The No Kool Aid Zone

I’ll give a huge tip of my Wahoos cap to that, for “Americans doing the jobs our government won’t do”.

Don ~ Apr 20, 2005 at 9:52 am

You understand that the Minutemen Project isn’t about saving us from terrorism, right? It is about discrimination against Mexicans/Hispancs. That is why neither party wants to be part of this xenophobic farce.

The Minutemen Project is a basic (and silly) concern that “they are taking over our land”. It is that “too many people speak Spanish around here and it ain’t American.” It is about protecting America for White People. It is about closing down an open and tolerant society. It is about open hunting season on poor migrants who want to better themselves. It is Americans forming vigilante groups against defenseless people.

The Minutemen Project is a regressive right-wing reactionary stunt. Immigrants (legal and illegal) are vital to our economy, society, culture and way of life. America has always been a land of immigrants and to now declare the door is shut is B.S.

The September 11th hijackers all entered America legally, obtained identification legally, and moved about as a normal member of society. If they attack us again, they will repeat that process. To think that a rag-tag band of men in pickup trucks will stop terrorists from crossing the border either undersells our CIA/FBI or gives that band a lot of credit. Either option is scary.

Worrying that a Mexican migrant farm laborer is going to destory America is ridiculous. Let’s call the Minutemen Project what it is. A group of bigoted white males with a geniune, but unbased, fear of something that doesn’t exist and who are willing to use force to subdue that imagined fear.

Expat Teacher ~ Apr 20, 2005 at 10:53 am

Mr. Expat Teacher, you obviously haven’t done your homework on the Minuteman project. If you had, you would know that it is not about discrimination against Mexicans/Hispancs. But it is about protecting “this nation as a harmonious melting pot”. It’s not about closing down an open and tolerant society. “It is a reminder to Americans that our nation was founded as a nation governed by the rule of law.” It’s not about shutting the door to LEGAL immigrants. It’s about bringing “national awareness to the decades-long careless disregard of effective U.S. immigration law enforcement.” It’s not about Americans forming vigilante groups against defenseless people. But “it is a call to voices seeking a peaceful and respectable resolve to the chaotic neglect by members of our local, state and federal governments charged with applying U.S. immigration law.” The Minutemen Project was never about saving us from terrorism. Rather, it was established as “an effort to bring Americans to the defense of their homeland” against the “political, economic and social mayhem” that comes from our nations disregard for illegal immigration. I think you need to go back to school on this one, my friend. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about.

Don ~ Apr 20, 2005 at 1:09 pm

So then, by your reasoning, anyone who believes that people who want to enter our borders illegally should be resisted are, themselves, bigots? I’ll commend you for your apparent omniscience, EX, for being able to read minds and motives of those who believe that the laws on our books are there to be obeyed, not scoffed at. Guess I’m a bigot, then?

“Too many people speak Spanish”? Well…the fact is that the farce we call “multiculturalism” is dumbing American society down, but I don’t begrudge a soul the right to come to this country—LEGALLY—and find productive work. If they want to be successful, though, they certainly should learn English—they hurt themselves if they don’t—and the liberals who ostensibly want to help them by not insisting they learn English hurt those they want to help—which is generally the way liberals end up.

“Hunting season on poor migrants”; “vigilante groups against defenseless people”; golly, you’d think that they got these folks in the scopes of their uzis and were mowing them down right and left. Let’s see, the body count of “poor migrants” at this point is…zero?

The Minuteman Project is about people doing what our government should be doing—enforcing the law along the border. Except that ALL that these folks are doing is reporting the criminals to the Border Patrol, and then letting the criminally-undermanned Border Patrol do its job. By your reasoning, a Neighborhood Watch group that spies out crime on the block would be bigoted? Isn’t this what the Minutemen are doing?

I’m glad that you’re up to snuff on exactly how the terrorists will attack next time—legally and all; golly, with that kind of semi-omniscience, I hope that the State Department has you on the payroll! You’re right, of course; the 9/11 hijackers did enter legally; what doesn’t follow logically, though, is that we therefore ought not try to control illegal immigration. 9/11 should have put us all on notice to protect our borders in EVERY way—sure, tighten up the ways that they got in the first time, BY ALL MEANS—but do a better job on the borders too.

