« What's The World Coming To? | Main | Sweet, Sweet Complaining »
DeLay on Vigilantism
There's lots of interesting stuff in this surprisingly hard-hitting interview of Tom DeLay by the editors of The Washington Times. Just thought I'd highlight this one bit of wingnuttery:
Mr. Hanner: Do you agree with the president that the Minuteman Project on the border right now are vigilantes?Or as the Minutemen themselves put it, it's "a grassroots effort to bring Americans to the defense of their homeland, similar to the way the original Minutemen from Massachusetts (and other U. S. colonies) did in the late 1700s." After all "At the current rate of invasion the United States will be completely over run with ILLEGAL aliens by the year 2025...only 21 years away. ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the U.S. and will have made such inroads into the political and social systems that 'they' will have more influence than our Constitution over how the U.S. is governed." I'm particularly interested in the scare-quoting of "they." What's that about?Mr. DeLay: No. I'm not sure the president meant that. I think that they're providing an excellent service. It's no different than neighborhood-watch programs and I appreciate them doing it, as long as they can do it safely and don't get involved and do it the way they seem to be doing it, and that's just identifying people for the Border Patrol to come pick up.
April 17, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834403ef053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DeLay on Vigilantism:
Comments
The pronoun 'they' is sometimes used to refer to collections of human beings who, as humans, are worthy of moral concern. The Minutemen would rather use a pronoun without these inappropriate connotations, and which regards immigrants as despicable bug-creatures.
Posted by: Ethical Werewolf | Apr 17, 2005 4:09:14 PM
The "they" business could be as simple as the intention by these latter-day Minutemen to highlight the distinction between "us" (the good guys) and "them" (the brown guys -- uh, I mean, the bad guys). Quite a few people seem to think that putting quotes around a word makes it emphatic (although flagging it that way is more akin to labeling it with a [sic] than anything else). Perhaps the Minuteman website is written by people who don't know the difference.
Posted by: TonyB | Apr 17, 2005 4:11:50 PM
Their use of 'scare' quotes makes 'no' sense. The Minutemen 'are' challenged in their use of the English 'language'.
Posted by: Petey | Apr 17, 2005 4:14:02 PM
The Minuteman Project is a racist organization. This shouldn't even be a point of debate: http://www.campusprogress.org/page/community/post_group/main/BrZ
Posted by: Michelle Malkin | Apr 17, 2005 4:19:22 PM
...ILLEGAL aliens and their offspring will be the dominant population in the U.S...
but their offspring are legal US citizens, correct? So, what's the problem?
Posted by: abb1 | Apr 17, 2005 4:47:53 PM
They're not "scare quotes". They are "emphasis quotes", a punctuation device used by the partially literate to place emphasis on certain words.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey | Apr 17, 2005 4:57:02 PM
Per C. Fahey, seen on countless diner menus: Try our "fresh" pie.
Posted by: alkali | Apr 17, 2005 4:57:54 PM
Which part of "illegal" in "illegal immigrant" confuses you? "They" refers to the illegals flowing in. It bothers me that we allow the southern border to be an open gate. I have no problem with legal immigration - even with very large scale legal immigration.
What I have a problem with is illegal immigration. It's time for the left to stop object by calling it racism, and for the right to admit that they like the cheap source of labor.
Posted by: James Robertson | Apr 17, 2005 5:40:51 PM
Actually those "neighborhood watch" groups that DeLay and Michelle Malkin are so fond of, were themselves once given to vigilantism. The only reason they are considered (rightly) benign and legitimate now is that they work in cooperation and coordination with the police. If they didn't, they'd be no better than the Minutemen (the border vigilantes, not the Colonial-era insurrectionists).
Posted by: ktheintz | Apr 17, 2005 6:26:16 PM
Wait, the answer to why "They" is scare quoted is because they = illegal immigrants? That doesn't make any sense. I don't see anything else in the post or comments being addressed by pointing out that illegal immigration is, in fact, illegal.
Posted by: washerdreyer | Apr 17, 2005 7:42:33 PM
"illegal immigration is, in fact, illegal"
Yes, and so is hiring them. However, you do not see a groundswell of opposition to "illegal businesses", when the same lawbreaking is going on by the employers.
