Why are people against the "Minuteman"?

[camaro3232]

I heard that during the month of April civilians will patrol the U.S. border near Mexico. What is wrong with this? If the government does not have enough agents patrolling the border what is wrong with civilians doing it?


http://www.minutemanproject.com/

Looks like I was wrong, I do not think they are armed. This is what is says on their site

"Our policy of passive activity will be to OBSERVE with the aid of binoculars - telescopes - night vision scopes, and inform the U.S. Border Patrol of the location of illegal activity so that border patrol agents can investigate. "

There are also legal Mexicans participating in it.

[DRoseDARs]

1. Have they received proper training or are they vigilantees?

It's a matter of legitimacy and legality. If they don't have the authority, they have no business doing this.

[camaro3232]

4. but there nothing illegal about protecting the border

I think I read on their site is, they will not engage any people crossing. They are just there to deter it.

[DoNotRefill]

45. Ummm....the authority to do WHAT?

What authority exactly do you need to watch the border with binoculars and call the cops if you see illegal activity???

[sierrajim]

157. If thats the case

Then I would imagine that if anyone here were a witness to a crime and did not have the proper training and authority then they should not report it. You cant have it both ways.

[Billy Ruffian]

160. Oh, no, Sierrajim

They should only report it if it is in their own neighborhood. If they're away on vacation or business, or even in the next neighborhood at the grocery store they shouldn't report it :eyes:

[purduejake]

2. Because they will SHOOT people for fun.

[alwynsw]

19. Nice opinion there.

What's your basis for this theory?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

3. Gee..I dunno...a bunch of racists with guns and an ax to grind with

Mexicans...real good idea...I'm all for it if these numbnuts accidentally shoot each other.

[alwynsw]

37. I love ya, kiddo - BUT

Racists? Possibly. I'm quite certain that at least some will be racists, but we've no way of knowing unless one of our number trots down to Cochise County and surveys the group.

Shoot each other? While I'm sure that some will carry firearms (I would because of the nasty little - and not so little - creatures that live in the desert) it's a bit hasty to assume that they'll be shooting at people, vehicles, etc.

Personally, I have better things to do than guard the border or sit in trees - unless I'm sitting in a tree stand during deer season.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

94. I realize the situation on the border and in border towns is bad

but one would be foolhardy to think that these people are not racists. They aren't going to stop WHITE people entering the country.

I predict there will be a shooting. Call me Miss Cleo :D

[skippythwndrdog]

99. The odds are that there won't be any white people

engaging in the criminal behavior of border jumping in the area...unless they are going TO Mexico. If they spot white folks crossing illegally, I trust that the Minutemen will report them too

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. actually you are quite incorrect.... a great deal of caucasions

enter the US illegally via Mexico as well.

[skippythwndrdog]

109. Tell me more about this.

I trust the minutemen will report them too.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

110. I don't trust the minutemen to find their ass with both hands

they are not trained officers.

I wonder if you would pull over for some ununiformed nut with a gun in the middle of nowhere.

[skippythwndrdog]

111. I don't think you get it...at all..

They are REPORTING the illegals to the Authorities. Not pulling them over, not shooting them. Why is this so hard to understand? If you bothered to read the site, you would have noted the below.

from the site:
Our policy of passive activity will be to OBSERVE with the aid of binoculars - telescopes - night vision scopes, and inform the U.S. Border Patrol of the location of illegal activity so that border patrol agents can investigate.

We will not be confrontational with anyone. The tentative area of observation will be a 20-mile stretch of lowlands across the San Pedro Valley in southeast Arizona.

[DoNotRefill]

124. I'm thinking....

that they're concentrating on foot traffic, and reporting movement. somehow, I doubt that they'll be able to identify ethicity at the kinds of distances we're talking about here...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

107. actually you are quite incorrect.... a great deal of caucasions

enter the US illegally via Mexico as well.

[skippythwndrdog]

108. Holy Duplicate Posts, Batman!

:7

[DoNotRefill]

123. there are a fair number of Eastern Europeans....

who use the Mexico route to illegally immigrate...I've met a couple of them. They told sad stories...

[Kathy in Cambridge]

5. You even have to ask this question?

Oh brother! :eyes:

[camaro3232]

6. what do you have against people protecting the border?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

8. They're VIGILANTES

and many are probably volunteering because they hate Mexicans. You have no problem with them shooting at innocents? I'm all for RKBA, but I'm also for a civilized country that does not condone vigilantism.

[camaro3232]

9. they are not going to shoot anyone, and they are not innocent if they are

trying to sneak into the U.S.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

10. They are sneaking in for economic reasons

let's hear all your thoughts on immigration. Did you vote for Kerry for President?

[camaro3232]

13. how do we know they are not sneaking in drugs, weapons or terrorist?

a lot of drugs come up through the Mexican border. yes I had to vote for Kerry. Bush is a complete idiot!

[alwynsw]

20. I'm not the party to which you directed the question, but

here's my answer:

I have no issues whatsoever with legal immigration. When the laws change, I'll support them in their new form. I guess I'm just old fashioned. I'll obey the laws as written. If I disagree with them, I have worked, do work, and shall work to change them.

Without law and reasonable obedience of it by the vast majority it is impossible to maintain a nation or civilized society.

I disagree strongly with many laws, not the least of which is the curbing of our rights concerning firearms, but I obey them. I'll also report violations I observe to the proper authorities.

edited to add: I'll not be taking a camping trip to AZ anytime soon.

If you disagree so strongly, trot on down to Tombstone and observe the observers.

[Sandpiper]

56. Don't be coy about your feelings

You don't like the thought of Mexicans jumping the border.

And that's only natural for some who lives in...Kentucky? A state not even within remote proximity of the border.

Maybe you're old fashioned in more ways than you care to admit.

Maybe if you cared about illegal immigration that much, you'd realize that organizations like the Minutemen serve only to kick the powerless in the proverberial teeth; meanwhile the real lure for illegal immigration, American business interests that exploit illegal labor, completely escapes their attention.


Unfortunately, you applaud the Minuteman Project's myopic view and solution to the situation.

[alwynsw]

117. Learn a bit before you speak

How does that old saw go? Something about remaining silent and being thought a fool rather than to open one's mouth aand removing all doubt, isn't it?

First: Show me a post wherein I've endorsed or advocated this project. I have endorsed the right of the participants to do so.

Second: I have a great affinity for Arizona, having been a resident of that state for about 19 years. I have many friends and relatives there.

Third: I see illegal immigration as a valid concern in KY. We've had several INS busts here in recent years. Does Tyson Foods ring any bells? We have their largest single operation here. Also - are you aware that (I'm honestly not certain about actions since 1995 because I haven't researched it) one of the largest INS arrests and deportaion of illegals from Mexico, if not the largest occurred in Elgin, IL, a suburb of Chicago?

I take umbrance at your suggestion that I applaud their actions. I simply endorse and applaud their right to do so.

[Sandpiper]

126. Take all the umbrage that you like

And I'll be content to call a spade a spade, and point out that the biggest cheerleaders of the MM Project on this thread happen to be from:

Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama, and New York.

Can you spell xenophobia...

that's x-e-n-o-p-h-o-b-i-a.


I don't applaud their actions, I just applaud them forming a citizens vigilante group...but it's not a vigilante group, it's just like a neighborhood watch, even though I can't come up with a neighborhood watch group that does anything remotely similar...

and on the dissembling goes.

[alwynsw]

131. Twist all you like.

Geography seems to make only snobbish behavior. Tell me. Have you ever received mail at an address outside of California. Wait. Let me clarify that. Have youever, in your adult life (assuming that youare an adult) resided outside the Republic of California, and in doing so had or made th e opportunity to get to know the natives?

Try reading my posts once again. I have yet to endorse the group or their actions. I have repeatedly affirmed their right to do so.

That's an interesting deliberate attempt at misquoting me. I've never referred to the MM's as a vigilante group. You have.

I believe the xenophobe involved in this thread is much closer to the CA/Mexico border.

Go sip your Napa Valley chardonnay and feel smug in your presumed superiority granted you beccause of a CA address.

[iverglas]

136. oops

Have youever, in your adult life (assuming that youare an adult) resided outside the Republic of California, ...

Surely you meant the "Socialistic People's Republic of Kalifornia".
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=+site:freerepublic.com+%22republic+of+Kalifornia%22+%22free+republic%22

Go sip your Napa Valley chardonnay ...

Well phew, at least you weren't making accusations of drinking French wine.

Time to share my brunch joke of the day (made up while we were eating it, and speaking of course as a jester in the court of King George B. II, not that he'd get it):

Which came first -- the chicken?


http://www.chickenshop.co.uk

or the egg?


http://www1.accsnet.ne.jp/~terakoya/recette/quiche.html

Damn, that's just so complexly hilarious.

[alwynsw]

139. Surely you meant the "Socialistic People's Republic of Kalifornia".

No. I meant precisely what the California State flag has printed on it.
Or had you forgotten what your state flag says?

[iverglas]

140. Or had you forgotten what your state flag says?

Uh oh.

C'est moi, c'est moi!

C'est moi! C'est moi!
I'm forced to admit
'Tis I, I humbly reply
That mortal who
These marvels can do
C'est moi, c'est moi, 'tis I
I've never lost
In battle or game
I'm simply the best by far
When swords are cross'd
'Tis always the same
One blow and au revoir
C'est moi! C'est moi!
So admir'bly fit
A French Prometheus unbound
And here I stand with valor untold
Exception'lly brave, amazingly bold
To serve at the Table Round.

Ah, once again, so complexly hilarious.

I've been to California, but only as far as to almost run out of gas in Death Valley ...

[sierrajim]

158. There he goes again

trying to jam words of his own in someone else's mouth.

[iverglas]

164. he does??

How odd.

[iverglas]

137. and how did you manage to miss the point?

We've had several INS busts here in recent years. Does Tyson Foods ring any bells? We have their largest single operation here. Also - are you aware that (I'm honestly not certain about actions since 1995 because I haven't researched it) one of the largest INS arrests and deportaion of illegals from Mexico, if not the largest occurred in Elgin, IL, a suburb of Chicago?

You know: follow the money?

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2001/December/01_crm_654.htm

"The Department of Justice is committed to vigorously investigating and prosecuting companies or individuals who exploit immigrants and violate our nation's immigration laws," said Chertoff. "The bottom line on the corporate balance sheet is no excuse for criminal conduct."

The thirty-six count indictment unsealed today in United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, is the result of a two-and-one-half year undercover investigation conducted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) into the business practices of Tyson Foods. Tyson Foods executives and managers are accused in the indictment of conspiring to import and transport illegal alien workers from the Southwest border to Tyson plants throughout the United States. Fifteen Tyson Foods plants in nine states have been implicated in this conspiracy to defraud the United States government.

Seems like the pure-hearted patriots from the various parts of the US now patrolling the southern frontier might save themselves some trouble if they stayed home and watched for suspicious corporate vehicle activity.

[Name removed]

190. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sandpiper]

11. So you favor summary execution by armed vigilantes

For illegal border crossings?

Wow.


:wtf:

Oh, sorry.

Didn't see that you don't favor them being shot.

But if you really think the sort of "minutemen" who are up for border patrol are above shooting Mexicans, you're dangerously naive.

[camaro3232]

12. I never said I wanted them to be shot

They are not going to be shot anyway

[alwynsw]

18. Let's all get our knickers in a twist!

The idea from the website is observe and report (report to the border patrol) suspected illegals crossing the border.

The site also warns participants to observe and obey AZ firearms laws. It's not legal in AZ to arbitrarily shoot folks. One is allowed to shoot in defense of his life or in defense of the life of others in AZ. One may also shoot an intruder in his home without fear of prosecution if saiod shooter is in reasonable fear for his life. How do I know this? I used to teach firearms safety classes in AZ when I lived there and have kept current since moving away because I visit there regularly. BTW, open carry is legal there. Given the natural beasties prsent in the desert around Tombstone, Bisbee, and Douglas; being armed is not a bad idea.

I don't see this as any different from tree sitters except that these people won't be trespassing in any way. The area in question is Federal land and/or AZ State Trust land. Both allow camping, hunting, etc. usually without fee.

I believe that you are dangerously naive in believing that people will be doing this in anticipation of an opportunity to shoot someone.

[Sandpiper]

25. And let's pretend that groups like this aren't full of Mexican haters

n/t

[skippythwndrdog]

26. And let's pretend that what you said is based in fact!

But, I'm not into pretending.

[Sandpiper]

27. Yeah, vigilante groups are always full of progressives

n/t

[skippythwndrdog]

29. I don't know what they are, but you are changing the subject.

You stated/implied that they are Mexican haters. I'm looking for you to either provide evidence or retract.

[Sandpiper]

35. I didn't imply anything

I stated that they were a vigilante group, which according to Merriam Webster, they most certainly are.


And I also stated that they were Mexican haters.


The United States has a much larger northern border with Canada, and yet the Minuteman project seeks volunteers from all 50 States, to exclusively patrol southern border with Mexico.


I'm sure their motivation for this has nothing to do with this 94% white group's personal feelings toward Mexicans.

[skippythwndrdog]

88. Are you out of your skull?

We have a huge problem with a flood of criminals coming from Mexico, there isn't a problem with a flood of criminals coming from Canada. You have provided no evidence of any Mexican hating, so I call BS on you.

[alwynsw]

34. Your basis for that statement is - what?

Show the proof.

I have yet a better idea: trot along with the MM's and see what you get, then report back tto us.

[Sandpiper]

43. As I said in a previous post

The United States has a much larger undefended border to the north, yet the minuteman project seeks recruits from all 50 states exclusively for the southern border.

And among their volunteers to patrol a stretch of the Mexican border are people from New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Maine, New Hampshire, Washington...

States that share hundreds of miles of border with Canada.


Just a coincidence I'm sure.

[alwynsw]

51. You've stated your opinion.

Where's your proof?

[Sandpiper]

53. Sorry, I'm not humoring your deliberately obtuse routine any more

Just a final thought?


What exactly is the Minuteman Project out to "protect" us from?


Why, Mexicans!


And no amount of sophistry or spin going to make that one go away.

[DoNotRefill]

59. Sorry....

it's not out to protect us from Mexicans, it's out to protect us from illegal immigrants. There IS a difference, isn't there? Not all Mexicans in the US are illegal immigrants, and not all illegal immigrants are Mexicans, right? Who is utilizing racial profiling or stereotyping in this thread now?

You can call the cops a thousand times to report "Hey! There's a Mexican!", and if the Mexican is in the country legally, they will not do a single goddamned thing, except maybe charge you with malicious abuse of process or something similar. Why? Because it's not illegal to be Mexican. It IS illegal to be an illegal immigrant.

[Sandpiper]

63. Sorry

But the deliberate obtuseness here is astounding.

Why not stop beating around the bush and call a spade a spade? This group is out to protect us from the brown menace to the south, who commit the victimless crime of crossing the border.

Now, call me crazy, but I don't think a lot of white people are jumping the Mexican border, and the Minuteman Project doesn't seem concerned in the least with anyone illegally crossing the border to the great white north.

[DoNotRefill]

71. Hmmm....

let's see...which environment is it easier to operate in? The North, where it's cold and there are lots of trees to restrict visibility, or the South, where it is warm, and for the most part the only growth is scrub growth, so there are wide open vistas which are scannable with binoculars?

Which environment is safer for them to operate in? The one with heavily laden drug dealers traversing the area, or the one with drug growers who are very wary about people interloping on their land and threatening their crops?

Which border has more people calling for it's protection, and therefore greater likeliness that the locals will grant transit rights to the MM on private property?

Tell you what, the first time I see ANYBODY in the US calling for enforcing the immigration laws on the millions of people who cross the US/Canadian border illegally, THEN I'll believe that these people are there on the Mexican/US border because they dislike Mexicans and NOT because people are crying out for our southern border to be secured. Until then, given the low volume of illegal immigration on the Canadian border, and the high volume of illegal immigration on the mexican border, I'm thinking they're going where the numbers are.

BTW, care to guess on which border the Border Patrol spends the majority of it's resources on? Are they racist too?

[Sandpiper]

75. And I'll tell you what

The first time I see the Border Patrol, or U.S. Customs, state that the Minutmen's presence is required/desired, or see the ACLU issue a glowing report on the Minutemen's activities, THEN I'll believe they're something more than a band of xenophobic vigilantes.


BTW, the Guardian Angels claim to be there to assist regular law enforcement. Care to guess whether most law enforcement finds them helpful, or think they just get in the way?


I'm not crazy about uniformed law enforcement alot of the time. Amateur law enforcement makes me even more nervous.

[DoNotRefill]

77. Don't the Guardian Angels intervene in situations....

rather than simply calling the cops?

Have you ever heard of community policing? One on the BASIC tenets of it is to encourage the population at large to REPORT CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO THE POLICE. That's what these people seem to be doing...calling the cops, not providing amateur law enforcement.

[Sandpiper]

80. I've heard of Community Policing

I've never heard of Community Policing in someone else's community in another state.

If you know of an example, do tell.

[DoNotRefill]

95. so you're saying....

that visitors shouldn't call the police if they see somebody breaking the law?

[Sandpiper]

113. Answer the question

Please cite a specific example of an organized neighborhood watch that goes to patrol neighborhoods in other states.

Stop evading, stop trying to change the subject.

If you can't, simply admit that you can't.


The closest thing there is to a neighborhood watch equivalent of the MM Project are the Guardian Angels.

[DoNotRefill]

121. but you keep missing a very important distinction...

between the Guardian Angels and the MM....namely that the Guardian Angels intervene in situations, and the MM doesn't. the guardian Angels are assuming part of the role of the police, and the MM just CALLS the police.

[Sandpiper]

128. And you still failed to answer my question

What a surprise.

[iverglas]

141. roles of the police

the guardian Angels are assuming part of the role of the police, and the MM just CALLS the police.

Actually, it does a fair bit more than that. It actively seeks to detect / investigate violations of laws.

Active detection and investigation of criminal activity are a role of the police, or "law enforcement" as you folks say, and as is particularly à propos in this instance: the quibbling is over whether the individuals in question in this situation are "vigilantes", whether they are "doing justice", and it is arguable that the detection/investigation of crime is an integral part of how justice is done in a modern world.

Those activities are inappropriately conducted by ordinary members of the public, for a number of reasons.

First, those activities can be dangerous to the people engaging in them, even when carried out skillfully and advisedly. As societies, we do not ordinarily encourage people to engage in dangerous activities, and we ordinarily discourage people from doing this. (And we'll make bungee jumping the exception to that rule, fine.)

Second, because members of the public are not skilled at or trained in these activities, there is a good possibility that they will fuck up when they engage in them, thereby potentially causing all sorts of problems, including harm to themselves, harm to others and a reduction in the likelihood that proper detection and investigation will be possible.

Third, we as societies tend to require that people who engage in the activities of detecting and investigating adhere to a rather strict set of rules. Some of them would be the rule against unreasonable search and seizure, the rule against torturing suspects or witnesses, and various others along that line. We also value privacy. We do not ordinarily approve of police setting up surveillance posts and equipment and actively monitoring the comings and goings of anyone who might come or go in a place accessible to the public, for instance, on the off chance that they might observe and record some illegal activity by someone.