The ragtag band already has had an impact, and has received an endorsement from some group of Border Patrol folks (retired ones? I forget the group.). And the fact of the matter, plain and simple, is that there is a veritable flood of folks crossing the sieve…er, border. If acknowledging the truth of that “undersells our CIA/FBI”, then count me an underseller. No, the Minutemen aren’t going to make a huge dent, so I wouldn’t give them a lot of credit…but if more join their ranks, as I hope happens, then maybe we’ll see a dent made.

A Mexican migrant worker is not going to destroy America; you’re right about that. Lawlessness will, though, as will the continued flood of folks who scoff at our laws and then overburden social relief systems designed to help poor Americans, and which our governments don’t have the backbone to limit to those who are citizens—stupidity in the name of compassion. Yes, there might be some “bigoted white males” among the Minutemen, but to attribute the whole movement—or even a significant portion of it—to bigotry is to, in the typical way of liberals, smear instead of think. I’m not qualified to judge what’s in their hearts—nor in yours—heck, don’t even know my own that well. Why engage in assigning motives—contrary to Jesus’ words in Matthew 7—and then smear folks?

Byron ~ Apr 20, 2005 at 1:25 pm

Byron,

You are right. I did smear someone and Matthew 7 clearly says not to. For that smear, I’m sorry and ask forgiveness.

As for the Minuteman Project, I think these folks might have a real fear, but again I think it misses the bigger picutre.

You say,” but I don’t begrudge a soul the right to come to this country—LEGALLY—and find productive work.” except that immigration law is stacked against citizens of Third World Nations. America has a quota system for highly skilled professionals (i.e. computer programmers from India), but we have nothing for low skilled workers. Yet we need them. We need strawberry pickers in California, meat packers in Nebraska and janitors in New York. Americans who have gained skills through national mandatory schooling are over-qualified for these positions. To keep someone over-qualified in a position you have to pay them more (and increase costs to consumers) or change the job description. Neither works. America has thrived on a the “poor and wretched” that arrive on our shores throughout history. With our current law, the only real option for Mexican workers to sneak across the border into the SW.

So would you support opening up the quota numbers on Mexicans so they can work here legally? Say offer working visas to 2 million Mexicans next year? 1 million? 500,000? What is the right number Byron?

As for my description of open season and vigilantes, those were more metaphorical rather than literal. I’m sure someone will kill an illegal immigrant crossing the border. The cocktail is all mixed up (hot temperature, a pre-disposition to believing “we” are doing good and “they” are bad, liberal gun ownership laws, language barrier, etc.) and all we’ll need is a spark. The first time a group stumbles upon some organized drug or people traffickers, we shall have a firefight. The metaphorical point was that the Minuteman Project makes a very disadvantaged group of fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters the target of an organized campaign with the intent to further harass them.

As for terrorists, I say they will enter the country legally because that is what they have done in countries with good law enforcement. In America, Spain, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, etc. It ain’t me being omniscient. It is me being a good student of history. The Al-Qeada textbook tells followers to mix in with society so that no one suspects you. Not having legal documentation defeats that.

Finally, and the reason why I called this project bigotted and xenophobic, our border with Canada is more porous and more unguarded than our southern border. In Washington State, my homestate, there are more undocumented and illegal immigrants from Canada than anywhere else. However, no one cares because they are white and speak English. Due to Canada’s strong connection with other Commonwealth countries (i.e. Pakistan, India, many African countries, etc) and it’s history as a culturally tolerant and open society another Al-Qaeda terrorist will probably use Canada to enter the US. This is where the Millenium bomber was stopped in 1999/2000 by our beleaguered border patrol.

So the Minuteman Project isn’t about protecting us from terrorism. It is about protecting us from Latinos. Maybe that is a concern and needs to be addressed, but to wrap the Minuteman Project in the protective cloak of 9/11 when it clear isn’t does a disservice to real terrorism concerns and those killed in the battle against terrorism on 9/11 and since.

