James Antle asks in an article today at VDare:
Should the paleo movement support the congressional Republicans who stopped amnesty for illegal immigrants? Or should it jettison them because of their near-unanimous support the war?
Do paleos support a peace candidate like Gary Johnson who favors open borders? Or do they back someone like Tom Tancredo, who is a stalwart on immigration but speaks casually of bombing Mecca?
It is unfortunate that one must choose between the two. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, “invade the world” is almost always followed by “invite the world.” But if one must choose between (A) a pro-war/anti-immigration candidate versus (B) an anti-war/pro-immigration candidate, then I’d opt for A. And here’s why. Whatever damage irresponsible Wilsonian nation building around the world can do to the U.S. (e.g. bankruptcy, backlash, casualties, etc.) at least it’s temporary. At least in theory we can at some point in the future change course and undo some of the damage. The effects of immigration, however, are irreversible. Demographics are destiny. Once the U.S. demographically becomes Brazil, that’s it. There’s no going back.