There will be cries of "but they're not putting themselves in harm's way"; "but they aren't going to shoot anyone"; "but the people they're monitoring are all breaking the law".

And all that needs to be said in reply is: how do we know?

I wonder what would happen if some particularly unsavoury subject of their observing happened to observe them observing him/her. I wonder what would happen if one of them screwed up and disclosed their position to the people they were observing; I wonder how they know that the people they are monitoring are breaking the law.

Some of the answers may seem obvious -- for instance, there is obviously a pretty good probability that any individual they target for their monitoring is breaking the law. But we don't know, and they don't know.

And unlike the police and other "law enforcement" bodies, these people are subject to no public controls over their activities. (I would note that while neighbourhood watch organizations are not subject to formal control, they operate with the assistance of, and in close contact with, the relevant police and other public authorities.)

They are very much performing a function that "we", members of developed societies, assign to, and expect to be performed in accordance with a whole set of constraints by, individuals with appropriate training who perform that function transparently, i.e. subject to public monitoring, control and correction.

And that is just not something that people who are committed to the principles and practices of liberal democracy either do or approve.

But sigh, no; I'm not saying that anybody doesn't have a "right" to go hang out in the desert in the dark and play commando ...

[iverglas]

165. oh look, no answers

But I'm not the only one saying it.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/02/21/border.minutemen.ap/

"The Border Patrol does this every day, and they are qualified and very well-trained to handle the situation," he said. "Ordinary Americans are not. So there's a danger that not just illegal migrants might get hurt, but that American citizens might get hurt in this situation." <Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner>

... It may also prove to be a magnet for what Glenn Spencer, president of the private American Border Patrol, described as camouflage-wearing, weapons-toting hard-liners who might get a little carried away with their assignments.

"How are they going to keep the nut cases out of there? They can't control that," said Spencer, whose 40-volunteer group, based in Hereford, Arizona, has used unmanned aerial vehicles and other high-tech equipment to track and report the number of border crossings for more than two years.

... The Minutemen "clearly have every reason to be upset with the federal government for abandoning them," said National Border Patrol Council president T.J. Bonner, no relation to the commissioner.

But "if anything goes wrong, God forbid, someone does injure an agent, this government is going to be turning both barrels on them and come after them with a vengeance," he said.

They are inadequately skilled/trained, they are not subject to adequate controls, and their actions create risks to their own members, the targets of their activities and real law enforcement personnel.

[Name removed]

193. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

116. I guess you see it differently

I see the entirety of the U.S. as my community.

[Sandpiper]

129. Boy, when you shovel it

You use both hands, don't you?

[alwynsw]

147. Shovel what?

Wake up and smell the coffee. If one does not view the entirety of his home nation as his community or neighborhood, I see his judgement as seriously flawed.

Community or neighborhood does not stop at the corner.

[alwynsw]

119. Astounding yourself, are you?

It seems that a course in reading comprehension may be in order for you.

The definition you provided for vigilantes includes apprehension and punishment of suspected criminals.

The object stated in the MM website is observation and reporting. As a point of fact, the website specifically cautions participants to avoid contact. nowhere on the site is there any advocacy of apprehension or punishment of suspected illegals by the MM participants.

[Sandpiper]

130. I've been down this road once already

But if you (and your superior reading comprehension skills), take a look at the second part that definition it says:

(broadly) a self-appointed doer of justice.

And please, spare me the neighborhood watch analogy.

That dead horse has been whipped enough.

[alwynsw]

133. (broadly) a self-appointed doer of justice

That phrase implies an active part on the part of the participants in dispensing punishment or corrective action. Observation and reporting are not "doing justice". Observation and reporting are simply what they are - observation and reporting. The determination of whether or not a law has been broken is left to INS, Homeland Security, Border Patrol, or whatever name they're tagged with these days. Possible punishment is left to the courts or to those powers given to the proper law enforcement agencies by either law or regulations promulgated by said agencies as allowed by the laws governing said agencies.

The enire U.S. is still my neighborhood. I own property in all 50 states and every U.S. possession thanks to the National Park Service and Department of the Interior. Damn! Forgot those BLM properties that we all own.

[alwynsw]

149. illegally crossing the border to the great white north.

As written, your statement implies that folks are leaving the U.S. for Canada. While that is so in a few instances, U.S. immigration law, and the breaking of that law, is what is being discussed. Emigration hasn't been brought up until now.

If you haven't noticed, the U.S. has virtually no statutory or case law concerning emigration, excepting law concerning those who emigrate to avoid taxes, to avoid military service, or to avoid criminal or civil penalties.

The rest of us seem to be discussing illegal immigration. Why bring emigration into it?

[iverglas]

154. that's so cute

... the Minuteman Project doesn't seem concerned in the least with anyone illegally crossing the border to the great white north.
As written, your statement implies that folks are leaving the U.S. for Canada. ... Why bring emigration into it?

The real question, of course, is how anyone could be so obtuse, or why someone would pretend to be so obtuse, as to think that someone else had done that.


google results for "border to the north", some of the 6000+ of which undoubtedly convey the meaning you ascribe to what you read here.

Consider that prepositional phrases may be both adverbial and adjectival, and that reading a phrase as one, thus producing an absurd result, and running with that result, without considering the possibility that it is the other, doesn't really make one look too clever.

What's all this you hear about violins on TV?

Never mind, eh?

[alwynsw]

161. Read post #63 then get back to me on this.

Consider that prepositional phrases may be both adverbial and adjectival, and that reading a phrase as one, thus producing an absurd result, and running with that result, without considering the possibility that it is the other, doesn't really make one look too clever.

You've outdone yourself this time. That is likely the most convoluted sentence I've read since I stopped looking at my wife's 8th grade students' manuscripts while she was grading them.

Is stating something simply and in a straightforward manner a foreign concept for you?

[iverglas]

163. and you imagined my subject was ...?

Post 63 contained:

... the Minuteman Project doesn't seem concerned in the least with anyone illegally crossing the border to the great white north.

You responded with a bizarre allegation that post 63 was about people crossing the US/Canada border from the US into Canada.

I responded by pointing out that you had interpreted / chosen to represent that statement as meaning something that no reasonable person would have thought, in the present context, that it was. It seems to me that such interpretation could only have been foolish, and such choice could only have been malicious, but I'm always open to suggestions.

I'm sorry if you really couldn't follow my sentence and see my point. I regret it if you actually did follow my sentence and see my point and chose to pretend that you didn't.

Here it is, in a form in which you really cannot fail / pretend to fail to understand it.

In the sentence in issue, "to the great white north" IS NOT an adverbial phrase modifying the participle (verb) "crossing". The crossing in question is NOT being done "to the north".

In the sentence in issue, "to the great white north" IS an adjectival phrase modifying the noun "border". The border in question is the border "to the north" of the United States.

The discussion here is about people crossing borders to enter the United States. There is no reason in the world to think that someone would be talking about people crossing borders to leave the United States. The sentence to which you objected could have been ambiguous, if it had had no context. But it had a context: the discussion about people crossing borders to enter the United States. So an intelligent person, reading the sentence in good faith, would have sought, identified, acknowledged and responded to the meaning that related to the discussion.

And reading / claiming to read the sentence as being about the direction in which people are crossing, instead of about the border that they are crossing, doesn't make one look too clever or full of good faith.

[alwynsw]

168. You win the Kewpie Doll.

I'm sorry you're so terribly misinformed.

Fact: This is a U.S. based and hosted discussion board.

Fact: This topic of this thread is illegal immigration into the U.S.

Fact: "The great white north" is a phrase commonly used in the U.S. to refer to Canada.

Fact: "... the Minuteman Project doesn't seem concerned in the least with anyone illegally crossing the border to the great white north." by structure, context, and implication refers to somewhere other than the U.S. On may reasonably conclude that the phrase refers to Canada because "crossing the border to" (It's meaning would be clearer had the writer used into rather than to.) implies leaving one place for another. Since:

A) According to the project in question and the discussion in this thread, the concern is illegal immigration form Mexico to the U.S. and the writer implies no concern for a different crossing, he must be referring to U.S. - Canadian issues since the U.S has only two borders that lend themselves to illegal crossings without the aid of boats, airplanes, or other conveyance not readily available to many. Crossing into countries other than Mexico or Canada also invilves venturing into international waters, be they frozen or liquid.

B) Assuming the establishment that Canada is "the great white north" (you may Gogle to your heart's content to verify the veracity of that issue.), thewriter could only have been referring to immigration from the U.S. into Canada.


Incidentally; I understood your sentence quite well. Notwithstanding my comprension of it, it remains one of the most convoluted sentences I have ever read.

[iverglas]

170. hey, you got a clue

On may reasonably conclude that the phrase refers to Canada because "crossing the border to" (It's meaning would be clearer had the writer used into rather than to.) implies leaving one place for another. (emphasis added for clarity)

Id est, the meaning that you wish to ascribe to the sentence, which is contrary to all common sense and is possible only by the linguistic contortion you have identified, would have been clearer if the writer had used the preposition "into" rather than "to".

It continues to be obvious, to the reasonable and good faith reader, that the concept in question was not "crossing the border into ...", but "the border to the ...".

Given that the writer did NOT do that, and given the context that you have so accurately described ... well, you lose. The statement could not reasonably or sincerely have been interpreted as referring to anything other than crossings of the border to (on) the north.

I went into the house to the north. Hmm. Did I go to the north when going into the house, or might it be that the house was to the north of where I had been? Gosh, I wonder.

