Sessions: No Successions

A showdown is brewing between the federal government and the state of California over immigration. Sessions has filed lawsuits against 3 recently passed California laws that contradict federal immigration law. The CA governor has replied with the normal tripe (that immigration laws are racist, etc), but has gone so far as to say that Sessions is "basically going to war against the state of California." Those are big words. Sessions affirms that immigration policy is the sovereign domain of the federal government, and that federal immigration laws cannot be nullified by a state that doesn't like them.

It's an interesting fight. We on the dissident right are generally principled, and we are generally opposed to the federal government. So what stance can we take on this issue without contradicting ourselves? The only answer is that our stance is nuanced. We support showdowns between the states and Washington, whatever the cause. And if it turns liberals Californians into states' rights activists, then that's even better. (Of course that stance will be limited, because they are not principled, and merely adopt whatever stance is immediately beneficial.

However, Sessions is correct. Immigration policy is a federal matter, and border defense is one of the few actions we can agree are fully in the federal domain. So that settles the question of what is. California is in the wrong, Sessions is right, but we like seeing the conflict anyway. But what about the question of what should be? Should California be able to make its own immigration laws? I think so. But that means we no longer enforce immigration at the federal level. Instead, it would have to be enforced at the state level. That would mean all kinds of annoying consequences, like having to go through a checkpoint to enter Kansas, and then another to leave on the other side. (I'm assuming no one actually drives to Kanas; they just spend a few bleak hours passing through on I-70).

But what it really means is a redefinition of what the nation-state is. Sovereign borders define the nation-state. California is saying it is no longer a part of the American nation. It is now its own nation, which consists of the various inhabitants that happen to reside on its soil. This is actually a far right stance, from what I can tell. It's what people like Richard Spencer advocate for, whom they describe as being the extreme of racist. He wants a state where people can define their own nation, rather than being told what the nation is. California is saying the same thing.

Governor Brown is correct but has it backwards: they are the ones declaring war by rejecting the notion of a sovereign American nation-state. It certainly is a cultural declaration of war. Just because we don't want what California wants, and Sessions is "our guy" and is in the right, doesn't mean we don't want California to push this fight. Here's hoping it gets really ugly.