Any bets on how this turns out?

April 5, 2005 at 4:53 am (Politics)

As you may know, a brave cadre of American Patriots is fearlessly
patrolling the US/AZ border, to protect families and pro-life citizens
of all stripes from errant Mexican strawberry pickers. (Or gas station
attendants, if they are lucky enough to make it all the way to Oregon).
Vicente Fox has threatened diplomatic action (traduccion: a vaguely
worded statement about the “unfortunateness” of the situation), and
counter-demonstrations are occurring to protest what dreadlocked
hippies and Reed College graduates are certain will be a violation of
somebody’s rights. The media is envisioning another frenzy, since
there’s nothing else happening right now (Terri Whovo? Ironic how the
Pope’s death relegated her to the Craig Kilborne of newsmakers, no? But
I digress…) The Minutemen, as they call themselves, are protesting
what they see as a failure of our government to protect our borders,
and by extension, the American people. They have a point there, and no
one can seriously contest that claim. What no one knows is how serious
a problem it is. Personally, if I were a terrorist, I would come in
through Mexico, so I support strengthening the border. Here is
something I may never say again. I actually support GWB’s plan to
legalize migrant workers. Studies have shown that they are more likely
to go back home if they know they can do so safely and legally. Of
course, I am providing no citation, but I heard it on Ed Schultz. If
you don’t listen to big Eddie on Air America, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Most of us know at least one shotgun-toting, bible thumping redneck.
What are the chances that these people are going to go down there and
“report to the border patrol” any illegal activity? Small. More likely
to happen is a firefight between some drunk Texans and a cocaine
cartel, or worse yet an actual family who could legitimately claim self
defense. How long until that happens? Apparently this is only a 30-day
trial run of vigilantism, after which there is a money-back guarantee.
The only stat available so far is that petty crimes are down 72%, but
doorknob beatings are up 965%. Come on, you all saw that one coming.

Anyway, here’s a link, what do you think?

Advertisements

14 Comments

  1. Underused said,

    I like the idea. Not necessarily as a means to control the border, but as a means to force the government to do its job. Notice how we stepped up border patrols in response to this vigilantism? I think that was exactly what it was meant to do. The feds get nervous anytime rednecks with guns start organizing.

  2. grundle said,

    i see this as a movement by bellicose citizens to perpetrate intimidation and aggression against people from other countries.

  3. JB said,

    There’s definitely that aspect to it. I wonder how many of these people are salivating to call this justification for the sacred 2nd amendment?

  4. booyah said,

    I don’t see how this is any different than neighborhood watch. And the ACLU doesn’t bitch about that.

  5. JB said,

    NW is much more passive than this. If NW folks went across town to the projects to stop crack dealers before they leave home, the ACLU would probably bitch.

  6. jones said,

    more importantly NWers aren’t likely to be armed. but i don’t see why the ACLU’s involved. is it suddenly a constitutionally guaranteed right to illegally cross borders?

  7. grundle said,

    from the MinuteMan website (http://www.minutemanproject.com/):the nation is being “devoured and plundered by the menace of tens of millions of invading illegal aliens” Here’s what one of the volunteer’s said: “I haven’t carried a weapon since I learned I could kill a man with my bare hands.” http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/04/02/news/top_stories/4105101205.txtI think a better project would be an outreach to immigrants to help direct them through the legal channels.

  8. JB said,

    Yeah, it’s the AMERICAN CLU, so why are they protecting a bunch of Mexicans? Seriously, the ACLU really pisses me off sometimes. Didn’t they lobby against the now overturned California law prohibiting taxpayer-paid benefits to illegal immigrants? I really don’t think the Constitution was meant to apply to non-Americans, nor should it. Otherwise, aren’t we a dictatorship?

  9. jones said,

    i don’t have a problem with the ACLU protecting people’s rights once they’re here – we need an absolutist group on the side of personal rights no matter what the cause – but in this case they’re backing illegal activity that doesn’t conflict with a constitutional right.vigilantism should not exist once a nation has professional police and armed forces. the original minutemen were the original reason for the second amendment, but now we have the reserves instead.

  10. booyah said,

    I guess I just don’t have a problem with citizens proactively protecting their rights. I mean, IF one of these yahoos shoots somebody, then yes we have a problem, whether or not that person was here “legally.” However, until they do, more power to them. This notion that “protecting” our country and our way of life should be up to mystical powers or people with shiny metal on their chests is stupid. At its core, the responsibility for the security of our country lies with us as individuals, and that’s what these people are doing. If they break a law, fuck ’em. Until they do, let them be.

  11. jones said,

    as long as they’re reporting lawbreakers i’m fine with them. once they start enforcing the law on their own they’re breaking laws themselves – if you jump and handcuff an illegal alien you’re guilty of assault. and, come to think of it, thats probably why the aclu’s down there. these guys aren’t patrolling the mexican side (i hope0 so by the time they catch the immigrants they’re on u.s. soil and have the same rights as jbads gas station attendants.

  12. Underused said,

    Actually, you’re legally allowed to restrain someone using reasonable force if they are committing a felony in your presence. The details vary from state to state, but that’s the general rule. Some states will actually let you use deadly force on a fleeing felon if they present a danger to society at-large.

  13. ubiquiTV said,

    from Underused: “you’re legally allowed to restrain someone using reasonable force if they are committing a felony in your presence”Thanks, Underused. That’s interesting. I wonder what reasonable can be defined as though. I also wonder how long it will be before someone decides to use pre-emptive, reasonable force?

  14. grundle said,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: