This letter is aimed primarily at the Minutemen and S.O.S., but the content applies equally to any anti-immigrant group that has taken up vigilante like actions. I have grown weary of constant complaints from your groups that you are mischaracterized as racist simply because you are "trying to enforce the law." Let us put aside the fact that statements like Joe Turners' about "cultures that are inferior" are inherently racist. Let us put aside the fact that your activities have emboldened, encouraged, garnered praise from and even drawn participation from white supremacist groups. Let us suspend the understanding that scapegoating immigrants under an ideology that they somehow threaten the middle class is frighteningly reminiscent of basic fascist tenets. Lastly let us ignore the fact that while your memberships occasionally hint at targeting northern or other borders, your focus to date has been on one border and against one group of people.

Instead let us examine your assertion you are merely enforcing the law. More importantly let us explore the economic reasons behind your claim. Towards this end I suggest a simple and modest proposal that you may have overlooked in a fervor of nationalism. If you were to adopt this methodology, you could accomplish your stated goals while avoiding the correct and necessary labeling of racism stemming from you current activities. I suggest you marshal your membership and resources and take on the following tasks.

Your claim that undocumented immigrant labor "steals" jobs from able bodied "American" workers could simply be dealt with. Using your pools of enthusiastic membership you could find all these un/underemployed Americans and match them with these jobs. I am quite sure, following your logic, that there is an unending supply of Americans ready and willing to do this work. They merely need your help in locating it and maybe assistance with transportation. Your groups could easily handle this task. By doing this you accomplish several things. You eliminate the economic incentive for undocumented labor because all the positions will be filled by Americans. Who would be willing to break immigration laws when all incentive to do so would be gone? Secondly, you further demonstrate your patriotic nationalism and avoid being labeled as racists because you have opened employment to thousands of Americans who otherwise would have had their jobs "stolen" by immigrants.

Additionally, by eliminating all economic incentive for undocumented labor to come here, you address two major factors you cite for your current activities. Since all potential jobs currently held by undocumented labor would now be held by U.S. citizens, it is highly doubtful that many undocumented people would want to come here. This would deal with your complaint that undocumented immigrants utilize public services at the tax payer expense. While this conception proves untrue since undocumented labor contributes much more to the tax pool then it ever uses, it wouldn't mater since they wouldn't be here. This also takes care of your concerns that local communities are being turned into what the S.O.S. website terms "third world cesspools" (and you wonder why you are called racists). Surely communities of red blooded Americans working at the same wage scales as undocumented labor does now would be the epitome of what Mr. Turner calls "great American culture."

You could call the effort something like "American Labor for American Jobs." Think of the benefits that your efforts would reap. Instead of long nights in the desert with binoculars, Minutemen membership could witness the joy on the face of a fellow American when they are matched with a much desired job in California's fruit picking industry. Instead of long hours in the sun protesting a misunderstood phrase on a train station monument, S.O.S. members could hear the praises of Americans happily employed in Los Angeles garment sweatshops. Since Mr. Turner has already targeted a large home improvement chain for its loose association with day laborers, that would be a great place to start. Instead of ineffectual flag waving, why not show up with a group of able bodied Americans to take back the work from these job stealing day laborers? There are so many jobs that you could open up in the agricultural, textile, construction, service, and janitorial fields to your fellow "legal" American citizens, and it is certain that they would be eternally grateful for the opportunity.

Think about it. All of your concerns: stolen jobs, tax expenditures, over-utilization of public services, so called dilapidation of local communities, and immigration law enforcement would all be addressed in one fell swoop if you and your memberships were to undertake this task. Avoiding the labeling of racism, you might even become heros through eliminating what you state as the cause of so many social ills in this country. In light of this I call on you, in fact I defy you, to drop all your current activities and resolutely take up the program of action stated above. Prove that our characterization of your racism is patently false. Prove us wrong in our understanding that it is our economic system, not undocumented immigrants, that causes misery in our society. Demonstrate that you really are just concerned with the law through removing all incentive for people to break it. Now that you have an easy and foolproof solution to your concerns, anything less would be disingenuous. Anything less will continue to expose you for what you really are.

You can't claim that illegals give more to the tax pool than they take out without giving figures. Otherwise I and everyone else knows you just expressed your perspective on the issue. I don't know the numbers off hand, but neither do you to make such a claim. A little free advice, your arguments carry little weight when you can't give facts or figures.