Assuming the establishment that Canada is "the great white north" (you may Gogle to your heart's content to verify the veracity of that issue.), thewriter could only have been referring to immigration from the U.S. into Canada.

Assuming the same, i.e. the obvious, and given the context, the writer could only have been referring to crossings of the border between Canada and the US, i.e. the border "to the great white north of the US", in the direction of the US, crossings into the US being the subject matter of the discussion.

Only someone with an unlimited supply of gall would purport to believe that an obviously reasonable person engaged in a discussion of illegal entries into the US would suddenly and for no reason introduce the idea of illegal entries into some other country as a matter that should be of concern to people in the US. As you said: This topic of this thread is illegal immigration into the U.S.

Incidentally; I understood your sentence quite well. Notwithstanding my comprension of it, it remains one of the most convoluted sentences I have ever read.

Perhaps you should broaden your gaze beyond the comic book section of the bookstore.

[alwynsw]

174. Do you ever tire?

Round and round. Dancing round the Maypole. Running in circles with no end in sight.

Address my post directly if you dare.

I find the comic section quite entertaining. You are referring to the Canadian travel section, correct?

[skippythwndrdog]

89. Obviously to protect the United States from criminals.

That is what the border jumpers are.

[iverglas]

91. such rhetoric

Obviously to protect the United States from criminals.
That is what the border jumpers are.

And, to follow on a point already made: you are also a criminal.

After all, I'm sure you have broken the speed limit on occasion.

Not all laws are criminal laws. Not all violations of laws are crimes. Not all people who violate laws are criminals.

But the rhetoric certainly is telling. Keep it up.

[skippythwndrdog]

92. funny.

Border Jumpers are clearly criminals. They are willfully violating United States immigration law. Personally, I think the border should be sealed by whatever means necessary to prevent the criminals from illegally entering the United States. A huge wall or fence is fine with me. Legal immigrations...Yippee! Illegal border jumping...criminal.

[Name removed]

194. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sierrajim]

159. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Come on Maynard your sounding like a broken record. Post something relevant for your proof of this group hating Mexicans or retract your unsupported post.

[solinvictus]

44. If you'd bothered to read their website...

they have the ethnic breakdown of volunteers.

[Sandpiper]

54. Yep, I read it

And their ethnic breakdown is 94% white.

6% other.


And if you'd read it a little more closely, you would see that it said:

The MMProject has 40% participation from women AND minorities.

A nice statistical sleight of hand to make them look more ethnically diverse than they really are.

[Name removed]

191. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

48. If they're planning on shooting them...

then why take the trouble to record everything to release to the media?

I know a fair number of people involved with the Border Patrol, and they don't make a habit of shooting anybody. In fact, when they find dead bodies, they investigate or turn it over to the local cops.

The Border Patrol is a professional organization from top to bottom. How many other LE agencies can you think of who REQUIRE EVERY employee to be at least bilingual? Your slur against the integrity of the Border Patrol is not only without cause, it's ridiculous.

[DoNotRefill]

46. Ummm...did you read their faq?

I have a VERY hard time understanding how they can be considered to be vigilantes if they're doing what they claim they're doing. They're not allowed to confront them, if they meet a group face to face they're not to do anything but just let them pass and continue to report on their position to the border patrol.

If these guys are vigilantes, I'd hate to see what you'd call the local "neighborhood watch" group...

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

7. welcome to DU person.... mm project haven't made up my mind

think we've been blessed with the largest terra drill in U.S. history due to this project. It is scheduled for May 07 in AZ ....

[azndndude]

14. It's too bad we Indigenous People did not have the Minutemen

We could have kept out all Illegal aliens, especially the white ones!

[illflem]

15. Where do you folks get off to say the want to shoot people

and are vigilantes? If you read the website you will see they are just there to observe, nothing more and that many of the members are Mexican American and AM. Indian.

[Sandpiper]

16. Vigilante

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=vigilante


Sounds like a fairly accurate description to me.


I'd also beg to differ with your assessment that "many members" are Native American and Mexican American.

The actual number is 48 out of 956. About 5% of the total membership.

[camaro3232]

17. they are not providing the punishment , they are calling the border patrol

[alwynsw]

40. You just popped your own bubble.

: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law appear inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice

There's an integral part of the definition of vigilante that expressly rules out the MM's as such. That portion is:and punish.

In what way is observing and reporting to the proper authorities vivilanteism? Using that logic, the grandmother who witnesses a crime while looking out her window, then anonymously reports the crime to the police is a vigilante.

I read the site and saw nothing about ropes (for hanging or restraining), handcuffs, beating, chasing, approaching (except not to approach), arresting, or otherwise having any contact between the MM's and suspected illegals.

Care to retract, or do you prefer to let your malicious and unwarranted statement stand?

[Sandpiper]

55. Ummm

(broadly) a self-appointed doer of justice.

Care to revise your rather obvious omission?


Hmmm...

Self-appointed band of assistants to the U.S. Border Patrol.


I'd say this fits that definition like a glove.



And your comparison to a grandmother looking out her window is specious at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.


Yeah, these guys are just like a grandmother witnessing a crime...

If grandma was a member of Guardian Angels that is.

[DoNotRefill]

58. Ummm....

"Self-appointed band of assistants to the U.S. Border Patrol.
I'd say this fits that definition like a glove."

Well, you'd be wrong. There's absolutely no difference between what these people are claiming to be planning and a local neighborhood watch keeping an eye out for criminal activity and reporting it to the police. They are not arresting people. They are not confronting people. All they are doing is notifying the appropriate Federal Authorities of suspicious activities. In criminal parlance, it's called "dropping a dime." Guess what? It's even LEGAL.

[Sandpiper]

61. Ummm....

There's absolutely no difference between what these people are claiming to be planning and a local neighborhood watch keeping an eye out for criminal activity and reporting it to the police.

Yeah, it's just like a neighborhood watch...

Except they go watch the neighborhood of people in another town...

in another state.

Come on guys. The neighborhood watch comparison is getting as redundant as it is specious.


Guess what? It's even LEGAL.


Thanks for the observation. Now, could you please point me to the part of the definition that mentions illegality? You can't? Oh, that's right, it doesn't mention it.


It generally helps to stick to what was said, rather than attacking what wasn't.

[DoNotRefill]

72. I realize you may not be a trained lawyer...

but it's generally known that summarily dispensing "justice" at the hands of a mob of vigilantes is illegal. That applies regardless of which state you're in.

Let me sum up for you:

"vigilante justice" = "illegal"
"calling the cops when you see somebody breaking the law" = "legal"

"legal" not = "illegal"

[Sandpiper]

79. Oooh boy, more smarmy insults

And more attacking strawmen.

I realize you may not be a trained lawyer..."

No, not for another year.

And I rather doubt you've even taken a course on basic criminal or constitutional law.

but it's generally known that summarily dispensing "justice" at the hands of a mob of vigilantes is illegal.

Well, I suppose, if you narrow the meaning of the word "justice" to be nothing more than dispensing punishment.

Again, you've spun the legality argument out of whole cloth, so, just to put your sophistry on this point to rest:

"Grandmother observing crime from her window and calling the police = concerned citizen."

"Group of untrained, amateur, citizens, acting in an unofficial, quasi law enforcement role to assist official law enforcement = vigilantes"

"Neighborhood Watch = Concerned Citizens"

"Guardian Angels = Vigilantes"

[DoNotRefill]

96. Heh...

"And I rather doubt you've even taken a course on basic criminal or constitutional law."

You'd be more than a little wrong there.

"Group of untrained, amateur, citizens, acting in an unofficial, quasi law enforcement role to assist official law enforcement = vigilantes"

You seem to think that calling the cops is something that a vigilante would do. Using your definition from above, I fail to see how there's any summary dispensation of justice in what they are doing.

"Guardian Angels = Vigilantes"

From what I've read about them, I'd say you're right, because they physically intervene in situations. The group we're talking about here does not, so they fail to meet the definition of vigilantes.

If this group were to be planning to CONFRONT illegal immigrants and attempt to hold them for the Border Patrol, they'd be vigilantes. Once again, that's not what they're doing, they're simply reporting the position of people suspected of breaking the law.

[camaro3232]

60. good lord you people can never admit to being wrong

They are doing absolutly nothing wrong. Its the same thing as a neighbor hood watch. WTF is wrong with report a crime when you see one? Or taking a walk to see if you can find anyone comitting a crime and reporting it?

[Sandpiper]

62. You people are like a broken record

"It's just like a neighborhood watch."

Yeah, they just happen to be watching someone else's neighborhood in a different state, and protecting us all from the evil brown menace to the south.


Why can't you just admit that they're vigilantes and be done with it.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[camaro3232]

66. and

you say

'""It's just like a neighborhood watch."

Yeah, they just happen to be watching someone else's neighborhood in a different state, and protecting us all from the evil brown menace to the south.


Why can't you just admit that they're vigilantes and be done with it."
thats not illegal either!
what is wrong with keeping people out of the country who are not supposed to be here? I guess you have no idea what come over the borders with them

[Sandpiper]

67. I see from your profile that you live in New York

That's how many thousands of miles from the Mexican border? And what affect does illegal border jumping from Mexico have on your daily life?

I live 20 minutes from the Mexican border and seem to have a lot less of a problem with it than you do.


Xenophobic?


Sure seems like it.

[camaro3232]

68. i have a problem with guns, drugs, coming across the border

Many illegal mexixans where i live. About 25% of crimes are commited by them. So you are saying you have no problem with people illegally coming into the country? I have nothin against mexicans.