Illegal immigrant opposition has always been, and is very much rooted in coded racism, even if reasonable people can agree that illegal immigration is a bad thing.
Posted by: netwerk01 | Apr 17, 2005 8:06:47 PM
I don't know that the Minutemen are vigilantes. They simply report to the Border Patrol when they find illegal aliens crossing.
Then why do they carry guns? Presumably in case they come across drug smugglers and/or immigrant smugglers who may threaten them. I mean, most illegal immigrants ae probably non-violent, but if 1-2% are drug smugglers or are coming in with the aid of "people smugglers" who are smuggling them across the border for cash, then those 1 or 2% may decide to attack anyone who is trying to report them. The point of the guns is to discourage people from attacking the minutemen, not because they intend on going vigilante on anyone.
Posted by: Glaivester | Apr 17, 2005 8:26:22 PM
I would guess that the "they" refers to Hispanics, Mexicans in particular.
A recent report by the census bureau revealed that in the last 2 years, Hispanics accounted for over 50% of the U.S. popualtion growth.
I'm no fan of gun-toting rednecks, but the high poverty rate and huge fertilaty rate of Mexican-American females is unsettling....
Posted by: monkyboy | Apr 17, 2005 8:36:50 PM
netwerk01-
Is your quote from my post meant to imply some normative view on the character of illegal immigrants to me?
monkyboy-
Your post suggests that there is something inherent about Mexican women that causes them to have higher rates of fertility and poverty. This is absurd. If, on the other hand, you think there is a causal connection between poverty and a high birthrate, you're right, but I don't see the relevance.
Posted by: washerdreyer | Apr 17, 2005 9:06:19 PM
washer-
Inherent or not, those are the facts. Maybe it's a religious thing...
Posted by: monkyboy | Apr 17, 2005 9:33:40 PM
Re: However, you do not see a groundswell of opposition to "illegal businesses", when the same lawbreaking is going on by the employers.
I would suggest reading some rightish blog sites then. People who care about this issue state rather frankly that they think the book should be thrown at employers who deliberately employee illegal aliens and circumvent labor laws while doing so.
And indeed, this is one issue where the Bush administration and the bulk of conservative, moderate and even liberal Americans are not in tune, and there's a huge opportunity here for any Democrat who can properly address the matter. Anybody here live near the border? I have a cousin in Tucson who's magazine rack is stuffed with copies of the Nation, but she and her partner both voted for the recent Arizona anti-illegal referrendum despite misgivings, since (like everyone else in the region) they'd had simply had enough.
Posted by: JonF | Apr 17, 2005 9:44:22 PM
the quotation marks are hipster-ironic. they aren't really right-wing maniac mexian murderers, they are left-wing greenwich village hipsters who know that using the word "they", as in "us and them", is truly a postmodern edifice.
no?
Posted by: mikey | Apr 17, 2005 9:45:37 PM
I would suggest reading some rightish blog sites then. People who care about this issue state rather frankly that they think the book should be thrown at employers who deliberately employee illegal aliens and circumvent labor laws while doing so.
And indeed, this is one issue where the Bush administration and the bulk of conservative, moderate and even liberal Americans are not in tune, and there's a huge opportunity here for any Democrat who can properly address the matter. Anybody here live near the border? I have a cousin in Tucson who's magazine rack is stuffed with copies of the Nation, but she and her partner both voted for the recent Arizona anti-illegal referrendum despite misgivings, since (like everyone else in the region) they'd had simply had enough.
I think this is quite right. The question of legal vs. illegal immigration is an area where there are large interest groups in both parties who are out of step with the majority of Americans. People in a democratic country, who choose their own immigration laws, have a right to see the laws they have chosen upheld.
This has nothing to do with "nativism". I personally have no Huntington-like concerns about ethnic and cultural threats to the American way of life, and I don't think most Americans have these concerns. I want the United States to have very liberal immigration laws, and want to see lots of immigrants to come to America, from all parts of the world, and from every land and culture. And my wife is Puerto Rican, so I am delighted to live in a country with a rising hispanic population and steadily growing influence of Latin American cultures.
