We have issues with Mr. Buchanan. He is no libertarian and we have many beefs. But he often makes inconvenient and important points. He makes one in the attached piece.
Immigration is a particularly challenging issue for us. We are very much pro-immigration. But we also understand the strains massive doses of immigration can have on a society. Of course the libertarian part of us, which is pretty much all parts, is loathe to have the state in any way regulate the movement of “human capital.” If people are coming here to work, and there are jobs, so what? Good. That’s good for all of us.
However the equation is not as simple as this as Milton Friedman observed in his day. If the US is to maintain a generous welfare state which in many ways is open completely to people who have just come into the country, legally and otherwise, does this not skew the “human capital” equation fundamentally? If people are enticed across the border with the hope of income and health care paid for by taxpayers, is not this influx, which costs taxpayers in various ways, a legitimate issue for current citizens/taxpayers?
When I was just out of college I met with a very “liberal” priest who was a friend of my mothers. My mother was a “Peace and Justice minister” for the Church. The priest and I met over lunch in DC and most of conversation revolved around immigration. He was quite excited as he saw immigration from the south as a way to overwhelm the evil Western United States. He talked of a population bomb that would rock the US, and in his mind this was absolutely justified. You know because of colonialism, or racism, or both, or something else.
I often sensed that Mr. Obama and his cohorts were looking to facilitate such a bomb, and in so doing to ensure their future electoral success. Many of us on all sides of this debate felt this.
Of course Obama didn’t want to come out and say, “Well, we want to take down the horrible racist America we’ve known and instead have it dominated by urban type crony identity politics, and we are going to do what we can to swell voter rolls with people who will be grateful for the taxpayer funded services and money “we’ve” provided for them.” He couldn’t say that. He also couldn’t just come out and say that the USA wasn’t worth preserving. That was a bridge just a bit too far. Instead he talked about “fundamentally transforming” the country. (Which thankfully was a massive bust, not that it doesn’t need changing. But AWAY from Obama’s type of government and TOWARD MUCH LESS GOVERNMENT.) However, many voters, both pro-Obama and anti-Obama, knew exactly what Obama meant.
In our opinion the West is a special thing. The Enlightenment, the Renaissance, capitalism, liberty, republican government, liberalism (in the classical sense) these are fantastic things and worth celebrating. When needed they are worth preserving. But some people don’t see it that way. Some really do seem to have a societal death wish.
One extremely important point must be made here. The thing that defines an “American” is not one’s ethnicity. That is a very Old World/Third World way of looking at things. What defines an “American” is a belief in the principals of the one and only successful libertarian revolution in the history of the world, the American Revolution. What matters is the belief in the value of the individual, in free enterprise, and in liberty.