You know why all these hospitals are closing? Because illegal immigrants are using medical services that they can't pay and are running these hospitals in debt. Look at the local hospital in Sierra Vista, Az. where many illegals cross. That hospital is about to go under after be forced into $600,000 in debt due to treating illegals. Keep in mind this is a relative small town.

Also, illegals DO take jobs away from Americans. Not every illegals works at a place Americans won't. Aside from this, illegals drive down wages. It's supply and demand. No where in your post did you even bring this up. Union construction jobs pay about $20 an hour as an apprentice. Now illegals are working construction jobs under the table at about $8-10 and hour. illegals are destroying unions (which was the single strongest catalyst for the U.S. having a strong middle class). Once 30% of all U.S. jobs were union jobs. Now only about 9%. There are other reasons for this, but illegal immigration contributes to the problem. What is truly sad is the devastion illegal immigration is having on black labor in this country. After being slaves in this country, many blacks cannot find work because industries would rather hire illegals that don't know their rights. It is wrong for an illegal to simply cross a border and destroy the livelihood of African Americans.

If nothing else, illegals are making Los Angeles overpopulated (you can't possibly argue this). They should all be sent home and the governments of their home country should be billed.

You are asking me to do your homework for you then?

A 1992 "Business Week" cover story reported that annually immigrants pay $90 billion in taxes and collect $5 billion in welfare.

A 1991 Los Angeles County report noted that undocumented workers in the county contributed $4.3 billion in taxes to all levels of government, but used only $2.5 billion in services.

Julian Simon's "The Economic Consequences of Immigration" contends that immigrant families pay $2,500 more in taxes per year then they receive in public services.

That should be good for now. Does that make my arguments carry any more weight? Of course it doesn't because you aren't really interested in facts, you're just trying to find a way to avoid the indictment of your racist arguments. I did know the numbers before making the claim, just didn't think that I needed to reproduce widely known facts.

> Aside from this, illegals drive down wages. It's supply and demand.

This is the undocumented's fault or the capitalist employers' fault? You are the same folks that complain about "outsourcing" right? Can't blame undocumented labor for that now can you. But you wouldn't dare blame those really responsible would you? You want to practice in Turner's words "in your face activism?" Maybe protest the CEO's and their political lapdogs that create conditions to drive down wages.

Many unions support undocumented labor (as seen by the AFL-CIO's opposition to Prop. 187 and the SEIU's organization of undocumented labor). The troubles with unions comes all from the top. The bosses are breaking the unions and the capitalist class is squeezing the middle class. Saying that undocumented labor some contributes to the decline in unions is simply avoiding reality.

You really think that undocumented labor has anything to do with the woes of black community? Are you saying that blacks are only apt for work in "industries [that] would rather hire illegals that don't know their rights?" You need to think about that statement. If you folks really think you will win over the black community with racist statements like that, you are in for a surprise. For the life of me I can't figure out who your statement insults more, undocumented labor or black labor.

Again, if you folks really believe that undocumented labor is the problem (which I don't agree with), then you must see that they are merely a symptom of the problem. The root cause of the problem you state is a capitalist system that requires, nay, demands cheap labor. Like you said "It's supply and demand." If you folks are really serious about solving this so called problem, then the plan of action I suggested is the only sensible and efficient way of achieving your aims. After all, you aren't racists are you now?

2/3 rd's of corporations pay no taxes at all
.

> $2,500 more in taxes per year

that's how much tax I paid last year just out of my income - and that doesn't include the ~ $ 700 in sales taxes or other taxes like telephone, cable TV, fuel, etc

So I can vouch for that
.

> insults more, undocumented labor or black labor.

both
.

> merely a symptom of the problem.

the symptom is an easy target that provides cover for the racism
.

> The root cause of the problem you state is {the} capitalist system

these people are deaf to the real problem because they don't talk about that on the radio - the advertisers see to it

-" A 1992 "Business Week" cover story reported that annually immigrants pay $90 billion in taxes and collect $5 billion in welfare.

A 1991 Los Angeles County report noted that undocumented workers in the county contributed $4.3 billion in taxes to all levels of government, but used only $2.5 billion in services."

I would very much like to see these articles. First you quote only $5bil in welfare being used annually by immigrants. Then you quote $2.5bil being used by Los Angeles illegals alone.