[Sandpiper]

69. What I'm saying is

So you are saying you have no problem with people illegally coming into the country?

I don't believe in kicking the powerless in the teeth.

I'm not a Republican.


If you're angry about illegal immigration, your anger is misplaced.


If there weren't employers in the U.S. who were willing to exploit illegal labor, they would have no motivation to come here illegally.

There are certain sectors of the economy that, quite literally, depend on illegal labor.

The next time you eat produce, likely as not it was picked by an undocumented worker.

[camaro3232]

70. you do not make any sense

[Sandpiper]

76. Simple minds seek simple solutions

To complex problems.


And that's where the trouble usually begins.

[camaro3232]

78. no you just cant admit your wrong calling them vigilanties

[Sandpiper]

82. I've yet to see anything from you to indicate why they're not

Oh, and calling me dumbass doesn't count.

(also against DU rules btw)

[DoNotRefill]

102. They're not vigilantes....

because they are NOT taking the law into their own hands. If they started shooting illegals (as you promised they would), that WOULD be vigilanteism. Calling the cops on illegals isn't.

[Sandpiper]

127. Well, I'll be sure to keep an eye on what the ACLU has to say about them

Since they are monitoring them and their activities...

Just like they do with all neighborhood watch groups. :eyes:

[alwynsw]

134. That's a value we need!

"Well, I'll be sure to keep an eye on what the ACLU has to say about them"

By inference, you're stating that you'll accept the ACLU opinion without thinking of a conclusion on your own.

You're getting sleepy, very sleepy...

[iverglas]

138. by inference ...

"Well, I'll be sure to keep an eye on what the ACLU has to say about them"
By inference, you're stating that you'll accept the ACLU opinion without thinking of a conclusion on your own.

"Inference" just isn't quite the word I'd be using. Unless I were defining it as, oh, "the act of alleging that someone said/meant something that s/he did not say, and that the person doing the alleging has no remotely credible reason for alleging that s/he meant". That would do it.

[Sandpiper]

143. Wow, so you're anti ACLU also?

I know they're one of them commie liberal groups, but they've never given me any reason to distrust them.


Hmmm...

southern, anti-immigrant, anti-ACLU


The more you talk, the clearer the picture gets.

[alwynsw]

148. You do a fine job of reading things that aren't there.

I neither disparaged the ACLU nor said anything about the ACLU that could possibly lead a reasonable person to believe that I am opposed to it.

What I did write was a statement of the obvious; your decision to wait for the ACLU to tell you what to think of the MM's.

Well, I'll be sure to keep an eye on what the ACLU has to say about them

I do my own thinking. You should try it sometime.

[iverglas]

155. hahahahaha

Well, I'll be sure to keep an eye on what the ACLU has to say about them
Since they are monitoring them and their activities...
By inference, you're stating that you'll accept the ACLU opinion without thinking of a conclusion on your own.
... What I did write was a statement of the obvious; your decision to wait for the ACLU to tell you what to think of the MM's.


It takes a possessor of some premium gall to follow that up with:

"You do a fine job of reading things that aren't there."


I'm not sure whether I can find an appropriate award plaque for this one. Oh right, of course.




The rest of us should maybe start taking regular doses

if we want to be able to compete.

[alwynsw]

162. Read the posts, get a clue, then post.

[iverglas]

166. read 'em, quoted 'em

Needing new specs?

Well, I'll be sure to keep an eye on what the ACLU has to say about them
Since they are monitoring them and their activities...
By inference, you're stating that you'll accept the ACLU opinion without thinking of a conclusion on your own.
... What I did write was a statement of the obvious; your decision to wait for the ACLU to tell you what to think of the MM's.

You made a claim unsupported by any information. You drew an "inference" from non-existent facts. You made a disparaging allegation without a single thing to back it up. You based your disparaging allegation on a plainly false reading of the statement you offered as the source of your "inference". You had no basis whatsoever for your allegation, and you made it anyway.

As I said: It takes a possessor of some premium gall to follow that up with:

"You do a fine job of reading things that aren't there."

Perhaps if YOU read the posts and got a clue before posting responded to them in a reasonable and straightforward manner, I'd give a shit about whether you gave a shit.

[alwynsw]

167. So tell me this.

Is not the inference to which I referred much stronger than the unsupported conclusion of vigilanteism drawn and posted by Sandpiper?

I know the correct answer. Let's see what you come up with.

[iverglas]

169. the "inference" that you drew

Is not the inference to which I referred much stronger than the unsupported conclusion of vigilanteism drawn and posted by Sandpiper?

That's pretty much like asking whether "0 x 479" is lower than "Y".

The inference that YOU STATED was supported by NOTHING. It was not an inference, since there was nothing that implied it.

Sandpiper's statement was:

Well, I'll be sure to keep an eye on what the ACLU has to say about them
Since they are monitoring them and their activities...

You PURPORTED to "infer" from this that Sandpiper was stating that <Sandpiper will> accept the ACLU opinion without thinking of a conclusion on <Sandpiper's> own.

That is not an inference. There is nothing whatsoever in Sandpiper's statement that suggests it, or implies it, or even supports it. Nothing, nada, etc.

I keep an eye on what many people and organizations say. I kept an eye on what the Conservative Party was saying at its policy convention in Montreal this past weekend. I also keep an eye on what people and organizations whose opinions I respect, and whose investigative activities I find reliable, say and do, for use in forming my own opinions.

The fact that one "keeps an eye on" what anybody says or does IS NOT a statement that one intends to adopt his/her/their/its opinion as one's own conclusion.

You must certainly be assumed to know this. And yet you made the allegation anyway. And you persisted in your claim by calling it a statement of the obvious, when it was OBVIOUSLY no such thing.

And when an appropriate response -- a response in kind -- was given, you said You do a fine job of reading things that aren't there.

Do you bottle and sell your own gall? I'm sure you must have some to spare, even given how unsparingly you use it.

I can offer you a supply of civility in trade, if you like. I'll tuck the gall away someplace where it won't be causing problems, and you can use the civility all you like, and then maybe we'll see some civil discourse for a change.

[alwynsw]

172. Verbosity without substance.

I'm awaiting your answer.

[iverglas]

173. answer

0 x 479 = 0

0 x 479,000 = 0

If ya got zero, it doesn't matter how many zeroes ya got. Ya still got zero.

A thing that is not "X" cannot be more or less "X" than any other thing.

That should clear it up for you.

[alwynsw]

175. I just love it when you're stumped or called on BS.

once again, the home address of your argument is:

[iverglas]

176. if only I were as stupid as you wish

Is not the inference to which I referred much stronger than the unsupported conclusion of vigilanteism drawn and posted by Sandpiper?

The inference that you stated was not an inference. It was a false representation of what you claimed to have drawn it from.

You claimed to infer from the statement:

Well, I'll be sure to keep an eye on what the ACLU has to say about them
Since they are monitoring them and their activities...

that

<Sandpiper will> accept the ACLU opinion without thinking of a conclusion on <Sandpiper's> own.

You then claimed that this alleged "inference" of yours was:

a statement of the obvious; <Sandpiper's> decision to wait for the ACLU to tell <Sandpiper> what to think of the MM's.

Maybe you could reproduce Sandpiper's statement and, using handy tools like boldface and underlining and italics, and maybe some arrows and brackets, identify what it was in that statement from which you "inferred" what you claim to have inferred.

Perhaps I can help you out, knowing how fond of dictionaries we are around here:

keep an eye on
1 pay attention to
2 look after, take care of

I trust we can agree that Sandpiper was not planning to babysit what the ACLU has to say about the Minutemen. So we are left knowing that Sandpiper was planning to pay attention to what the ACLU has to say about the Minutemen.

So now you tell us how it can be inferred from the statement:

Well, I'll be sure to pay attention to what the ACLU has to say about them
Since they are monitoring them and their activities...

that the speaker <will> accept the ACLU opinion without thinking of a conclusion on <his/her> own and that the speaker's decision to wait for the ACLU to tell <him/her> what to think of the MM's was obvious.

C'mon. You're so good with words. Give it a shot.

And unless and until you establish that the inference you purported to draw from what Sandpiper said was indeed an inference --

inference
the forming of a conclusion from premises

-- i.e. state what the premises are from which you drew your "inference", your question:

Is not the inference to which I referred much stronger than the unsupported conclusion of vigilanteism drawn and posted by Sandpiper?

has no more meaning than is not the sight of the cow jumping over the moon much prettier than the sight of anything else you can possibly imagine?

Your question is loaded with a false premise. You drew no inference, just as cows don't jump over the moon.

So the short answer is of course: mu.

Oh, and don't forget to entertain yourself with comments about how many words it can sometimes take to demonstrate the misrepresentation inherent in so few.

[alwynsw]

177. Boorish post. Both boorish and boring. 'nuff said.

[Scout]

178. oh c'mon, post some more...

I just love to watch iverglas wipe the floor with your ridiculousness!

[alwynsw]

179. Wipe what?

You actually enjoy her defense of the comprehension-challenged?

Different strokes, I suppose.

You probably enjoyed watching the OJ trial as well.

edited to add: The attempted verbal pummeling might be painful if she had a fist in her glove.

[Scout]

181. You probably enjoyed watching the OJ trial as well.

nope, didn't watch a minute of it!

[camaro3232]

145. Your not saying anything that proves they are.

I am saying all they are doing is calling the border patrol if they see someone illegally crossing. You are completely wrong. There is nothing illegal about that. You may not like it but theres nothing you can do.

They would be vigilantes if they : tried to arrest, shoot or detain anyone they saw crossing, BUT they are not doing any of that. And no I have nothing against Mexicans, I have a girlfriend for 2 years who was born in Mexico. Thats it end of story its legal and they are not vigilantes, we know you will not admit your wrong.

[DoNotRefill]

73. because vigilantism is illegal...

and what they're doing IS NOT illegal???

Vigilantes TAKE THE LAW INTO THEIR OWN HANDS. That's not what these people are doing, they're calling to cops and letting them handle it.

Have you ever been involved in a neighborhood watch program? They don't work very well if each participant only looks after their own houses, do they? Nope, a neighborhood watch program normally even covers more than one cul-de-sac or street, too. They cover AREAS. And the areas that get patrolled by them generally are the areas that there's a problem. It would make no sense to have the neighborhood watch program circling the police substation 24/7 looking for unreported crime. Just like it seems kind of pointless to look for people illegally crossing the US/Mexican border in New Hampshire. You're convinced, no matter what, that these people MUST be vigilante racists. Yet you offer ZERO evidence. You accuse them of plotting murder. Yet you offer no evidence. And you wonder why people are skeptical of your position on this???

[Sandpiper]

83. You keep using your Specious neighborhood watch argument

And have yet to offer a single example of a group travelling out of state to patrol someone elses neighborhood; doing so in spite of the fact that local law enforcement believes you more likely to get in the way or cause a problem than to be any help.


And btw, the people who seem most skeptical of me calling the MM xenophobes and vigilantes also happen to be...GASP...xenophobes who would like to seal the border.


Go figure!

[DoNotRefill]

100. Can you provide a single law...

which states that it's ILLEGAL to conduct a neighborhood watch program in another jurisdiction than the one you reside in? Since you're a 2L, you may not have gotten to the bit about the constitutional right to travel within the United States, or the fact that there is NOT a constitutional right for illegal immigrants to jump the fence.

I DO so wish you'd stop pussyfooting around the issue here....you accused these people of conspiring to assassinate illegal immigrants. Yet you haven't backed up your accusation. I wonder why that is?

[Sandpiper]

114. Can you provide a single instance

Of a similar body that goes to perform neighborhood watches in different states?

Yes or no will do.


If yes, please give reference to the group.

[camaro3232]

146. THE MINUTEMEN theres you example

there the first, who cares if no one has done it before? Whats the big deal that no group has done it before?

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JeebusB]

171. NOW you're catching on! (n/t)

.

[alwynsw]

118. Just like an animal in a steel trap.

Keep gnawing. You'll either get out or bleed to death.

These folks are not advocating or implying that they advocate meteing out justice. They are advocationg observation and reporting suspected criminal activity.

Vigilantes, by the definition you provided, mete out their interpretation of justice. That's far past observation and reporting.

I surmise from your comments that you also have issues with neighborhood watch groups.

[Sandpiper]

125. Oh lord, the neighborhood watch argument again

None of your allies on this thread have been able to do it so far, but maybe you can.

Name a neighborhood watch group that organizes to go watch the neighborhoods of other towns in other states.

No sidestepping, no evasion, no answering it with a question of your own.


To your knowledge, does such a group exist.


Yes or No will do.


If yes, please identify the group or organization.

[alwynsw]

132. Once again. Your argument is fatally flawed.

The entire U.S. is my neighborhood. It should be yours as well.

Let me attempt to answer your question with an equal question. What purpose does it serve for people from MY, KY, NC, etc. to trot out to OR, CA, WA to tree sit, protest logging, etc. or to work against other environmental evils in any other state? They're certainly not the neighborhood trees of those folks. What? It's all one environment you say! It's also one economy illegals affect, regardless of your state of residence.

[Sandpiper]

142. I'll take your non answer

To mean no.

[alwynsw]

150. By your reasoning, inter-community efforts are what?

Unnecessary? Useless? Illegal? Immoral? Just plain wrong?

Following that logic, I guess the volunteers with rescue equipment, dogs, training, etc. that helped in the aftermath of 9/11 were out of line. By extension, those prople who responded - and are still responding - with physical aid and effort in the wake of the tsunami disaster are also out of line - especially so since they're acting outside of their home countries as well as the immediate area surrounding their homes. It's a reasonable rough equivalent.

The Lavender Panthers, for the most part, morphed from an ass kicking gay defense patrol who regularly attacked gay bashers to an essentially observe and report organization. The original organizers in San Francisco either went themselves or sent others around the country to aid in setting up organizations across the country and Canada. Not their neghborhood - by your definition of neighborhood.

Tell me. (I have no idea what your positions are on the economy, environment, or other global issues.) Why should we worry about what trade policies other nations enact? Why should we worry about what pollution controls other nations, or states and cities for that matter, enact or fail to enact because they are outside of your definition of neighborhood?

What? Because these are global issues that affect us in our daily lives? Is that why we should take interest in and get involved in these issues?

Illegal immigration affects everyone in this country for good or ill. It also affects those left behind in the country from which the immigrants come - also for good or ill.

Every tax dollar spent in enforcement of immigration law, every dollar spent in aid of any sort for illegals affects each and every one of us. Every minute spent in these activities affects us.

Come on into the real world. It's far more complex than you might imagine.

[Scout]

156. isn't it funny

how when we disagree with someone here, they accuse us of not living in the same world?? where do they live, do you wonder?

[DoNotRefill]

49. Sandpiper....

these people are trying to supress crime, that's true. They are NOT trying to punish it summarily. Or do you view your neighbors who call the cops when they see crime to be vigilantes?

[Sandpiper]

85. Neighbors calling the cops, no

A group of out of staters who showed up to patrol the neighborhood, yes, I'd call them vigilantes.

[DoNotRefill]

97. Once you get your J.D. and pass the bar....

you'll most likely find that going before the bench with an argument like this will bring down judicial smackies in quick order....

[alwynsw]

153. I'd call them vigilantes.

If so, you'd be mislabeling them on the whole.

There is a possibility that one or two may go beyond what is suggested. That's a real possibility. But then, we've all seen peaceful protests about other issues that have had a few disruptors.

A possibility is not a certainty. You're speaking in absolutes.

There are no absolutes in these matters. Humans are involved.

[Wickerman]

21. Personally, I'd rather they concentrate their efforts as accountants

Go to businesses that need labor to run - yet never seem to have any payroll. Then, you will find that the "industrialist" is gaming the system with illegal hires.

Illegals will not come here unless someone hires them. And make no mistake - this MM project is NOT about terror - its about prejudice against folks who don't already have their piece of the American dream. Conditions in Mexico are deplorable. The conditions they come to work in here in the US are as bad, but Hell in America pays better than Hell in Mexico.

Immigration policy needs some changes no doubt. If folks are going to insist that we enforce border laws against legals they are pissing int he wind until they do something about the illegal hiring all around the country. I have no problem with someone trying to provide for his/her family by coming into the Country if we aren't making true effort to curtail the folks who illegally and knowingly employ them.

[MrSandman]

42. And that is the problem with the MM...

And current immigration policy.

[skippythwndrdog]

22. Looks good to me.

It's time for somebody to take a stand against the criminal illegals and the lack of the government doing something about it. I want the border sealed, except for recognized border crossings. Heck the National Guard could do it for their training days. Whatever it takes.

note well that the above is based upon the assumption that they will be doing what they say they are doing, which would all be lawful.

[Wickerman]

23. Most of the National Gaurd training days are spent in the desert

these days, its true. Wrong continent, though. :hi:

[skippythwndrdog]

24. True on that!

I look forward to the time when our Guardsmen can come home.

[Sandpiper]

28. Let's get them furreners!

n/t

[skippythwndrdog]

30. Let's report those criminals.

Fixed it for you. Or, are you an advocate of the criminal illegal immigrants? Are you a fan of unlawful border jumping? Are you opposed to secure borders?

[iverglas]

31. can I play?

Or, are you an advocate of the criminal illegal immigrants? Are you a fan of unlawful border jumping? Are you opposed to secure borders?

Or, are you an ethnocentric xenophobe? Are you using the Bush administration's fomenting of fear of TERROR(ISTS) to justify ethnocentrism and xenophobia?

Just asking, of course. 'Cause I don't have an opinion. The whole thing is a problem that is so steeped in such a lot of history that I would never claim to know enough about it to have a worthwhile opinion.

I just tend to think about how things might be up here if, oh, back in 1789 the English conquerors, instead of incorporating Quebec into Canada and permitting it to coexist with the rest of Canada while retaining its language, religion, legal system and culture, had walled it off and just used it for a convenient source of cheap raw materials and labour and entertainment, while its colonial and indigenous peoples festered in underdevelopment ... and I thank those English conquerors for their foresight, as a result of which I now live in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, officially bilingual country and have all the advantages that flow from those facts. I mean, Quebec was still economically and culturally colonized for quite a while, to be sure, and still festered in underdevelopment (the RC church is helpful to have around for that purpose), but we never actually rounded up posses to stop the Québécois from slipping over the wall and sullying our fields and factories ...

[petronius]

32. Good point...

We definitely should have incorporated Mexico back when we had the chance. Of course, then we'd have to wall off our southern border to keep all those Guatemalans out...:)

(Actually, it might make an interesting alternative history premise to ask how the U.S. would have developed if we'd made Mexico a state back in 1848.)

[iverglas]

33. it is a very interesting one

(Actually, it might make an interesting alternative history premise to ask how the U.S. would have developed if we'd made Mexico a state back in 1848.)

Of course there are so many differences between the histories of the US and Canada that one could never construct an alternative history for the US equivalent to Canada's. I wouldn't want to suggest that one could.

