When it comes to the federal way of dealing with the surge of millions of military-age men from all over the world hopping into Latin America and then walking over the American border, the minor difference within the ruling uniparty seems to be between a gentle welcome and busing them in. 

They are not the same, of course. Democrats prefer busing thousands of military-age male economic migrants to various American cities. Republicans prefer the same, but with border patrol and added troops protection and presence, not to mention furious tough talk. 

On these pages, we previously discussed why the system is broken, and one of the main established causes was that the current regime is a regime of the swarm, where the responsibility is so delegated that there is no accountability and there is no one point of authority. 

Causality is usually multivariate. In America, the system encourages states to have their own laws, and therefore, as a logical end, encourages “sanctuary cities” and a disproportionate burden on border states. 

Add to that an ideologically compromised federal government and an impotent Congress, determined to spend money to save Europe’s frontiers and neglect America’s. 

Add to that business pressures to import cheap labor, an education system that produces surplus elites reluctant to do manual labor, and media and academic biases towards further social liberalism and practically open borders. 

Add to that a national security bureaucracy that is essentially a swarm on autopilot. 

Amateurs talk about the number of troops on the border and a border wall. Professionals talk about “rules of engagement” by the troops in case of a migrant surge. Are they allowed to shoot, if overrun? Are they allowed to target human traffickers? 

The things not said or discussed in sophisticated circles are perhaps the most important in this context. They are also being deliberately ignored for a reason. The boundary of the debate is already set by gatekeepers in the major media. Rage all as you might, vote all you want, but within those walls…for lack of a better phrasing. 

The purpose of the most powerful state on earth and the elected government of that state is of course not to facilitate a smooth transition where millions of foreign men are just welcomed in, whether by the Democratic method or the Republican. It is to stop those men from coming, with fatal force if necessary, and to ensure the border is not breached. There must be someone to bring down the hammer, unilaterally going against the media and academia, corporates, and NGOs. 

There should be a targeting of human traffickers. There should be economic pressure on Mexico. There should be buffer zones. There should be Congressional authorization of “letters of marque and reprisal” against any actor, individual or collective, responsible for any crime, within the territory of America, whose country of origin is outside America, especially in the south of the border. In extremis, there should be American-administered economic zones in those failed countries where incompetence and lack of state apparatus have resulted in a vacuum—a worthier and more important goal for American interests than nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, or running the government pensions fund in Ukraine. There should absolutely be a border wall. There should not be billions of aid to Europe to guard their frontiers.

An apocryphal story goes that Viscount Lord Edward Pellew, leading a joint Anglo-Dutch naval force against slavers, human traffickers, and pirates near the Barbary coast, told his sailors to negotiate with "shots, and nothing but shots.” 

The past, as always, provides a solution to the problems of the present.