So are you saying that illegals in LA use a full 50% of all services given to ALL immigrants? While only contributing 4.7% of taxes paid by ALL immigrants. Seems to me that your numbers show there is quite a large problem with illegals in LA disproportionately taxing american social services. Or am I mistaken?

RD,

You are such a dumb fock it is pathetic. illegals cost way more than they contribute to Amercia. If you're going to call people "racists" on a whim without proof. Get ready for insults back.

"A 1992 "Business Week" cover story reported that annually immigrants pay $90 billion in taxes and collect $5 billion in welfare."

First off since 1994 illegals in this country have doubled. You couldn't find anything more current? Pay attention retard, welfare does not include educational costs of teaching children of illegals nor does it include medical expenses, which are both huge amounts. Secondly, there is a huge difference between immigrants and illegal immigrants. Damn, you're a dumb fock.

"A 1991 Los Angeles County report noted that undocumented workers in the county contributed $4.3 billion in taxes to all levels of government, but used only $2.5 billion in services."

So immigrants pay $90 billion in taxes, yet illegals pay only $4.3? Are you catching on retard?

"Julian Simon's "The Economic Consequences of Immigration" contends that immigrant families pay $2,500 more in taxes per year then they receive in public services. "

Once again, the argument is not immigrants. It's illegal immigration.

"That should be good for now. Does that make my arguments carry any more weight? Of course it doesn't because you aren't really interested in facts, you're just trying to find a way to avoid the indictment of your racist arguments. I did know the numbers before making the claim, just didn't think that I needed to reproduce widely known facts."

Yeah right, retard. You did a piss poor job of research after I called you on it. Figures from 1992? What a dumb @ss.

"This is the undocumented's fault or the capitalist employers' fault? You are the same folks that complain about "outsourcing" right? Can't blame undocumented labor for that now can you. But you wouldn't dare blame those really responsible would you? You want to practice in Turner's words "in your face activism?" Maybe protest the CEO's and their political lapdogs that create conditions to drive down wages."

When you write with so many general ?s, you are writing in 2nd person. Not the most effective way in making an argument. You might want to retake Economics 101 at CSUDH cause corporations do not control supply and demand. They may control politicians, but they don't direcly control supply and demand. BTW, I'm also against the CEO that do outsource, that do hire illegals, that do not pay health coverage, etc.

"Many unions support undocumented labor (as seen by the AFL-CIO's opposition to Prop. 187 and the SEIU's organization of undocumented labor). The troubles with unions comes all from the top. The bosses are breaking the unions and the capitalist class is squeezing the middle class. Saying that undocumented labor some contributes to the decline in unions is simply avoiding reality."

Wrong again. Bosses may be attacking unions from the top, but unions would prevail nonetheless if not for illegals waiting on the side to take an American job. Also, these illegals are just happy to have jobs and make little effort to keep working conditions as good as they were before they came.

"You really think that undocumented labor has anything to do with the woes of black community? Are you saying that blacks are only apt for work in "industries [that] would rather hire illegals that don't know their rights?" You need to think about that statement. If you folks really think you will win over the black community with racist statements like that, you are in for a surprise. For the life of me I can't figure out who your statement insults more, undocumented labor or black labor."

I'm saying that black people are assertative, hardly a insult. Infact it's a compliment. These illegals aren't not. Employers would rather hire the people that won't complain about bad working conditions. African Americans would, as they should. Illegals won't. Take Reading comprehension with Economics.

"Again, if you folks really believe that undocumented labor is the problem (which I don't agree with), then you must see that they are merely a symptom of the problem. The root cause of the problem you state is a capitalist system that requires, nay, demands cheap labor. Like you said "It's supply and demand." If you folks are really serious about solving this so called problem, then the plan of action I suggested is the only sensible and efficient way of achieving your aims. After all, you aren't racists are you now?"

Fighting illegal immigration is like fighting the drug war. You fight it from BOTH sides. Both supply and demand. You assume I only meant supply. Wrong! People who are hiring these illegals need to be fined for their destruction of the America.

BTW farm worker are not illegals, they all have work visas. However, many custodians, bus boys, construction workers, factory workers, and even drivers are illegal. These are taking American jobs and many black jobs.