For us, it was the colonial power that did the incorporating, and then the two of us together -- French and English Canada (keeping in mind that there is "French Canada" outside Quebec, as well) -- put together a deal between ourselves (not consulting the First Nations, for sure), and divested ourselves (through a series of steps) of the colonial power as one unit. (There are even all sorts of nuances here, since Quebec, the major part of the French fact here, refused to sign on to the final step when Canada's new constitution was adopted and "patriated" in 1982.)

Your alternative scenario would indeed have been more along the lines of, as you say, "incorporating" Mexico. The power relationship having been unequal, Mexico would not really have been in a position to negotiate the kind of balanced deal that the old French Canada did here, and the process would quite likely have resulted in assimilation of Mexico. The U.S. was (not at all blameably) rather busy establishing its own nationhood at the time, including establishing its borders. By doing it the other way around -- the incorporation first, at a time when the French/English Canada balance of power was not so unequal, allowed the French component to continue developing as an entity in itself, until nearly a century later both English and French components had matured, within secure international borders, and could deal as relative equals -- we were able to make a quite different arrangement.

So in a way, it is to Mexico's (and the world's) benefit that the incorporation didn't happen. Cultural diversity is part of the global heritage, and the loss of any culture is a loss to us all. Unfortunately, of course, people can't live by culture alone, and tend to want a little economic development.

Forgive me ... I've just spent the week working on a bunch of collective-rights (culture, language) stuff, and it's kind of leaking out.

Around here, popular wisdom is that the big difference between Canada and the US is that the US created itself by rebellion and force while we did it by ... well, I guess popular wisdom is that we never did it. It's always seemed obvious to me that there are far bigger historical differences, of the kind I've been babbling about, that are the real underlying reasons for much of the contemporary difference.

But there is a certain parallel between the incorporation of Quebec and the non-incorporation of Mexico, and it is indeed very important to consider the roots of the current cross-border migration situation between the US and Mexico if any real (and modern) solution is to be found.

[petronius]

38. I had not even thought of the diversity part of the equation,

but I imagine you're right - there would have been a loss of diversity, which may or may not have been considered a fair trade (against economic development) by Mexicans in general. My initial thought was what would have happened with regard to our Civil War - I would guess that Mexico (supported by the northern states) would have resisted being a slave state, and the southern states would have objected to having a free state to their south. Even if we'd had the military might to swallow Mexico, the slavery question would have been a deal-breaker.

I have to confess my Canadian history is very weak. Apart from the Cajun expulsion (I lived in Louisiana for a while), about all I know is that you all helped burn down our White House. My impression (perhaps exaggerated) is that the English/French divide is comparable to our North/South divide in the 19th Century - if you all can work those differences out without a war than perhaps we should be reading Canadian history down here...:)

You're right that a deeper examination of U.S./Mexico migration roots is necessary. Mexico would be a very different country without the U.S. influence (at the very least, they would have had all our gold and our best state), and it is self-serving to pretend now that the North American nations can be considered in isolation and left to solve their own problems. I do support controlling immigration, but relying entirely on walls doesn't strike me as the progressive way to do it...

[alwynsw]

41. Yup. And had the (then) Canadians been wise

they'd be part of the U.S. as well.

[JeebusB]

182. Perhaps, but...

At least it would have been a much shorter wall. ;)

"We definitely should have incorporated Mexico back when we had the chance. Of course, then we'd have to wall off our southern border to keep all those Guatemalans out... "

[alwynsw]

36. Gee! I dunno.

Can you?

Tsk. Tsk.

[iverglas]

39. ya got me

be sure to bookmark it now.

:P

[DoNotRefill]

50. Iverglas, I'm curious....

if you saw a bunch of Americans illegally and flagrantly breaking Canadian immigration laws, would you call the cops? If you did call the cops, would you be a vigilante?

[alwynsw]

52. According to what I've read concerning emigration to Canada

it's fairly easy to break several of their far more stringent than U.S. laws.

Canada doesn't care too much if you want to emigrate from here to there so long as you're bringing in a wad of legal tender or you're young enough and well-educated enough to cause a substantial brain drain to the U.S. (or from wherever else you hail).

Can't have folks over 60 causing a potential drain on the health care system. Can't have folks who aren't professionals or highly qualified technicians moving in. Everyone knows that there is no need for manual laborers in Canada because they seem to have no manual labor needs.

Well, that's they way it appears from the Canadian Immigration website.

I believe that the canadian Statue of Liberty - if they had one - would read something like this: "Give me your rich, your educated, your healthy... All others need not apply."

edited: To correct capitalization of Canadian. wouldn't want anyone bent out of shape because I failed to recognize a proper name properly.

[DoNotRefill]

57. OK, I'll rephrase...

Would you report a poor, over 60 year old American who was obviously tubercular and HIV+ in search of free socialized medicine and who read on a second-grade level, had no marketable job skills and was violating Canada's immigration laws to obtain that medical treatment?

[alwynsw]

120. Not aimed at you.

The Canadian issue has been tossed into this so much, I just thought I'd point out the highly restrictive Canadian immigration rules.

[iverglas]

86. perhaps you missed my point

skippythwndrdog to Sandpiper:
Let's report those criminals.
Fixed it for you. Or, are you an advocate of the criminal illegal immigrants? Are you a fan of unlawful border jumping? Are you opposed to secure borders?

Me to skippthwndrdog:
Or, are you an ethnocentric xenophobe? Are you using the Bush administration's fomenting of fear of TERROR(ISTS) to justify ethnocentrism and xenophobia?

My point was the incivility of the discourse. People who genuinely wish to engage others in discussion do not make unfounded insinuations about their interlocutors. I illustrated by, you got it, an analogy.

Nor do they mischaracterize the subject matter of the discussion: people who illegally enter a country are not "criminals". Not unless they have violated a criminal law.

if you saw a bunch of Americans illegally and flagrantly breaking Canadian immigration laws, would you call the cops?

Here was my answer to that:
Just asking, of course. 'Cause I don't have an opinion. The whole thing is a problem that is so steeped in such a lot of history that I would never claim to know enough about it to have a worthwhile opinion.

There is no analogy between your scenario and the situation relating to the US-Mexico border.

The very, very rough analogy that I offered was how things might be if the British conquerors, in 1789, had segregated Quebec from the rest of the colonies north of the US and given it independence, continuing to colonize Canada while ignoring Quebec but also precluding any Quebec-France dealings, and the rest of those colonies had then established an independent state that excluded Quebec, and Quebec, with no attachment to any colonial power (a developing influence, despite the negative aspects; viz. the US), had remained underdeveloped and priest-ridden and been a source of resources and cheap labour for Canada ... and then its citizens started trying to enter Canada in numbers that the Canadian economy could not or would not absorb.

That didn't happen.

If you did call the cops, would you be a vigilante?

If I designated myself a homeland defender and actively engaged in surveillance and detection activities: yup.


(typo fixed)

[skippythwndrdog]

87. That's a good one! Hilarious!

Or, are you an advocate of the criminal illegal immigrants? Are you a fan of unlawful border jumping? Are you opposed to secure borders?

Or, are you an ethnocentric xenophobe? Are you using the Bush administration's fomenting of fear of TERROR(ISTS) to justify ethnocentrism and xenophobia?

Just asking, of course. 'Cause I don't have an opinion. The whole thing is a problem that is so steeped in such a lot of history that I would never claim to know enough about it to have a worthwhile opinion.

I just tend to think about how things might be up here if, oh, back in 1789 the English conquerors, instead of incorporating Quebec into Canada and permitting it to coexist with the rest of Canada while retaining its language, religion, legal system and culture, had walled it off and just used it for a convenient source of cheap raw materials and labour and entertainment, while its colonial and indigenous peoples festered in underdevelopment ... and I thank those English conquerors for their foresight, as a result of which I now live in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, officially bilingual country and have all the advantages that flow from those facts. I mean, Quebec was still economically and culturally colonized for quite a while, to be sure, and still festered in underdevelopment (the RC church is helpful to have around for that purpose), but we never actually rounded up posses to stop the Québécois from slipping over the wall and sullying our fields and factories ...

[Sandpiper]

64. I'm noticing a recurring theme on this thread

The people who seem to support the Minutemen most strongly happen to be from states that are nowhere near the Mexican border:

New York, Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama


Look guys, I promise, Mexicans really aren't that scary.


Yes, they do cross the imiginary line sometimes without permission from the Great White Father, but they're generally just looking for a better life, nothing nefarious.

[DoNotRefill]

74. just out of curiosity....

is violating US law "nefarious"?

[Sandpiper]

84. Just out of curiosity

Is a victimless crime nefarious?


And just a small reminder:

Every time you drive in excess of the speed limit, or fail to come to a complete stop at a stop sign, your actions are in violation of the law.

[TX-RAT]

90. It's not always victim-less.

Ranchers in south TX have had their fences cut, homes broken into, vehicles stolen, cattle, sheep, goats and horses stolen. Some ranchers have even found their cattle butchered out in the pastures, where a large group of illegals stopped for a meal. It's so bad down by the river, that Texas Dept Of Transportation had to quit using aluminum signs on the side of the roads, seems the illegals were making nightly raids across the river, stealing the signs for scrap aluminum.

We have a serious problem with our border to the south.

[DoNotRefill]

98. I'm not allowed to speed....

not just because of the speeding laws, but because of the canons of ethics associated with my employment. Given the nature of my job, and the fact that all law enforcement officers who are "on the street" will eventually come before me in a professional capacity, I have to be very, very careful not to break the law, even for minor violations. Having to recuse yourself sucks, as one day you may come to understand.