But the flood of illegal immigrants creates havoc with the attempt to maintain sensible immigration laws. It is a violation of the social contract with American citizens, a threat to labor protections, and a backlash-stimulating burden on our already strapped social and municipal services. And it leads to pressures to close the door to other, legal immigrants from other parts of the world.
Posted by: Dan Kervick | Apr 18, 2005 12:13:53 AM
I wasn't aware that vigilantism had been redefined so as to include things like community watch groups. That's all these people are doing. Patrolling the border and calling in reports of border crossers to the authorities.
Posted by: Adam Herman | Apr 18, 2005 2:11:57 AM
Dan-
It's hard to look south of the border and see much to like about "Latino Culture." Corruption, violence and wealth inequity seem to be the norm for Latin American countries. Latin America currently seems to be the most backward place in the world. If this is a vision of America in 50 years, when Hispanics are projected to be in the majority, god help us.
Posted by: monkyboy | Apr 18, 2005 2:29:42 AM
Re: Corruption, violence and wealth inequity seem to be the norm for Latin American countries.
And the USA is different than that how? Maybe we need to move our country out of the “European” category of world civilzations and into the “Latin American” category since that looks like where we’re heading (and not because of Latino immigration—our own homegrown elites are driving us down that road, pedal to then metal.)
Posted by: Jonf | Apr 18, 2005 8:31:01 AM
If trade doesn't have borders, why should people?
Posted by: DJ | Apr 18, 2005 10:47:24 AM
Adam,
In most of of the interviews I've seen with Minutemen, the members have stated that they came from outside the state of Arizona - many hail from California, and even from states far from the border. Many of them do not thus qualify as conducting anything like a "community watch."
Monkyboy,
The Mexican birthrate has dropped significantly in the past decade from 3.4 to 2.4 per mother (It has been dropping for three decades), and I suspect will soon be at the US level of 2.1. Furthermore, many of the Mexicans entering the U.S. are evangelical Christians.
Even those who are Catholics have a more complex relationship to the church and its doctrine than you might think. If you look at Mexican history, you'll see that the relationship between the state and the church has been very strained, to say the least, with several civil wars between church partisans and the government. It wasn't until a few years ago that Mexican priest were even allowed to wear their gear in the streets.
Jon F,
I'd watch assumptions like "...since (like everyone else in the region) they'd had simply had enough," especially when you're talking about Tucson (where I live). Our city and county voted against Proposition 200, despite being near the border. Yet, Phoenix, packed with its own set of migrants (From the Midwest and California) and much further from the border, voted overwhelmingly for its passage.
Dan,
As far as attempting to sever the ties between nativism and immigration reform, I wish you luck. Historically speaking, every attempt at immigration "reform" in the United States has been freighted with ethnically and racially-charged language. The current effort is, of course, no exception.
To all:
I would recommend that we all consider the amount of effort and money necessary to observe, let alone interdict illegal movement along a 2000+ mile border. Perhaps we might take a comparative approach. Is there any border shared between two nations of vastly disparate economic capacities that is currently effectively policed? What are the means used to police the border? What resources were utilized? Anybody who has observed, for example, members of the Nogales Border Patrol at work (or talked with them) know that they are arrayed against some formidable obstacles. People attempting to move across the border have learned the BP patrol patterns, where they locate their sensors, the shifts of BP officers...
Of course, I'm sure that there are measures that the U.S. government can take to help lessen the rate of illegal immigration. I just suspect that the solutions will be much more complex than the imposing task of "sealing the border."
El-P
Posted by: El-P | Apr 18, 2005 12:09:19 PM
Re: Is there any border shared between two nations of vastly disparate economic capacities that is currently effectively policed?
Russia and Finland maybe?
Posted by: JonF | Apr 18, 2005 12:27:13 PM
Damn... I should asked for commentators to address a border similar in magnitude, and with a long history of economic linkage, too. Oh well... called...
Posted by: El-P | Apr 18, 2005 12:36:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
