The Minutemen
LaShawn Barber asked me what I think of the Minutemen. If you read this blog a little you know I've posted quite a bit about the illegal immigration crisis and what I think must be done. I've even gotten sufficiently exercised about the subject to call Hugh Hewitt's show, and Hugh's honored me by linking to my immigration-related posts. Until now, however, I haven't known what to think about the Minutemen. The Malkin-O'Reilly interview helped me crystallize my thoughts.
I understand and support what the Minutemen are trying to do: draw attention to the illegal immigration crisis. That's a noble and important goal and I hope they succeed; but I have some doubts and worries about how they are going about their work.
For one thing, I wish they hadn't decided to call themselves the Minutemen. Do they really want to compare themselves to the real Minutemen-- armed defenders against an armed military invasion? This is hyperbole. As much as we are legitimately worried about the stream of illegals across the southern border, that is not an invasion and the illegals are not warriors.
Also, and unfortunately, white supremacist groups are fond of using Revolutionary War names to identify themselves. Now this well-intentioned group has chosen to do the same thing. All of this simply plays into the hands of the MSM, which loves to give unattractive labels to conservative causes with which it disagrees (but I repeat myself!). President Bush, God bless him, did not help the situation by calling the Minutemen "vigilantes."
So as much as I hope the Minutemen's activities will foster a vigorous and informed debate -- and action!-- on the slow-motion illegal immigration crisis, I am worried that this all might backfire badly. Let us all hope and pray that none of the Minutemen get carried away and end up in a confrontation or other situation in which one or more of the illegals gets hurt. Otherwise we'll never hear the end of it. And I mean never!
posted by Lowell Brown at 6:50 AM
|
6 Comments:
Lowell, you posted the other day the importance of the rule of law and cited a hypothetical example of law protecting Christians from secularist. If the rule of law is good in that case or the Schiavo case, where is the rule of law when it comes to illegal immigration? Where is the rule of law for Sandy Berger or a President committing perjury under oath?
Is illegal immigration against the law or not? Did the President take an oath to protect and defend? Why does the rule of law pretain there and not here? I am certain the rule of law would be inforced if I don't file and pay my income taxes! There seems to many of us that there is an elite class that picks when and IF to apply the rule of law. As the classic line from George Orwell's Animal Farm laments, "some are more equal than others."
Posted by Bob
Bob, if you read my posts below you'll see that I think the rule of law is the primary American value at stake in the illegal immigration crisis. Conservatives all want to get to the same place on this. My concerns about the Minuteman project is about means, not ends. In other words, how do we get there? I think the Minutemen may find that their efforts backfire. That was the whole point of my post, but in your comment you didn't say anything about it!
Posted by The Hedgehog
Sorry Lowell, I did't make myself clear. My point is that it seems that my own "conservative" leaders have a light disreguard for the rule of law and only drag it out when politically convienient, even here with roughly seventy percent of the population supporting enforcement of immigration laws. Maybe I am getting too cynical in my old age, but the rule of law is too important to our national identity to leave to politicians. Sometimes leadership starts from the bottom up like the Minutemen. I think they could have national support because of few alternatives.
Posted by Bob
While I agree that the opportunity for disaster is great, the idea of an American militia, in it's truest sense, standing in defense of the nation is hard not to admire.
I do not agree that "that is not an invasion." Foreign nationals entering the United States without permision sound somewhat like an invasion. Add the complicity of a foreign government and this becomes a more significant threat.
Posted by Mark
So the Minuteman Project is underway in Arizona. Depending on who you ask, they may be making a temporary difference, or may be detracting from the Border Patrol's efforts in handling, ahem, "undocumented" workers from Mexico. I had a thought yesterday:
Who does the MSM support in this effort? Clearly, President Bush doesn't like the Minuteman Project, calling them "vigilantes." And the press doesn't like President Bush, that's a well-documented fact. But the press also doesn't like the Minutemen (this article refers to them as "racists"). So who will the press support in this debate? How are they going to inject their bias into a story where both sides (in their view) are a problem?
For the record, my view is that if the Minutemen do nothing beyond starting a serious national debate on the issue, that is a small step....
Posted by Eric
I have a question. What is the real reason that people volunteer to be minuteman? Do they really want to help the U.S. or prevent the counry from being over populated by other races?
Posted by brenda
Post a Comment
<< Home