[iverglas]

101. that's all fascinating

and yes, we're all quite thrilled at your new career, which I am guessing is what we would term a Justice of the Peace up here (not the same as the office that you call Justice of the Peace, I think). And we're pleased to hear that you now never speed. But I must say I can think of many things in this world that suck worse than having to recuse one's self. In fact, in over a decade of acting as counsel for people fleeing things like torture and genocide in other countries, I encountered a few of them vicariously. I've even encountered a few of them up close and personal myself. And I'd venture to say that having no option but - if one is lucky and doesn't live in, say, Chiapas, where one's actual continued existence is precarious - to work in a Mexican maquiladora in order to support one's family, or illegally cross a border under dangerous circumstances in order to work in hardly better conditions, sucks a whole lot worse than having to recuse one's self.

None of that has anything to do with the point that Sandpiper and I have both made in various ways, though -- that the actions of the individuals in question DO NOT constitute "crimes".

[DoNotRefill]

103. which actions....

calling the cops on people jumping the fence, or jumping the fence itself?

[iverglas]

104. duh

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=101735&mesg_id=101947&page=

[DoNotRefill]

105. So you're saying....

that illegally immigrating to the US is on par with a speeding ticket?

When did they start deporting people for speeding?

[iverglas]

112. do ya think?

If that's what you think I was saying, I guess there's no help I can offer that would be sufficient.

But what the heck.

If I say that an apple is not an orange, have I said it is a grapefruit? Should I expect you to say "So you're saying that an apple is a grapefruit?" I'm sorry to say that this is exactly what I would expect, based on performance to date.

If that's *not* what you think I was saying, well then dawg only knows, and far be it from me to guess, why you said I was and stuck a question mark at the end of your statement.

When did they start deporting people for speeding?

When did you start making orange juice out of apples?

Stopped beating your dog yet?

[Sandpiper]

115. OMG, you're a judge?

Yikes!

[DoNotRefill]

122. Actually, I never said what my job title is.....

and I'm not about to start now.

[alwynsw]

152. You bent my grabage cans again.

Also, next time you rip a bag and don't pick up the banana peels, I'm calling your boss. :evilgrin:

[camaro3232]

81. but how do you know its only mexicans coming across?

you seem to be saying its ok for them to legally come into this country. Its fine with me but why can't they do it legally

[Wickerman]

93. That is the heart of the problem

we have a flawed immigration policy. We have a demand for the labor of folks south of the border, but we have very limited provision to allow them to enter. If you truly want to shut down illegal entry into the US crack down on the industrialists who knowingly hire them. Forget this bullshit "feel good" patriotic crap and go after the real lawbreakers, the unpatriotic swine who employ illegals.

[alwynsw]

135. Just a point of order here.

I, for one, have not endorsed the project. I have only endorsed their right to do it.

I have also questioned the jumping to conclusions done by several on this thread that the MM's will be shooting suspected illegals, abusing suspected illegals, detaining suspected illegals, etc.

FYI. My family is multiracial. What? Multiracial? You bet! From where do some of them hail? Hermosillo, Son. and Baja, CA.

Careful with the xenophobe comments.

[Sandpiper]

144. Thanks for the info Kentucky

And it's so touching that you and your fellow southerners in North Carolina and Alabama feel so strongly about policing the Mexican border.

[alwynsw]

151. Zing! Whatever are you talking about?

The post to which you replied addresses my family structure and your baseless xenophobia acusations.

Nothing in it (the post in question) mentioned southern states. FYI: U.S. Civil War lines, which are generally the boundaries used for the delineation of the southern states will show that KY was neither northere nor southern. It was neutral as a matter of fact.

We do, however identify more closely with our neighbors to the south.

Once again; the U.S.-Mexico border should be a concern for all U.S. citizens and legal residents, as should the coasts and the U.S.-Canada border. Yes, Virginia, there are U.S. possession and territories such as Guam and Puerto Rico that should share in and be shared in that concern. The concept is national soverignity.

This may come as a great surprise to you. Many, nay most of, us in the south, which you so gleefully deride would gladly intervene - and have done so - and/or assist - and have done so - the residents of any other state, (yes, even The Republic California) in the event of disaster or emergency, whether man made or natural.

[Trajan]

180. Let see: ... absolute gun rights ? .. vigilante groups ??? ...

You MUST be expressing progressive/liberal opinions ..... right ?

~cluck~

[democrat1129]

183. UMM what is wrong with just observing?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

184. here is what the Southern Poverty Law Center says:

<snip>
Numerous white supremacists have claimed in online postings to be registered as Minuteman volunteers. One who posted to the Minuteman Project forum on the major white power website Stormfront wrote: "While this project is not a White racialist event, per se, it's a project that deserves backing from the White Nationalist community in general."

A self-professed member of the white supremacist organization National Alliance posted to the same forum: "While Minuteman is not affiliated with 'Hate Groups' (like the ones you or I belong to), most of the volunteers smell smoke and know there's a fire that needs putting out. This is a good opportunity to reach out to people who are 'half awake' and help them the rest of the way. I'm a missionary for racism and I see fertile recruiting ground!"

On Monday morning, three days before the Minutemen were scheduled to mass at the border, residents of the town awoke to find National Alliance fliers had been tossed in their driveways during the night.

"Immigration or Invasion?" the fliers read. "Non-Whites are turning America into a Third World slum. They come for welfare or to take our jobs. They bring crime. Let's send them home now!"

One Minuteman on the Stormfront forum made his preference clear: "Personally, I'd like to send 'em back in body bags!"
<snip>

http://splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=12

[jody]

185. The SPLC has been known to cherry pick facts and embellish the truth.

There is a problem with illegal immigration in general and in Arizona in particular and it is the federal government, not state or local governments who have the Constitutional duty to protect our borders.

Fundamentally, when governments refuse to protect their citizens, citizens have the inherent, natural, and inalienable right to defend self and property either individually or as part of the unorganized militia. Those issues among others are facts that have created the present problem.
:shrug:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

186. if you want to defend white supremacists and neo-nazis, be my guest

:hi:

[jody]

187. Why do you imply that I "want to defend white supremacists and neo-nazis"?

You are the one that cited the SPLC article that includes some facts and also some wild conjectures.

The SPLC is becoming more of a fund raising organization than it once was and it has lost favor with many in the civil rights movements.

No one or organization is without fault or redeeming value and that includes the SPLC.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

188. The SPLC has facts about the activities of RW groups

"The SPLC is becoming more of a fund raising organization than it once was and it has lost favor with many in the civil rights movements."

Please find links to support that conjecture on your part.

If you have no problem with neo-nazis and white supremacists going down to the border to hunt mexicans, then that's your prerogative. I guess you believe in the ends justifying the means.

[jody]

189. You can start with Harper’s Magazine “The Church Of Morris Dees"

QUOTE
How the Southern Poverty Law Center profits from intolerance
Ah, tolerance. Who could be against something so virtuous? And who could object to the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Montgomery, Alabama-based group that recently sent out this heartwarming yet mildly terrifying appeal to raise money for its "Teaching Tolerance" program, which prepares educational kits for schoolteachers? Cofounded in 1971 by civil rights lawyer cum direct-marketing millionaire Morris Dees, a leading critic of "hate groups" and a man so beatific that he was the subject of a made-for-TV movie, the SPLC spent much of its early years defending prisoners who faced the death penalty and suing to desegregate all-white institutions like Alabama's highway patrol. That was then. Today, the SPLC spends most of its time--and money--on a relentless fund-raising campaign, peddling memberships in the church of tolerance with all the zeal of a circuit rider passing the collection plate. "He's the Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker of the civil rights movement," renowned anti-death-penalty lawyer Millard Farmer says of Dees, his former associate, "though I don't mean to malign Jim and Tammy Faye." The center earned $44 million last year alone--$27 million from fund-raising and $17 million from stocks and other investments--but spent only $13 million on civil rights programs, making it one of the most profitable charities in the country.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Any good salesman knows that a product's "value" is a highly mutable quality with little relation to actual worth, and Morris Dees--who made millions hawking, by direct mail, such humble commodities as birthday cakes, cookbooks (including Favorite Recipes of American Home Economics Teachers), tractor seat cushions, rat poison, and, in exchange for a mailing list containing 700,000 names, presidential candidate George McGovern--is nothing if not a good salesman. So good in fact that in 1998 the Direct Marketing Association inducted him into its Hall of Fame. "I learned everything I know about hustling from the Baptist Church," Dees has said. "Spending Sundays on those hard benches listening to the preacher pitch salvation--why, it was like getting a Ph.D. in selling." Here, Dr. Dees (the letter's nominal author) masterfully transforms, with a mere flourish of hyperbole, an education kit available "at cost" for $30 on the SPLC website into "a $325 value."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Morris Dees doesn't need your financial support. The SPLC is already the wealthiest civil rights group in America, though this letter quite naturally omits that fact. Other solicitations have been more flagrantly misleading. One pitch, sent out in 1995--when the center had more than $60 million in reserves--informed would-be donors that the "strain on our current operating budget is the greatest in our 25-year history." Back in 1978, when the center had less than $10 million, Dees promised that his organization would quit fund-raising and live off interest as soon as its endowment hit $55 million. But as it approached that figure, the SPLC upped the bar to $100 million, a sum that, one 1989 newsletter promised, would allow the center "to cease the costly and often unreliable task of fundraising." Today, the SPLC's treasury bulges with $120 million, and it spends twice as much on fund-raising--$5.76 million last year--as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses. The American Institute of Philanthropy gives the center one of the worst ratings of any group it monitors, estimating that the SPLC could operate for 4.6 years without making another tax-exempt nickel from its investments or raising another tax-deductible cent from well-meaning "people like you."
UNQUOTE

Have a nice learning experience. :hi: