Austin’s border militarization is wrong; so is U.S. interference. NH should divorce both governments.
(Above) New Hampshire independence advocates rally before a hearing on secession legislation (Photo by Joa Orga).
In a memorable sci-fi moment, elderly politician Chrisjen Avasarala warns interstellar envoy James Holden of danger. She expects a murderous local faction will try and get him on their side. “Do not,” she says, “put your dick in it.”
Those of us in America who advocate a “national divorce” should consider her advice – and historical precedent – before we “jump to the side…of Austin’s aPARtheid.” Every state and empire involved with this ugly confrontation will lie, steal, cheat and at least occasionally kill. That’s what states and empires do, even when they’re not trying to build the next Berlin Wall or accrue millions of destitute migrants at taxpayer expense. So how should Concord react? How should secession advocates react? It, and we, should let the non-aggression principle be the guide.
Within the limits of practicality, we should:
– Support the human rights, of every member, of every party, to this conflict.
– Oppose every act of aggression committed by every member of every party to this conflict.
Ignore the faction; focus on the action.
So what aggressive misdeeds have been committed? Well, walking to Texas from Mexico without papers…is not an act of aggression. Making taxpayers help or harm migrants *is* an act aggression. Both D.C. and Austin have committed both acts.
1) Washington made this showdown possible by using income taxation to seize the earnings of Texans. It then redistributed some of the stolen property to so-called “illegals,” artificially increasing the number of migrants and creating more resentment toward them. It has actively fostered immigration problems. Where in the U.S. Constitution is such a redistribution of wealth to immigrants authorized? Even if authorized, would it be right?
2) Where, in its constitution, is D.C. empowered to prevent Texans – even Texas goons – from restricting immigration themselves? To restrict Texas citizens from owning or acquiring certain firearms they may deem useful for self defense in a time of crisis? How many hundreds of pages of gun laws does D.C. impose on Texas?
3) Where is D.C. empowered to make New Hampshire taxpayers underwrite its actions against Austin? To tax New Hampshirites and give their money to random immigrants?
4) Has everyone forgotten the extent to which D.C. has destabilized Latin American countries over the years, including the 2009 coup in Honduras?
5) Should D.C. be allowed to get away with its pause on Texas natgas permits? Do these constitute economic sanctions which would raise prices in New Hampshire?
6) If D.C. doesn’t follow its constitution, why does Austin have to follow it? Why does New Hampshire?
Having raised these concerns:
A) The Texas government’s attempt to militarize part of its border with Mexico is an act of aggression against the many Texas taxpayers who disagree with such measures. It is also an abuse of migrants who wish to exercise the inalienable (if not yet recognized) human right to travel on public roads without government permission.
B) Austin imposes some gun control of its own on Texas. This limits the ability of Texans – and migrants – to exercise legit self defense against violent criminals. Like Kiev, Austin has experienced a rush of brains to the head on this matter and gun laws there have generally been loosening.
C) Austin, at least on occasion or by accident…does direct some welfare payments to undocumented migrants.
D) State sovereignty is desirable as a hedge against Washington, its over-taxation, its no-win wars. But Texas’ rulers have picked a dirty issue upon which to make their stand for such sovereignty. This issue likely won’t stand the test of time. If the trends of the last 500 years continue, by 2100 it will be widely understood that no human being – or sentient being – is “illegal.” It will become obvious that no peaceable person or person-equivalent should be told which region of the earth they may visit…that none should be forced to get permission from an earthly nation-state before they can travel. Those alive today who hold the popular view favoring guarded borders and travel papers….will likely be regarded like slavers or Jim Crow enforcers. In 1860 it was a commonly-held belief in the United States…that one human being should be able to enslave another based on ethnicity. Now it is a commonly-held belief that one human being should be able to severely restrict the movements of another based on nationality and “papers.” The two beliefs are not wildly different. Someday those who hold the second belief will probably be almost as disgraced as the slavers of 1860.
E) Since 1865, Austin has tamely acquiesced in nearly every Unionist genocide and torture chamber spree, from Wounded Knee to Bagram Air base. But it’s going to make a stand over..not being able to build its own border police state at taxpayer expense? Is there some reason Austin can’t just get out of the way, letting private citizens defend property or aid immigrants as they see fit in accordance with common rules of decency?
F) Arguably, constitutionally…Austin was correct in the 1860s when it claimed Washington had little authority to keep Texas in the union. Other states supported Austin’s position. But the stain of slavery blotted out all.
G) Arguably, constitutionally, Austin was correct in the 1960s when it claimed that D.C. had little authority to enforce the Civil Rights Act. Other states supported Austin’s position. But the stain of segregation blotted out all.
H) And arguably, constitutionally, Austin is correct in the 2020s when it claims D.C. has little authority to prevent local immigration control. Other states are supporting Austin’s position.. But the stain of border militarism may, in its turn, blot out all.
The most regrettable misdeed hasn’t been committed yet. That would be the use of deadly force by Austin against D.C.’s enforcers…even in “self defense.” Any such act of political violence by Texans during this standoff…would be an inexcusable breach of everything Dr. King – and to some extent Texit leader Daniel Miller – have taught the world in the last century: An autonomy-minded region’s chances of political success against established central government…drops by 3x if the autonomists start using deadly force. Washington understands this, and there is probably some risk of a false flag event where D.C. attacks itself and makes it look like the Texans did it. Maybe now is a chance for Texit folks to play some constructive or mediative role reducing tensions between Austin and Washington…so that their peaceable secession drive can continue in an orderly way.
During the 19th century, New Hampshire had a nonviolent independence movement which opposed both the expansionist wars of the Union…and slaver cruelty of the South. This movement was mostly forgotten, because the secession “success” of Southern slavers damaged all subsequent efforts at full independence for the states. But what if New Hampshire had declared independence in 1850 to protest slavery? Or the invasion of Mexico? Or all the Federal abuses at once? What if it at least had put secession to a vote? Setting that example might have kept independence alive through the decades as an active possibility for the states, disconnected from the taint of Fort Sumter and Confederacy.
NH has the ability to set such an example, and we have done it. In 2022, NHexit put legislation in front of the whole State House which would have let all New Hampshirites vote in a referendum on independence. In 2024, we brought almost exactly the same legislation forward and it made it into a Newsweek cover story. We do these things to show how plays for autonomy can be orderly, clean and even friendly. We do them to mainstream secession as Quebec and Scotland have done. But mainstream or not, New Hampshire independence is the root-striking answer to all grievances outlined above. We don’t belong in the same empire with D.C. and its on-again-off-again manipulation of migrants as political cannon fodder. We don’t belong in the same empire with Texas and its razor wire.
When India left the British Empire, no one imagined the two would part peaceably and that over 70 years of happy relations would follow. But that is what occurred. So it can be with New Hampshire and the increasingly troubled states of this continent. Change is coming fast. Once we are disentangled from our unhappy marriage with Austin and D.C., we can finally have a shot at normal friendly relations with both.
