« A Man of Substance | Main | Bait and Switch (Great Wall edition) »

Comments (12)

1. the serrach says:
   October 6, 2006 08:10

   we shoulda tried this at chapman. i bet that woulda gone over really well. anyone out there attend his gig there? i could hear shouting from my backyard, but assumed it was a football game.

2. The Blotter » Bait and Switch (Great Wall edition) says:
   October 6, 2006 09:10

   [...] It looks like it's not a not a good week to be a Minuteman or Minuteman sympathizer (Minnie-symp?). Not because those kids at Columbia were mean to Aliso Viejo's own Minute-Grand Wizard Jim Gilchrist– when you're working the xenophobia racket, you really don't expect to get much love from Ivy League ephebes– but because their champions in Congress are playing them for chumps. [...]

3. Lisa says:
   October 6, 2006 11:10

   This is utterly ridiculous. Those thugs at Columbia don't know how to conduct themselves and should be embarrassed about how they acted. Why couldn't they conduct a civilized debate instead of rushing the stage? To call the minutemen racist is absurd as it is made up of many different nationalities, yet it is the only argument the pro-illegal immigrant crowd can come up with.

4. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
   October 6, 2006 12:10

   Lisa: One argument for associating the Minuteman Project with racism is that it appeals to (and takes members from) such groups as the National Alliance, an avowedly white-supremacist organization. They believe that Aryans, or Northern Europeans, are inherently smarter and better suited to organizing a complex society than other ethnic groups - based purely on the assertion that the northern European climate is somehow harsher.
   Click to read the NATIONAL ALLIANCE CHARTER, and CLICK HERE to read an article about National Alliance members showing up at Minuteman gatherings.
   I am not saying that all Minutemen are racists; but some are, and proud of it.

5. Lisa says:
   October 6, 2006 12:10

   I have heard of no VALID arguments.

6. John says:
   October 6, 2006 12:10

   Believe me, Lisa, other arguments have been thrown around. When you have top economics and political science departments, that's what tends to happen. I do regret that the debate has to be carried out in the media.

7. Lisa says:
   October 6, 2006 14:10

   What my concern was not that certain members of the minutemen may be racist--because certain members of MECHA and the Black Panthers, etc. are indeed racist so every race has their "racists" within them, but my concern was that the pro-illegal immigrant crowd has no other validation for supporting illegal immigration other than attacking those who are against it by calling them racists.

8. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
   October 6, 2006 14:10

   Oh. Well in that case you're just being unfair. Might as well say that all Christians share the same limited, narrow-minded beliefs and values as the Westboro Baptist Church.
   The truth is, both sides of the immigration argument are far more complex.

9. Lisa says:
   October 6, 2006 16:10

   I am not being unfair, I am just saying that I have not heard any other arguments except that they are "racist". It's not my opinion it's just that I haven't heard anything else.

10. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
    October 8, 2006 23:10

    Well, howsabout this: immigration has always occurred and no amount of whining or militant resistance will stop it. So instead of picking fights, it makes more sense (to some) to try and reform the system for dealing with immigrants in the country and addressing the problems they cause, rather than focusing on armed resistance along the border. Minutemen action strikes some as needlessly violent, excessively cruel, inhumane and even short-sighted.
    Then there's the business community, which depends upon undocumented immigrants for cheap, abusable labor.
    These are just a few reasons to be pro-immigration, or at least anti-Minuteman. And finally there are those who adhere to the United Nation's Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which guarantees the right of all Earthlings to flee hostile conditions for a better life (though it offers them no protection once they leave their home country, sadly).
    I hope I've provided some alternate arguments for you, Lisa. If not, might I recommend ... researching it yourself?

11. Lisa says:
    October 9, 2006 09:10

    So you are saying that we should just have open borders and no immigration control because it has always occurred so why bother to control it? That is a senseless argument and it's the bleeding hearts like yourself that will directly contribute to the demise of this country as we know it. In the near future there will be no distringuishing us from Mexico, and the illegals will be competing against themselves for the jobs they come here for in the first place. Then where will they go? Canada? Good luck! The bottom line is that Mexico needs to create jobs within their own country instead of making it our problem to take care of their citizens.

12. Alex Brant-Zawadzki says:
    October 9, 2006 12:10

    No. That's not what I'm saying at all.
    Part of being American is tolerating other people's beliefs and positions, Lisa.
    I'm saying we need to improve how we deal with undocumented immigrants in the country now.
    I'm saying no amount of violent resistance will stop migration. It will only divert more Mexican resources into false paperwork and smuggling people in cars, trains, and boats.
    If you're convinced Mexico needs to improve, why not focus your energy on pro-Mexico policies and humanitarian relief rather than persecuting the immigrants? They agree with you, which is why some of them are here - to send more money back home than they could ever hope to make there.