My take on Donald Trump:
Unlike many anarchists, I think immigration can be criticized on a variety of grounds. Mass immigration appears to be an effort to an effort to flood the economy with cheap labor for capital, thereby dispossessing the traditional working class. It also appears to be an effort to create a permanent constituency for the left-wing of capital, thereby assuring permanent electoral victory. Immigration also appears to be an effort to impose global capitalist mono-culture on all societies everywhere. There’s also the concern about large-scale immigration from highly reactionary societies that inevitably bring their cultural norms with them. Do we really want Islamist parties to become competitive in Western elections?
That said, Donald Trump’s anti-immigration program as outlined by Jared Taylor in the article below clearly involves a massive extension of state power and approaches the level of being a “war on immigration” comparable to the “war on drugs.” Taylor is a white nationalist who regards preserving the white demographic majority in the United States as the highest political good. Fair enough. But as revolutionary anarchists our principle ambition should be to weaken and destroy our primary enemy, the plutocratic-imperialist-police state based in Washington, D.C. As I wrote in “Liberty and Populism: Building an Effective Resistance Movement for North America“:
On immigration, it is clear enough that the only viable solution is one of local sovereignty. Obviously, we should not wish to strengthen our great common enemy, the US federal government, by militarizing the borders and building a Berlin Wall along the Rio Grande. Instead, the Swiss model can be applied to immigration policy and individual communities can decide whether to be pro-immigrant “sanctuary” communities, anti-immigrant communities with the Minutemen stationed at the county line, or somewhere in between. The great Israeli dissident Israel Shamir discussed the value of the localist approach in his debate with Noam Chomsky:
“Does this critique mean that the no-state idea should be discarded? Not at all. But instead of non-territorial millets, we may support small semi-independent territorial communes, as envisaged by Marx in his Civil War in France and by Lenin in his The State and Revolution, or indeed by Plato in his Republic. Such a solution is extremely suitable for Palestine and for the US, and for the rest of the world.
In the US, it would solve many problems; people would be able to choose whether to live in a mixed or a separated community, a liberal or conservative one, with or without abortions and gay marriages, and would not be imposing their social vision upon others. The federative framework consisting of independent units would not be an aggressive state prone to send troops to Iraq, but it would be able to organise its mutual self-defence. It would mean undoing the lifework of a Bismarck or Garibaldi, and good riddance, too! Full autonomy for every commune would slow down if not eliminate migration flow and would help people to regain their roots. Indeed, let the people of Boston or Atlanta decide whether they want to accept immigration from Ghana or Sweden, instead of having this question decided for them by the New York-based media and Washington lobbies. This was the rule in Switzerland: Alexander Herzen, a Russian noble and dissident of 19th century, discovered that the Swiss federal government had no power to grant citizenship or even rights of residence to a stranger; it was a prerogative of a local commune. This wise rule can be implemented today everywhere.”
By Jared Taylor
Donald Trump’s new position paper on immigration makes it official: He is easily the best presidential candidate on border security and immigration since Pat Buchanan. And we can be sure he is not a bait-and-switch politician who excites supporters with a few sensible ideas and then betrays them. Mr. Trump has single-handedly made immigration the key issue of this election. His heart is in it when he says we need to build a wall, deport illegals, and have an immigration “pause” until every American who wants a job gets one.
But can he win? The white percentage of the electorate drops every election. It was 74 percent in 2012 and likely to be 72 percent in 2016. Time is running out for white people, but a unique set of circumstances in 2016 may give them a real chance–perhaps their last chance–to elect a president who would actually help them rather than hurt them.
But if Mr. Trump wins, can he deliver? Every institution in America would join forces against a president with sensible policies, but a bold, thick-skinned chief executive supported by a carefully picked cabinet could rewrite the rules about how Americans think and talk about their country.