing to Trump's threats right now but it is unlikely it will keep acting against its interest indefinitely, especially as ordinary Mexicans inevitably lash back against "gringo" demands.

America First is American imperialism. It is simply a euphemism for using America's power to impose America's will on weaker nations. Trump supporters who believe that it is some kind of noble, live-and-let-live isolationism are just deluding themselves.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

Advertisement

NEXT: U.S. Cops Are Facing a Recruitment Crisis. Will It Force Them to Change Their Ways?

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. ME first

      1. That appears to be Shikha’s speciality.
        Anything that prevents scum from washing over the border is to be prevented.
        Shikha wants America to look like… India.

  2. there is so much Orwellian double speak in this article its hard to know where to begin or else Shikha just doesn’t know what the words mean to begin with.

    1. I doubt she would have the same issues if the UN was imposing its will on sovereign countries.

      1. Nor economic migrants with bogus asylum claims

        1. We should not make reasonable requests of other nations… But we should allow other nations to hustle us to high heaven. That’s basically her general idea.

      2. Globalists want to rule the world for *their* benefit.

    2. Her sources include NPR, Daily Kos and that beacon of truth, AlJazeera. This woman is a progressive abomination posing as a Libertarian. What does she want? Open borders for just the U.S. and the rest of the world can send us all of their uneducated, diseased and deviant criminals? America first? Why not? Surely Mexico first, Britain first, Iran first is a splendid ideology as long as every country understands mutual respect. We have the right to impose tariffs on another country if we perceived the relationship to be unfair. In the case of Mexico they have purposely encouraged illegal immigration (for Mexicans) because it provides a revenue stream (cash sent back to families totaling over $20Bil annually). Central American immigrants are not a revenue stream for Mexico except for human traffickers. She conveniently neglects to mention that Iran has sponsored terrorism by proxy in it’s funding of Hamas, Hezbollah and directly with it’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Shikha is a progressive turd masquerading as a Libertarian.

  3. “But Trump’s recent “deal” with Mexico to stop the growing flow of Central American migrants at Mexico’s southern border shows that America First is just code for using America’s considerable soft and hard power to force other countries to do his bidding.”

    Mexico agreed to put a “safe third country” agreement before the Mexican senate if their efforts to stem the tide of asylum seekers hasn’t been successful in 45 days. That he was able to achieve this 1) without imposing any tariffs, 2) without signing any executive orders, 3) without building any wall, 4) without declaring any emergencies and 5) within the context of the Constitution and treaties that have been ratified by the U.S. Senate . . .

    Using persuasion and pressure to pursue American interests is the president’t job, and if he manages to permanently solve the asylum seekers crisis within boundaries of the law and the Constitution then he should be applauded for that by libertarians everywhere.

    If we want to pursue laws that allow more Guatemalans, Hondurans, and Salvadorans to come here as legal immigrants, the authority to do that is still enumerated to Congress. I guess we’ll just have to persuade our fellow Americans to want that–along with fiscal restraint, low taxes, an end to the war on drugs, and all our other objectives. I can’t help but read this and think that Dalmia is attacking the proper purview of democracy itself. She wants an authoritarian president who will impose unpopular immigration policies on the American people over their objections and against their will.

    1. I wonder what Dalmia thinks the US President’s job is. Their job is not to concern us with the plight of the world. It’s to concern himself with the plight of the USA.

      She’s becoming as unhinged as Jennifer Rubin and Max Boot.

      1. It reads as if she questions the point of having countries to begin with. Which is fine but if that’s the case there’s really no point to this article.

        Just say you’re an anarchist and we can all nod our heads and ignore the rest.

        1. I remain unpersuaded that borders would be open in an anarchists society. I’ve seen an anarchist society, and they clearly mark their borders with signs. Here’s an example (English translation):

          “You are in Zapatista rebel territory. Here the people command and the government obeys.”

          “North Zone. Council of Good Government. Trafficking in weapons, planting and use of drugs, alcoholic beverages, and illegal sales of wood are strictly prohibited. No to the destruction of nature.”

          https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Mexico.Chis.EZLN.01.jpg

          1. “On 1 January 1994, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), an indigenous armed organisation, declared war on the Mexican Government, demanding “work, land, housing, food, health, education, independence, liberty, democracy, justice and peace.”

            With that list of demands it sounds like a bunch of democrats to me

        2. “It reads as if she questions the point of having countries to begin with.”

          Good point, but technically, it only reads as opposition to self government *for Americans*.

          Notice how the Open Borders anarchist propaganda of Reason is always and only used to oppose self government *in America*, the country with the largest foreign born population in the world, by multiples.

          Where’s the hate for Japan’s thoroughly closed border? For their unapologetic ethnonationalist state?

          It’s almost as if we’re just seeing the usual postmodern Leftist tactic of all rhetoric simply being a cynical tool for manipulate your enemies, while they don’t believe a word of it themselves.

          1. “Where’s the hate for Japan’s thoroughly closed border? For their unapologetic ethnonationalist state?”

            Have you checked Japan? Ask Japan’s notoriously Leftist teacher’s union what they think about the ethnonationalist state.

          2. They Reason they don’t like to bring up Japan is that if people started thinking about it, they’d realize how much better off and happier Japan is with a functional, homogenous society.

            IMO Japan could use more immigration, but it needs to be the right kind. They could surely let in educated intellectuals from Asia, Europe, and the rest of the world in in small numbers, and be the better for it. But I DARE somebody to try to show how importing millions of illiterate Muslims or Africans into Japan would make it a better place to live for the Japanese people.

            It’s funny how Japan doesn’t have no go zones, rising rape/murder stats, and all the social strife that goes along with 3rd world immigration… Just like how Europe didn’t have these problems until they started letting in 3rd world problems… But the US always has had these problems, because we’ve had such populations here for longer.

            Japan is the example they don’t want people seeing: A happy society without a shit ton of social problems low skill immigration has created in the western world over the last few decades.

      2. “I wonder what Dalmia thinks the US President’s job is.”

        Well, at least we know what she think’s the US President’s job *isn’t*: acting in the interests of the American people.

        Isn’t it curious how she says what the US President’s job isn’t, but not what it is?

    2. She is a progressive authoritarian. Her sourcing is all from extremely left wing media sources (NPR, Aljazeera, and Daily Kos).

