Yes, it would be terrible [for Gustavo Arellano to be president of the United States]. A far-left minority President who is not loyal to the United States? I know, you probably think America already has one of those, but believe me, a Mexican president would be worse. (If you don’t believe me, ask an actual Mexican.) [...]
What gets me about Gillespie’s position is that Mexican immigrants, like American minority groups, are horrible on libertarian issues. Would a Mexican President respect Second Amendment or property rights? Mexico doesn’t. Mexican-Americans, very largely left-wing Democrats, don’t. Why would immigrants from the socialist states South of the Border?
Instead of encouraging your readers to write to Gillespie and ask him, which will not be satisfactory, why not try to answer the question yourself? Here's my answer. The reason the libertarian Gillespie would welcome a far-left, Mexico-oriented president of the United States is that what really motivates Gillespie is not the belief in freedom, but the desire to undo America. In this, he is just like the feminists, who never have a critical word about the Muslim treatment of women, but side with Muslim immigration and Muslim empowerment, which will assure the spread of Muslim-type suppression of women in the West. I began pointing out nine years ago, and many other conservatives, including mainstream conservatives, have now also been saying it, that this proves that the feminists' real motive is not the advance of women, but the destruction of America. The same is true of Gillespie. His true aim, as shown by his support for a left-wing, Mexico-style president of the U.S., is not liberty, but the destruction of America.