Expat Teacher ~ Apr 21, 2005 at 5:19 am

Fair enough; apology accepted on behalf of those you might have offended (not me!).

Let me jump to the last paragraph first. I agree, to a point; I’m not certain that the first reason that there is a Minuteman Project is to protect against terrorism. I do think that the borders, in general, should be tightened—all borders, for that purpose, and I do think that, of course, terrorists could use our open borders to sneak in. I think that the folks in Arizona are truly tired—as I would be—at the flood of illegal aliens pouring in, and I think that there is a problem with the massive overburdening of our social safety nets (won’t even get into what I think of them!) attached to this problem.

I don’t CARE how many folks come into our country…not at all…as long as they do it LEGALLY, and we have systems in place to attend to the issues that increased legal immigration would raise. I do believe that there ought to be certain requirements of folks; making English the official language would be a good thing, something that would help these folks, frankly, to become assimilated Americans. I have no idea what the right number ought to be, but it ought to be a number that we can reasonably handle. I don’t know what that is.

If we truly NEED these folks, then change the laws to permit them to come, making sure that we take all the factors (and I don’t know what they are, frankly) into account.

I’m afraid I have no knowledge of illegal Canadians! It sure doesn’t make the news. I’d feel the same way, frankly; they ought to do it legally as well. Heck, I think I’d rather have Mexicans; they have Mexican food, and what do the Canadians contribute? Not even HOCKEY, currently!

I cheer the Minutemen because I am frustrated with the increasing lawlessness in society, frustrated with Administration after Administration that doesn’t take the law seriously. If the law needs changing, let’s change it, for goodness’ sake, not IGNORE it, right?

Byron ~ Apr 21, 2005 at 9:33 am

Byron,

The poor and desperate rarely have time for nice legalities. How is someone earning $2/day going to hire a lawyer to help them jump the legal requirements to gain entry into the U.S. legally? Most of my ancestors showed up at Eastern ports and applied for entry right away. Thankfully, they were all granted entrance and welcomed to America.

I agree that it SHOULD be done illegally, but in practice it can’t be done legally. We have too many structures in place to do that.

As for “massive overburdening of our social safety nets” I’ll leave that alone until you get around to blogging about it and trying to provide some evidence (quick hint…there is none on a state/regional/national level). Likewise, I’ll not try to take on “English as the official language” until you blog on it.

Finally, care to elaborate on how “Administration after Administration that doesn’t take the law seriously”? I am pretty sure that we are safer as a nation than we ever have been. Does crime exist? Sure, but not on a national or federal level. Nothing that requires an act of Congress to fix (although limiting gun ownership sure helps bring down violent crimes).

I appreciate the sentiment, but the Minutemen Project seems to be underinformed or misguided. I am disappointed you don’t have any answers for my questions because I was rather enjoying myself.

Expat Teacher ~ Apr 21, 2005 at 4:22 pm

X,

When I suggest that the law should be changed, I’m talking about folks like you working to change it; a Mexican citizen doesn’t have standing with legislators to do that anyway. I’m not talking about court action, but legislative; persuade the lawmakers, whomever is responsible for setting immigration quotas, to open them up further, assuming that we have reasonable capacity to handle the influx of new citizens. I remain resolutely opposed to people breaking the law–Mexican, Canadian, you name it.

Perhaps what I’m given to understand is incorrect on the “safety net” thing, but my impression has been that, in particular, the state of California has expended a good sum of money on illegals. If that is not the case, then that is one less reason to take my stance. I submit that we don’t do welfare well to begin with (see Marvin Olasky’s “The Tragedy of American Compassion”) when we place it in the hands of the state, and if the state is going to do welfare, it ought at least to be limited to those who are legal citizens, it seems to me.

The Administration quote was meant to narrowly reference border issues, not to be taken as a general statement.

At a quick glance, I count two question marks in your last post; I think I answered the first one by saying that I’m not against allowing more folks to come in legally if we have the wherewithal to handle them; as to the second, I wouldn’t claim to know what an exact number should be. What other questions were there?

Byron ~ Apr 21, 2005 at 8:57 pm