  4. The greatest living libertarian writer hits another home run. I especially liked this part:

    “Trump’s isolationist base loathes neocons because they tried to export American democracy—impose a ‘new world order’—at gunpoint. But Trump’s America First-ism is forcing Mexico to turn itself into an extension of America’s border police. It’s becoming a buffer state to protect American sovereignty. If neocons wanted to turn other countries into America’s protectorates, Trump wants to turn them into America’s protectors.”

    As I’ve been saying all along, this new alt-right white nationalist GOP is much scarier than the neocon GOP of the George W. Bush years. Sure, the Iraq War was probably a mistake. But Orange Hitler is doing far more damage to Mexico and Mexicans than the neocons ever did to Iraq and Iraqis.

    #LibertariansForABetterGOP
    #PutTheNeoconsBackInCharge
    #ImmigrationAboveAll

    1. I hope Reasons Senior Sourpuss knows you are a parody.

      1. It’s hard to parody a Shikha article. You just come off looking tame and measured

  5. Because a county’s leadership should represent the interest of every other country’s people before their own.

    Dumbest headline ever.

    1. Seriously. By the article’s logic, self-defense = assault.

      1. self-defense = assault.”
        That is actually the case in the U.K. where if you defend yourself you can be charged with inciting more violence.

        1. What if I scream to have them stop hitting me? I am assuming I would be breaking laws of they are Muslim and I’m white.

          1. at least the laws governing excessive noise and disrupting the peace. You must allow your self to be assaulted quietly.

      2. “self-defense = assault”

        THIS IS WHAT PROGRESSIVES ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

        1. “Who, whom?”

          Self defense is assault for people you hate. Shikha hates America.

    2. Agreed.. how is it she still employed?

  6. imperialism seems a stretch.

    1. “Stay out of our country and leave us alone” is really imperial if you think about….well, shit, just go with it ok?

      Meanwhile, Trump the Imperialist tearing up the Iran deal is imperialist because Iran should have the right to those weapons, while Obama the Non-Imperialist was the guy who negotiated the agreement to keep them from developing the weapons to which they have the right. Again, totally logical if you….I mean, you know. It just is, ok?

  7. But of course Mexico and Iran don’t have a nationalist bone in their bodies.

    1. I used to live in Mexico – 2 years near the US border – and while schadenfreude is a German word, when applied to problems in the US it should have been Spanish. Those Guatemalan people traveling through Mexico were aided by lots of Mexicans who were giddy at the problems they raise in the US.
      How is it possible that Africans who can pay for plane fare to Mexico are fleeing poverty?

      1. “Those Guatemalan people traveling through Mexico were aided by lots of Mexicans who were giddy at the problems they raise in the US.”

        Shikha: “Over time, an America that plays by no rules except narrowly selfish ones will breed resentment and anger.”

        There’s a whole lotta resentment in the world against the US. Shikha projects her resentment. Resentful Mexicans sound more self aware.

        This is the usual Leftist resentment of someone acting in their own self interest who *does better than you*. It’s Kulakism. And we know what Leftists do to Kulaks.

        1. Yup. They’re jealous that our country is better than theirs, hence want to see ours taken down a few notches. In the name of fairness of course!

    2. Just buried in shallow graves along the borders…

  8. Trump just needs to get rid of warmonger chick-hawks Bolton and Pompeo.

  9. SHIKHA DALMIA is a senior SOURPUSS at Reason Foundation

  10. Why a “sovereign nation” shouldn’t have the right to these weapons if it deems them necessary for its national security . . . Trump has never explained.

    So, the problem with Trump is that he’s . . . opposed to proliferation of nuclear weapons?

    Well, that’s a take I didn’t expect.

    1. #HateAmericaFirst

  11. “Imperialism” already has a definition; try again. In English this time.

    1. Aye, those voting “Leave” in the Scotland referendum were Scottish Imperialists

    2. Cut her some slack, she is a dirty America hating foreigners after all! I’m sure English wasn’t he first language.

  12. If putting the clear interests of the United States before vague transnational platitudes is Imperialism, so be it. Bring on American Imperialism.

    In truth, however, Imperialism would involve conquest and rule. Which might, come to think on it, be an improvement for everybody in most of the Middle East.

    1. “In truth, however, Imperialism would involve conquest and rule. Which might, come to think on it, be an improvement for everybody in most of the Middle East.”

      If you want to be even more truthful, you might mention re-instating the draft.

    2. And Central America

    3. Yeah, it seems more often to me that self-proclaimed “America first” types also oppose imperialism. I don’t agree with the other parts of their agenda (like tariffs and immigration restrictions), but I don’t think we can accuse most of them of imperialism.

      1. Yup. I’m damn near an isolationist of the pre WWII variety. I don’t think we should have gotten involved in WWI, and at the least shouldn’t have tried so hard to get ourselves involved in WWII by poking Japan and Germany in the eye at every turn. WWI was just ANOTHER war between European imperial powers for political reasons… And had we not got involved, WWII may never have happened.

  13. People who don’t look out for their own interests do not last long

    1. But their short lives were intellectually consistent, dammit!

  14. Why a “sovereign nation” shouldn’t have the right to these weapons if it deems them necessary for its national security, especially given that Israel, one of its hostile neighbors, possesses them

    Wow. I just don’t know… wow. That is really… wow. With friends like Dalmia…wow.

    1. Screw it, I say we go all in – everybody gets nukes! Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland…Alabama…you name it. That should make the world a safer place.

      1. Shikha is the libertarian oprah

        You get a nuke! and you get a nuke! You two get a nuke!

        1. +1

      2. Florida…

    2. You know who else claimed that his sovereign nation had a right to whatever it deemed necessary to protect itself from Israelites?

      1. Brigham Young?

      2. Pharaoh?

  15. seemingly high-minded one with a nakedly self-serving one.

    Kinda reminds me of someone else’s shtick. Projection sure is a helluva drug.

  16. If you are an adult political journalist who needs Trump to explain to you that the government of Iran and the government of Israel are not moral equivalents, then you have deeper professional issues.

    1. “then you have deeper professional issues.”

      Nothing that can’t be cured by drinking a glass of ‘Zionist Koolaid.’

    2. Nothing a nice fat check from The Bros. won’t solve.

    3. Not only that they are not “neighbors” They are over 1000 miles apart. To get from one to the other by land requires crossing at least two countries.

      Israel is far from the only country threatened by Iran.

      Let’s see Iran is fighting a proxy war in Yemen against
      a) Norway
      b) Israel
      c) Saudi Arabia
      d) New Jersey

      What an ignorant comment by Shikha

      1. “Let’s see Iran is fighting a proxy war in Yemen against”

        Fighting against ISIS and the creeps who support them, the same people Hezbollah is fighting against in Syria. Frankly, I’m on Iran’s side in this particular dust-up. I find ISIS and their methods and ideas repellent.

        1. You should really read up on the civil war in Yemen. ISIS is a minor factor there and is not aligned with either side.

          1. ” ISIS is a minor factor there and is not aligned with either side.”

            There’s no alliance, as you say. The question is who is ISIS fighting in Yemen. They are fighting Houthi rebels. They are not fighting coalition forces. In Syria, Hezbollah and the government are fighting ISIS. According to my sources, the coalition enters secret agreements with Islamists whereby they are paid to retreat with their weapons, equipment and cash intact. It’s ugly, I realize, and I deplore the rape of this fine nation.

    4. I like alt-history.

      I think an idea for a book would involve a war between Israel and Iran-Syria. The war is going in Israel’s favor and the Iranians, who have nukes order a launch. The military refuses for fear of Israeli nuclear counter strike. The Iranian government collapses and a peace treaty requiring destruction of all nuclear weapons and facilities along with long range missiles is signed.

      After the war the inspectors come to Israel to see to the nuclear weapons. “Oh those,” the general says, “we never had them despite our best efforts. Our reactor was too weak so we gave up eventually and just pretended we did. These warheads are all fake and we are turning over all of our records, data, everything”

      1. That’s pretty alt… I would be willing to bet my ass the Iranians would use them. Not if they didn’t HAVE TO, but if they were getting their asses handed to them and thought their government would fall… They would do it.

  17. “The Trump administration tore up the nuclear deal that President Obama signed with Iran, condemning it as “defective” because it would eventually let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Why a “sovereign nation” shouldn’t have the right to these weapons if it deems them necessary for its national security, especially given that Israel, one of its hostile neighbors, possesses them, Trump has never explained. ”

    You mean outside of the Obama deal not being a treaty while the NPT that Iran signed specifically being one?

    Iran has every right to pull themselves out of the NPT, which they have still not done. We pulled ourselves out of a bad deal that was not a treaty.

    1. Reagan commented that other people’s nukes weren’t necessarily our concern. The laser and barbed wire fence between India and the secessionist Saracen Confederacy now called Pakistan would be a more suitable target for Shikha’s concern. Unbeknownst to her and Reason, a large Wall segment just got built at New Mexico with private donations–not far from where hundreds of shallow graves have been found on the Mexican side in recent decades. Additional corpses are being turned up as I type this.

      1. “Reagan commented that other people’s nukes weren’t necessarily our concern.”

        Treaties are treaties. Either you abide by their terms or you remove your support of it and deal with the consequences.

      2. Unbeknownst to her and Reason, a large Wall segment just got built at New Mexico with private donations

        Large? Half a mile long isn’t particularly large for a wall.

        The private one does fill what was a fairly heavily-trafficked gap between the existing Rio Grande barrier and the lower parts of Mount Cristo Rey, but on a national basis, it’s nothing more than symbolism.

        (I’m a local. My home in El Paso, Texas, is on the western slope of the Franklin Mountains; you can see into both Mexico and New Mexico from my yard. I actually drove out and looked at the wall close-up a few days back.)

  18. “His supporters on the isolationist right have always insisted that there is nothing sinister about this—all it means is that America should quit meddling in other countries and devote the government’s resources to fixing its own problems at home.”

    I don’t think either Trump or his supporters ever suggested that the America First policy was purely isolationist. Instead, simply that it would in all cases put America’s interests first, and that Trump’s actions, inactions, etc. would be for the benefit of America, and not necessarily for the benefit of the broader world.

    1. ” Instead, simply that it would in all cases put America’s interests first,”

      But Americans have conflicting interests. Americans working for Boeing would benefit from doing business from Iran which sanctions have been preventing. This conflicts with Trump’s desire to punish Iran for being Iran, and Boeing workers for voting for Clinton.

      It’s a nationalist fantasy to believe that all Americans (or any other nation) share the same interests, beliefs, or destiny despite what demagogues would have you believe.

      1. “But Americans have conflicting interests”. Yes, they certainly do. And so America First is more of a guiding principle, an not a detailed formula or recipe. And, since it is Trumps stated guiding principle, it informs what course of action he will pursue. And, to his credit, I think he has been relatively consistent in following his own principle. Of course, many other groups and/or individuals get to weigh in – either in support or in opposition, and can push back if they feel strongly (as often happens). But, despite these differing views, I think it is inaccurate to characterize America First as an isolationist principle.

        1. I don’t think America First is a guiding principle or a detailed formula. It’s a slogan. And it’s dishonest, too. I don’t see how denying Boeing workers who voted for Clinton the ability to do business with whom they choose puts Americans first. It’s just another example of the heavy hand of government dictating and trampling on freedom.

        2. “But Americans have conflicting interests”.

          Everyone has conflicting interests with everyone else. But the degree of conflict is not uniform.

          Because of culture and governments, two Americans are likely to have more shared interests than an American and a foreigner, and all Americans have more shared interests with each other than with the people of other countries.

          1. “two Americans are likely to have more shared interests than an American and a foreigner”

            Wouldn’t that depend on who these two Americans are and who this foreigner is? Americans are individuals, after all, and I don’t see how stripping them of their individuality is ‘putting America First.’ Much the same applies to foreigners, who are also individuals, almost as much as Americans are.

            1. “likely”

              Take a statistics course.

              1. Choose two Americans at random. It’s not unlikely you are going to get someone who voted for Clinton and another who voted for Trump. Clinton is a globalist and Trump is a nationalist. To claim they share the same interests is to ignore their values and beliefs and their open hostility to each other. Americans see each other as enemies. Read the comments section of these pages. It should be perfectly clear. All this starry eyed talk of American interests is hog wash.

                “Take a statistics course.”

                A statistics course is not going to help you understand any individual’s values, beliefs, interests. You don’t need to consult a statistician to decide whether your neighbour is a nationalist or a globalist.

                1. And we in theory are supposedly sharing a common interest as libertarians. We could not even agree on the proper way to make a grilled cheese sandwich around here.

                2. His point, moron, is that 2 Americans with widely diverging interests likely STILL have more overlapping interests than between an America (either Trump or Clinton voter), and a Somalian pirate in Somalia. God you’re stupid.

                  Some people will jump through so many intellectual hoops to avoid accepting the obvious.

                  1. Are you saying that any two Americans will have more in common than any American and any foreigner? I don’t believe this. It sounds like typical national socialism with an American twist, an appeal to spurious common cause.

                    1. God you’re dumb.

                      No, it is possible that any GIVEN 2 people may have more overlap… But ON AVERAGE, YES, any 2 Americans are likely to have more in common on a personal level, AND more interests in common than with foreigners. This stuff applies to personal preferences, and it applies to financial/political interests.

                      How is this concept hard to accept? More Americans are pro gun, including Democratic voters, than anybody from saaay Europe even. America cutting its spending deficit is of benefit to Americans personal interests, while it is of little consequence to a Japanese man. 2 Americans are more likely to think fondly of hamburgers than an Indian woman. I could go on literally forever. There are things called statistics, they can inform people of the general lay of the land when it is too complex to look at literally every single person as an individual. Stats matter. Average statistics decide the fate of nations.

    2. America First in 1939 meant let Europeans (and The Raj) kill each other off without our renewed involvement with the welshing scumbags. Congress erred by again loaning them money, but Japan’s miscalculation in attacking Hawaii totally invalidated the policy. Lindbergh pushed armed neutrality, and was tarbrushed a nationalsocialist sympathizer. This facilitated his obtaining info on German aircraft and passing it along to Uncle Sam.

  19. It’s great to have points and counter points and different opinions if only to keep us intellectually honest.

    This article however…I just do not see how pressuring Mexico to control their own borders [instead of just letting the mob pour through a “porous sieve that residents and commercial traffic from both sides travel through relatively unencumbered”] is somehow or other “American Imperialism.” What does seem clear is that Dalmia thinks the porous sieve is a fine and humanitarian way to manage borders [if at all] and that we’d somehow be all happy if people were just allowed to go wherever they want in any number. Now THAT is a fantasy. As for equating Israel with Iran, and that any country has equal rights to nukes, well,that just goes way beyond any fantasy I can imagine.

    1. Americans acting in their shared interests is bad, m’kay?

      Especially when it’s President Cheeto!
      #OrangeManBad
      #HateAmericaFirst

  20. Breaking out the biggest bag of stadium popcorn I can find….

  21. Fuck off, Shikha. Seriously, this is more of your ridiculous attempts to place immigrants above everyone else at any cost. Just ridiculous.

    The sad thing is that you have given some great libertarian speeches or appearances in the past, but you seem to be unhinged when it comes to immigration.

    1. “but you seem to be unhinged when it comes to immigration.”

      Free movement of people has always been central to Libertarian thought. Migration has been the most effective means for people to escape poverty and adversity for thousands of years. It’s not going to be made more effective by government interference is Shikha’s view and also the correct Libertarian view.

      1. the free movement is a libertarian utopian ideal that can not work in world with differing views. It only works with total social control of every aspect of every persons life. the opposite of libertarianims

        1. ” It only works with total social control of every aspect of every persons life. the opposite of libertarianims”

          Are you saying that free movement of people only exists where there is total control over every aspect of everyone’s life? I think perhaps you need to meditate on this issue a little more. Or maybe just a rewrite will be enough to frame your thoughts more coherently.

          1. I think free movement of people could only work in a world where every society on earth was VERY close in terms of culture, education, etc. Because if you do it in the world as it exists today, it will average out all the stats of the world… This is GREAT for African peasants, and HORRIBLE for people who live in first world nations.

            I don’t CARE about the movement of people enough to destroy the USA as a first world nation for that principle. And neither do most other sane people. That is pure nut balls, dogmatic, bullshit.

            1. “And neither do most other sane people.”

              Not me. I believe in the free movement of people, goods and ideas, though I would never call myself a Libertarian. I don’t believe governments should have the power to prevent people from moving about.

              As far as the destruction of the USA is concerned, don’t you think it’s a little too late? Americans see each other as enemy. I don’t think the world will miss them whenever America gets around to its much awaited second civil war.

              1. Well then you’re an idiot ideologue, even if you’re not a libertarian. You clearly come at things from a bleeding heart perspective, which gives me even less respect for you, because at least the libertarian case stems from a logical argument.

                IMO the international freedom of movement is simply less important than maintaining the existence of 1st world nations and their cultures. I will concede that the libertarian argument is correct on principle, but am simply willing to throw the principle out the door because the real world cost is too high.

                America is in fact already done… And do you know why? Because we’ve already had too much 3rd world immigration. Our social cohesion has been destroyed by this, irreparably so IMO.

                If the 1965 immigration act had never been passed, American politics would still be in the bland style of the 1970s or 1980s. Shitty, but not THAT shitty. And people wouldn’t be at each others throats like they are. The fact is the leftists only win elections for a couple reasons: Women and minorities.

                The overwhelming majority of white people still believe in the ideals America was founded on. This actually includes a small minority of white women even. So if we hadn’t imported all these anti American fucks, we’d still be squabbling over minor details, instead of barrelling towards a socialist takeover and/or a civil war.

                As far as things go, some people ARE the enemy. It’s not like lots of people who were nice in their personal lives weren’t idiots who decided to fight for the communist revolution in the USSR… The thing is, it doesn’t matter. Anybody fighting for that shit, and against your freedom, IS AN ENEMY. And they will have to be dealt with one way or another. You either convince they’re wrong, and to change sides… Or if it is a shooting war, you do what ya gotta do.

                Let us hope we just peacefully split the country into 2 or more parts. This is the only peaceful solution IMO, and the one I am in favor of. I don’t support violence, and if you also don’t, you better start shilling for splitting the nation up to avoid it.

                1. It hurts to hear that you’ve lost your respect for me. I try to put my case forward sincerely, (for the most) briefly and entertainingly.

                  1. And sometimes you do make valid points. I just can’t condone thinking with your heart instead of your head, which many people do all the time. You should consult what your emotions are telling you about things, but the head must always make the final decision.

      2. WRONG.

        Most migrations in the past were VIOLENT and FORCED on the people being conquered. What has created the most prosperity (ability to escape poverty) has been a free economy, and technology.

        Even the largest mass migrations of the past were very small in terms of population change, according to newer genetic studies. The Germanic conquests in Europe after the fall of Rome contributed single digits to the Italian genome, for instance.

        So try again fuck wit.

        1. “Most migrations in the past were VIOLENT and FORCED on the people being conquered. ”

          The proto indo-europeans, those crazy visionaries who first put wheel and horse together were not forced to migrate all over the place. The sometimes had to apply the whip to their horses sometimes, no doubt, but that is not what you meant by violence, is it?

          1. Reading comprehension doesn’t appear to be something you do.

            Human history has been driven by mass migrations.
            Most notably, initial migration from Africa to the North and East, steppe tribes (aka hordes) from Russia south into China and West into Europe, Nordic peoples East into Eurasia and South into Europe, from the Eurasian steppes and plains South into the Middle East and Central Asia and Western and Southern Europe,
            then finally European migration to North America.
            These patterns were followed for centuries, varying in intensity of violence but never peaceful. Overall, native populations and cultures were either absorbed or outright replaced by the migrants/invaders.
            Nothing evil about it – that’s just the way the world works. It’s physics.
            Mass migration will result in the destination population being eradicated.
            Ask the Neanderthals, Celts, Indians, aborigines, etc. That is, if you manage to find any (the Celts are doing best, and their basically reduced to Wales).

            1. The Welsh eradicated the population of Wales as they arrived? I’d never heard of that. Quite a few moved to Argentina and Patagonia, a fact which you didn’t mention. Maybe the migration wasn’t violent enough for your taste.

              1. Again, you don’t do reading comprehension.

                Celts are pretty much limited to Wales, after previously being a large population in Europe

          2. Yup Nardz.

            And dildo breath, how do you know the proto Indo-Europeans weren’t being forced out of their own lands by somebody else, giving them the incentive to GTFO?

            You know the Germanic conquest of most of Europe was largely because of them being forced to move around due to being attacked themselves, and finding it easier to take over new land than defend against those attacking them?

            You’re so ignorant of history it is mind boggling.

            1. “how do you know the proto Indo-Europeans weren’t being forced out of their own lands by somebody else”

              Is there evidence for that?

              1. There actually are some tell tell signs that may have been the case, but nobody really knows. It’s a common theme though. People usually move because they’re getting pushed to do it by somebody else, or their population has become too large for the amount of land they control, so they go do the pushing. It could have been either one of those in their case. They definitely turned into the pushers eventually, throughout half of Eurasia!

    2. ” place immigrants above Americans below everyone else at any cost”

      FTFY

      #HateAmericaFirst

  22. Shikha’s appeal to altruism before a readership familiar with Atlas Shrugged is as pathetic as her cluelessness. Not one of the things she imagines Trump is pushing isn’t in the GOP platform. That platform, complete with version 8 of a Constitutional Amendment to force girls to squeeze out cannon fodder and rewrite 14A to ban birth control is the script for which The Don won the audition. Why not read the LP platform for once?

  23. When I saw the headline I knew immediately who the author is.

    1. Me too! God I hate this woman.

  24. So we’re taking over Mexico? I could use some cheap beach front property.

    1. By her logic, we might as well.

      Just annex them, and make them part of the USA and call it done. I mean seriously, why would that NOT make sense with the way she views things? Taking in 100% of the population is surely the most fair thing to do after all!

      1. I had this idea in my younger days. That is, annexing Mexico.
        Discussed it with a coworker on the way to the job, the pros for both sides.
        A third coworker, an illegal immigrant who didn’t speak English, filed a “racism” complaint against me.
        She told my boss, in Spanish, that I was saying terrible things about Mexicans.
        I told my boss exactly what I said.
        She was fired.

        1. Well, at least you had a cool boss!

          The truth is, if we had done it in the 1800s it might have been a good idea… But now that it’s all populated, it would be an awful idea.

          There’s nothing to be done to fix Latin America for a lot of reasons. It will always be 2 steps behind European and Asian nations, and a step ahead of Africa. Our technological hand me downs will continue to raise their standard of living, but adding it to our nation would just drag us down.

  25. Dalmia = Alaric = Mehmed II. Sackers of empires.

  26. Speaking of Imperialism, I’ve recently been studying the Crimean War of the 1850s which pitted the French and British against the Russians. At one of the first skirmishes at Alma, officers ordered the British to fix bayonets, advance, and ‘not fire until within a yard of the enemy.’ It was disastrous. After several attempts, the Scots Guards simply refused to follow orders, lay down, and started to fire at the Russians with their superior Minie rifles. This turned out to be the turning point. The Russians were armed only with muskets.

    What struck me is that the British officers had no idea of the strategic advantages of their weapons, and it was left to terrified, insubordinate troops to stumble upon the key to victory.

    1. Lions lead by donkeys. As it ever was for the British Army.

      1. Meh. There were plenty of idiot officers from noble families who didn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground… But there were a lot of brilliant up starts too by that era, as well as many badasses from noble families. Half the brilliant British generals of all time were from the nobility.

        One of the biggest problems with wars in the more recent past is that wealthy families no longer are forced by social obligation to send their sons off to be shot at. I think that must have made the powerful think a lot harder about whether any given war was worth it or not.

        1. You may note that the only generals in British history were from the nobility.
          There were some damn good ones though. Wellington comes to mind.

          1. At a certain point back, yes. I don’t know exactly when it started phasing in… But by the 1700s there were in fact people from families that didn’t have titles rising to high positions. I doubt almost any of them were from dirt poor farming families, BUT there were certainly people born to middle class families that rose high in the army and navy.

            Captain Cook, as a for instance, was from a modest beginning, and had he not died would have been an admiral easy peasy.

            But yeah, even up into the 20th century a MASSIVE proportion of the officers were from outright noble families.

            1. Raglan was in command at Crimea. He is a study in military incompetence who was receiving aristocratic honours pretty much right until the day he died.

              1. Yup. Idiots do get into positions of power all the time… See almost every person from both political parties in the USA over the last several decades!

                Either way, many of the British noblemen who fought in their endless wars were highly competent military men. Do you REALLY think the British army conquered 1/4 of the world by being inept? They were the finest fighting force on earth for a good portion of the last couple hundred years.

  27. Reason’s resident #HateAmericaFirst writer rages against the American President acting in the interests of the American people:
    “Why a “sovereign nation” shouldn’t have the right to these weapons if it deems them necessary for its national security, especially given that Israel, one of its hostile neighbors, possesses them, Trump has never explained.
    …But at least Trump is punishing Iran in the name of preventing it from acquiring weapons that one day, someday, may pose a threat to U.S. security. That, however, isn’t remotely the case with Mexico.

    Trump is wielding the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law that was meant to retaliate against foreign enemies in hostile situations, to threaten Mexico with sanctions.”

    Shikha manages to explain why Iran shouldn’t be able to have nukes herself and fails to notice. It would threaten the US. It’s the President’s job to protect the American people.

    Speaking of which, she fails to see the security threat to America by a foreign invasion already numbering in the millions, and objects to Trump fighting to end that invasion.

    Here’s the threat.

    America is the most free, secure, and prosperous country in the world. More free, secure, and prosperous than Latin American countries. Countries are people. Import Latin America, become Latin America.

    Imagine all Americans being raptured tomorrow, and Latin America moves in to the land formerly occupied by Americans.

    Would they make a new country as free, prosperous, and secure as the US? Or, would they make a country as free, prosperous, and secure as other Latin American countries, and be just as desperate as ever to move north again to the next Anglo American country?

    It’s fair to wonder, with her hatred of America, if she really doesn’t see the manifest threat, but instead wants to make America less free, secure, and prosperous, because #HateAmericaFirst.

    “Over time, an America that plays by no rules except narrowly selfish ones will breed resentment and anger.”

    Yet again proving, that the Left Always Projects. Shikha hates and resents America, and projects her hatred and resentment of America onto the world at large.

    This is the usual Leftist resentment of someone acting in their own self interest who *does better than you*. It’s Kulakism. And we know what Leftists do to Kulaks.

    “America First is American imperialism. It is simply a euphemism for using America’s power to impose America’s will on weaker nations.”

    Fundamentally, Reason doesn’t believe in self government, in government of the people, by the people, and *for* the people. She objects to the American President acting in the interests of the American people.

    Note that she doesn’t explain *whose* cause the American President should be acting in the interest of. I wonder why that is.

    1. “I wonder why that is.”

      The American President should be acting in the interest of those who voted for him. (unless they voted illegally) Everyone else is an enemy.

    2. My favorite invasion was the British one in the 60s. They brought us the Beatles, Stones, Yardbirds, Zombies. That was a good one.

      1. It was certainly a hell of a lot better than the current one! We already had tacos in the USA since we won the Mexican American war… We don’t need to import the entire population!

      2. If white Americans had been permitted by the racist entertainment industry to enjoy the original Black creators of rock’n’roll, instead of being served the lame imitations of it on records by cover artists like Pat Boone and Ricky Nelson, the British Invasion would have largely been repelled. Young white record buyers in the US were a soft target for British rock musicians, who had genuine respect for the Black creators of rock, and who had to have actual musical ability to get recording contracts in Britain, unlike American singers who only had to look good. The lame American imposters were easily blown out of the water by the musicianship and authenticity of British rockers.

        1. “British rock musicians,”

          Like John Lennon and Keith Richard were also educated at state run ‘art colleges’ with nary a STEM student in sight. Check out the educational backgrounds of the British Invasion. It’s the red thread that ties it all together.

        2. In truth, people DID listen to all the original black artists dude. They just ALSO listened to the lame white guys. Not that there weren’t good white guys too like Eddie Cochran and Johnny Burnette.

          The Brits just put their own spin on stuff, and it happened to be awesome. Plenty of Americans were doing rad shit at the same time.

  28. Imagine writing this article lol

  29. Sheika is too smart by half.

  30. A sovereign nation can have nukes, but it can’t regulate its own borders?

    The caravan was becoming a divisive issue even in Mexico, and some of its citizens (especially in tourist spots) openly pushed back on massive amount of humanity walking into their towns. This was an increasingly untenable situation for both sides, not unlike the homeless situation in LA.

    Instead of twiddling his thumb and searching for a solution that offends no one, Trump threatened tariff on Mexico if they didn’t enforce their border. It’s not exactly diplomatic, but that gets to the root of the problem. That’s Trump’s greatest weakness and strength. When it comes to things like immigration, he just enforces the law. If he was mayor of LA he would order or suggest that the police simply clear out the homeless encampments. He doesn’t always anticipate logistical hurdles, and that’s an issue.

    A nation does not allow thousands of foreign nationals to cross their land as unit with the intention of reaching another nation illegally. Imagine hundreds of Korean economic migrants reaching the Japanese shores to demand asylum every year, or vice versa. The public outcry would reach the heavens. We’re one of the handful of western societies that feel we have some moral obligation to grant citizenship to foreign nationals who intentionally evaded legal protocols.

    1. ” Imagine hundreds of Korean economic migrants reaching the Japanese shores to demand asylum every year, or vice versa. The public outcry would reach the heavens. ”

      It’s more likely that some crisis would cause far greater numbers of North Koreans head south and seek asylum in South Korea. The public would be inclined to welcome them, not spurn them. The few North Koreans who make it to the south are treated with kindness and respect for the most part, though gently mocked for their strange accents and northerly ways.

      Americans from Mexico, Honduras etc are also treated well in the US for the most part. There are even cities which offer safety from federal persecution.

      1. It’s more likely that some crisis would cause far greater numbers of North Koreans head south and seek asylum in South Korea. The public would be inclined to welcome them, not spurn them.

        Yes, that’s because North Korea and South Korea are a divided country with a common culture, history, language, and family bonds.

        And if you look at Germany, which reunited, it’s far from clear that that kind of generosity is a good idea. The reunification with Germany has resulted in the permanent presence of actual communists and fascists in German parliament, massive tax increases on former West Germans across all income levels, and profound unhappiness for many former East Germans. The only reason this hasn’t led to a revolution in Germany is because West Germans really, really wanted to be reunited, were willing to pay the enormous cost, and could build at least on a shared history, language, and religion. If the same thing had happened with migrants from Denmark, Italy, France, or Poland, Germans would not have tolerated it.

        Mass migrations from one culture to another are not a good idea. Once people get separated by culture, they need individual nations to exist within, even if the populations are biologically (“racially”) and historically identical. The idea of a “multicultural democracy” is idiotic; it doesn’t work and it can’t work, and history provides ample examples demonstrating that.

        1. “Yes, that’s because North Korea and South Korea are a divided country with a common culture, history, language, and family bonds.”

          Sounds a lot like home, doesn’t it? At the time of the discovery of the New World, when Sir Francis Drake roamed the seas, there were just three countries, Brazil, which is pretty much unchanged, Peru, the rest of what we call South America, and Mexico, anything between Panama and the North Pole.

          So Mexico and the USA share history, language, culture and people. They are like North and South Korea in this regard. That explains the lack of pogroms and hate crimes directed to migrants from the south. They are welcomed and treated with kindness and respect for the most part.

          1. Sounds a lot like home, doesn’t it? At the time of the discovery of the New World, when Sir Francis Drake roamed the seas, there were just three countries, Brazil, which is pretty much unchanged, Peru, the rest of what we call South America, and Mexico, anything between Panama and the North Pole.

            You have to be absurdly ignorant of human history to believe such nonsense. At no point in human history have the Americas been a “country with a common culture, history, language, and family bonds.” The were not before Europeans arrived, and they were not after Europeans arrived. The nations of the Americas have been far more diverse and incompatible than European cultures, and continue to be so.

            Furthermore, even if your absurd belief reflected reality, Mexico and the US have been distinct countries for centuries, far longer than East and West Germany.

            That explains the lack of pogroms and hate crimes directed to migrants from the south. They are welcomed and treated with kindness and respect for the most part.

            No, the lack of “pogroms and hate crimes” are a result of the US being a mostly classically liberal, ultra-wealthy society, unlike it’s neighbor to the south. Thanks for furnishing yet another example of how the two countries differ.

            1. “You have to be absurdly ignorant of human history to believe such nonsense.”

              It’s not nonsense. At the time of Drake, what we call North America, he called Mexico. People moved back and forth across what we now call the border frequently and with ease for 1000s of years.

              “Furthermore, even if your absurd belief reflected reality, Mexico and the US have been distinct countries for centuries”

              I don’t see how they are so distinct. There is an arbitrary line on a map. That doesn’t change the facts on the ground. If you travel to a place like California or Texas you will see how little difference there is.

              “No, the lack of “pogroms and hate crimes” are a result of the US being a mostly classically liberal, ultra-wealthy society, unlike it’s neighbor to the south. ”

              It’s not that different. I urge you to see for yourself. People who go to Mexico from the USA are no more subject to pogroms than Mexicans visiting the USA. There is mutual friendship and respect.

              1. It’s not nonsense. At the time of Drake, what we call North America, he called Mexico. People moved back and forth across what we now call the border frequently and with ease for 1000s of years.

                And from that you conclude that the entire Americas was a single culture?

                There is an arbitrary line on a map.

                The original border is an arbitrary line on the map. The effect of the border has been to create two separate cultures and societies.

                It’s not that different. I urge you to see for yourself.

                I don’t expect that you have actually lived in half a dozen countries like I have, but even by the unusually ignorant standards of the US, you really take the cake for knowing nothing about the rest of the world.

                1. “And from that you conclude that the entire Americas was a single culture? ”

                  There were different cultures. Still are.

                  “The original border is an arbitrary line on the map.”

                  It’s more of a frontier than a border. Not well defined, empty, forbidding, porous, with a long history of people passing back and forth.

                  “The effect of the border has been to create two separate cultures and societies.”

                  I think there are many aspects of ‘a second culture’ north of the the border. The names of the towns and cities, is the most obvious. Cultures are not material things and can’t be separated and divided like you seem intent on doing. This is a nationalist fantasy.

                  1. I said:

                    Mass migrations from one culture to another are not a good idea.

                    You responded with both:

                    So Mexico and the USA share history, language, culture and people.

                    And now:

                    There were different cultures. Still are.

                    Apparently, you can’t make up your mind.

                    Cultures are not material things and can’t be separated and divided like you seem intent on doing.

                    As an immigrant, I’m just wondering how f*cking ignorant and pampered you have to be to deny the existence of different cultures. Why do you think I immigrated to the US rather than Mexico or Germany or France? Why do you think Costa Ricans refuse to stay in Mexico and risk life and limb to come to the US?

                    This is a nationalist fantasy.

                    Well, lucky then that I’m not a nationalist. I don’t care about America qua America, I care about America as a country with a historically fairly tolerant and free market culture.

                    If people like you succeed in changing US culture into the kind of stifling, intolerant, progressive culture found in most other Western nations, I’ll be out of here. You then can wallow in the national shithole of your own making, and I’ll contribute to another economy that is less self-destructive and less ignorant.

                    1. You are the one claiming there were ‘two separate cultures,’ one in the north and one in the south. I’m disputing that. There are many separate cultures south, and many in the north. I think the idea there is one culture in the north and one in the south is a nationalist fantasy.

                      “Why do you think I immigrated to the US rather than Mexico or Germany or France?”

                      They wouldn’t let you into Liechtenstein? I don’t care. I’m not interested in your taste in countries. Sounds rude but your personal life has no place in this discussion.

              2. I don’t see how they are so distinct. There is an arbitrary line on a map.

                By the way, since according to you, Mexico and the US are pretty much the same, then what’s your problem with telling migrants to stay in Mexico? Or to tell Mexico to accept them as refugees, as they are required to under international law?

                1. ” then what’s your problem with telling migrants to stay in Mexico?”

                  My problem is that telling people to stay or move is not my bag, man. I believe in the free movement of people! Really I do.

      2. What if it was million of Somalians?

        Do you think the Koreans would like that genius? The fact that they’re basically the exact same people is why that would work. It’s also the reason why controlled immigration to Japan from Korea could work relatively smoothly, but immigration to Japan from Somalia or Syria would be a disaster.

        Anybody with a brain can see that the level of similarities some cultures have with each other can be greater or lesser. Ones with a smaller gap can assimilate more easily. It’s that simple. This is why most Europeans melted into American society easily, and basically no immigrant group that wasn’t European has EVER fully integrated in, including blacks who have been here longer than anybody else. We STILL have 2 parallel cultures with only a certain degree of overlap with black Americans.

        IMO all these more recent immigrant groups look like they’re going to go the route of black people (parallel culture) vs melting in like the Germans.

        1. “What if it was million of Somalians?”

          Were.

        2. I agree that Koreans might not be inclined to welcome a million Somalians. Somalians are from Africa and there is little in common with Koreans of the north or south. America though shouldn’t be a problem with these Somalians. America has had close cultural ties with Africans since its colonization. There are 10s of millions of Americans of African descent living today. They have altered the American culture. Visitors to George Washington used to mock his accent as something he took from the Africans who raised and fed him with African mother’s milk.

          American history and heritage also mean that Mexicans have just as much a claim to the place that Somalians do. America is a whole continent that is time after time visited by hoards of people. Korea doesn’t have the same history or geography. You mustn’t expect the same conditions to apply.

          1. So, that explains why Somali refugees are assimilating so easily into Afro-American culture and communities.

            Idiot.

            1. “So, that explains why Somali refugees are assimilating so easily into Afro-American culture and communities. ”

              Assimilation is a two way street. While the Somalis are busy assimilating the culture around them, the rest of America is assimilating the exotic and exciting Somalian refugee culture. Islam is America’s fastest growing religion thanks in large part to these doughty new arrivals.

              1. OH MY GOD, you are fucking nuts.

                Somalians have brought NOTHING of value to this country. The obsession with shitty, backwards cultures debasing a superior culture has got to stop. Their crime rates are shit, their unemployment rates are shit, their average income when they work is shit, EVERYTHING is shit.

                And your argument about America being different is a modern bullshit lie.

                Yes, we jacked the Indians. I’m part Indian on both sides, so I’m glad they got jacked, otherwise I wouldn’t exist.

                But other than that, blacks were a small part of the population that was basically a thorn in our side the entire time. Even during slavery they were less productive than free workers in the north as per some studies. After we ended slavery they became an even bigger mess. But the USA was 85-90% white the entire time, with NO group other than blacks ever being more than a rounding error.

                The territory we stole from Mexico (Did I mention I’m also Mexican on my moms side) was barely populated. Mexico was inviting in Anglos to Texas because no Spaniards wanted to settle there in decent numbers. Same with Cali and everywhere else.

                We jacked Indians, and had blacks being a pain in the ass… Other than that this country has been all white all the time. Period. And now that it’s not, magically it is falling apart and turning into ethnic strife, just like any sane person would have predicted. Multi-ethnic societies almost always devolve into tribal warfare.

                1. Somalia is a country, not a culture. Black is a skin tone, not a culture. You seem confused about fairly basic terminology and risk losing my respect.

                  “The territory we stole from Mexico (Did I mention I’m also Mexican on my moms side) was barely populated.”

                  That territory was Mexican in name only. It was essentially Comanche territory, ‘Comancheria,’ as it was known until it was genocided out of existence by US aggression.

                  1. I’m no expert on Somalia, but I do believe it is largely a single dominant ethnic group there, unlike many other African countries? Either way, Somalia has a Somali culture, so it’s not entirely horrible to say what I said.

                    And when I went to black, I was talking about American blacks, obviously, who came from a host of places and all melded into American blacks while here. Don’t be daft.

                    You are correct that much of the southwest was controlled by the Comanche until we owned their asses, but that was not the case in all portions of it, and was definitely not the case in California. Either way, ALL of those lands were sparsely populated other than a few Indians. Mexico never really did anything of much use with any of it, and there were more Anglos in all those lands practically overnight than in the entirety of Spanish/Mexican rule. It might as well have been fresh land stolen from Indians directly for all intents and purposes.

    2. A sovereign nation can have nukes, but it can’t regulate its own borders?

      What Shikha is saying is that all OTHER nations may regulate their borders, but not the US.

  31. This is the dumbest, most incoherent article I’ve read in a place that was not Salon or HuffPo or NYT. This is why I rarely come by here anymore and why I never spend any money on this rag. Though I have to say the articles trashing Hawley and that crew are close to right.

  32. these writers HATE the USA

  33. Why does Reason publish the lies and bullshit from Shitka? What gives?

    1. If I didn’t know better I’d assume it was some kind of parody or inside joke.

      1. There is the theory that Shikha is a false flag sent by Trump to discredit the Open Borders crowd.

  34. Shikha is a third rate intellectual in a dying and useless profession with a failed marriage behind her. She knows full well that under a rational immigration system, she would never have been allowed into the country. She also suspects that productive and working folks have nothing but contempt for her. And she knows that, as corporate media and billionaire sponsored think tanks are slowly spiraling down the drain and becoming increasingly irrelevant, her professional future looks increasingly bleak.

    Arguing for open borders, hating on America, and hating on the people who are symbols of the shift in US political and media power is nothing other than a psychological defense mechanism for Shikha because she doesn’t want to face the reality of her own broken existence.

  35. Jesus Christ woman, go back to India and quit trying to ruin my country!

    In theory I support nations in their right to self defense… But nukes are kind of a special case. And also IRAN IS CRAZY. If Japan wanted to have nukes all of a sudden, I wouldn’t have a problem. And I doubt most of the world would. But the Iranians are fucking nuts. You are literally shilling for Iran having nukes. You are insane.

    As for Mexico, why shouldn’t we throw our weight around when there is an obvious problem that is fucking us over? Hordes of the lowliest illiterate peasants coming into a 1st world nation WILL NOT make lives better here. Mexico specifically was aiding and abetting this BS, which is a BS thing to do. So for us to pressure them to fix it is not unreasonable, as it is well within their powers.

    You’re confusing asking for reasonable things with asking for unreasonable things. There is nothing wrong with making a reasonable request, and threatening consequences if that reasonable request is not met. Here’s an example:

    You own a big business. You do business with another company you have economic leverage over. It might be reasonable to say “We’re going to have to give this contract to another company if you don’t cut your costs 10%, and give us a full time liaison inside the project so we can make sure things work well.”

    It would be unreasonable to say “We want you to drop pricing by 90%, give us a 51% ownership stake in your business… And I want all your top execs to send their wives AND their teenage daughters over to my house to suck my cock.”

    Request one is using your superior power to ensure a good deal for yourself, but it is not unreasonable. Request 2 is so out of line it is ridiculous. None of the stuff Trump has asked for is entirely unreasonable.

    You simply hate America, and can’t stand that we’re the most powerful nation in the history of mankind, and should in fact use that power to do what is best for us, within reason.

    So again: Please fuck off back to India since you clearly hate everything about this country so much.

  36. Fuck off, Shitka.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.