Legal Immigration is OK. It is controlled by goverment officials with the input from economists. Illegal immigraton throws the balance out of wack. If it was only 300 or so illegals crossing a day that would be once thing. But it is 10,000. Over a million a year. America can not take on this huge influx. The amount must be smaller or America will drown in poverty because of the illegals and look like another Brazil.

Here is some accurate and more recent research from fairus.org

Immigration and the Economy

Current levels of immigration are not beneficial to our country’s economy, its fiscal well-being, or the health of our labor market. In fact, immigration is a drain on the economy; the net annual cost of immigration has been estimated at between $67 and $87 billion a year.1 The National Academy of Sciences found that the net fiscal drain on American taxpayers is between $166 and $226 a year per native household. Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers.2 In short, the average native taxpayer is paying for immigration so that large companies can profit by employing immigrants in low-wage positions.


That immigration does not help the economy should come as no surprise, since, in a sense, we are importing poverty. One out of every five poor people is an immigrant.3 Furthermore, the earning power of these poor immigrants is deteriorating and is likely to remain low throughout their working lives, according to the RAND Insitute.4

While businesses like to enjoy the low-wage labor supplied by high immigration, it comes at a price. Part of that price is lost productivity. Business and social transaction costs rise, as time, effort, and money are spent overcoming language and cultural barriers.5 “Poor English skills among foreign-born residents cost more than $75 billion a year in lost productivity, wages, tax revenue and unemployment compensation,” says Ohio University economist Lowell Gallaway.6

Another price that society pays for immigration is the widening gap between rich and poor, an effect noted by the U.S. Council of Economic Advisors.7 The effect of immigration on low-skilled Americans is profound: “Undoubtedly, access to lower-wage foreign workers has a depressing effect [on wages].”8 Government research suggests that 50 percent of wage-loss among low-skilled Americans is due to the immigration of low-skilled workers.9 In 1996, analysis of all the metropolitan areas with over a million residents found that the higher the immigrant population in the city, the smaller the size of the middle class.10

The jobs immigration does create are often for other immigrants and at the expense of Americans. “Once in place, ethnic hiring networks are self-reproducing since each new employee recruits others from his or her own group.”11 A GAO study found that a decade of heavy immigration to Los Angeles had changed the janitorial industry from a mostly unionized native black workforce to one of non-unionized immigrants.12

According to the Census, the employment of black Americans as hotel workers in California dropped 30 percent in the 1980s, while the number of immigrants with such jobs rose 166 percent. “Indeed, many of the positive aspects of entrepreneurship have a negative dimension that is not often acknowledged. The ethnic solidarity hypothesized to be conducive to immigrant business can be seen in another light, as exclusionary and clannish, impeding access to business and employment opportunities for the native-born. The informal business transactions in immigrant communities that are normally regulated by gossip and ostracism can sometimes be enforced in ways that are distinctly illegal.”13

As immigrants come to occupy a niche, we grow dependent on continued immigration. Wayne Cornelius, a political scientist at UC San Diego, found [in a three-year study] that unskilled immigrant labor is increasingly structurally embedded in the economy, especially in California, “where immigrants have largely replaced U.S.-born workers in many occupations, from electronics assembler to gardener to domestic worker.”14 “Network recruitment [of immigrants] not only excludes American workers from certain jobs; it also builds a dependency relationship between U.S. employers and Mexican sources that requires a constant infusion of new workers.”15 “As foreign students increasingly dominate these demanding fields, fewer and fewer Americans will enter them. Thus not only are Americans being displaced from these jobs now, but the candidates for these jobs in the future will increasingly be non-Americans. If this continues long enough, we will end up with ever-fewer American-born scientists, engineers, computer scientists, programmers, and mathematicians; perhaps none at all.”16

This is the net cost, i.e., the cost after the immigrants’ contribution in taxes is included in the calculation. The Net Costs of Immigration, Donald Huddle, Rice Univ., Carrying capacity Network, Washington DC, Oct. 1996.
The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, National Research Council/ National Academy of Sciences, May 1997.
CIS, Importing Poverty, 1999.
Immigration in a Changing Economy, McCarthy & Vernez, RAND, Washington DC, Sept. 1997.
In 1990, 14 million U.S. residents told the Census Bureau that they had limited or no English proficiency.
“Can’t Anyone Here Speak English?” USA Today, February 28, 1997.
“Several factors have contributed to widening inequality. ... Immigration has increased the relative supply of less educated labor and appears to have contributed to the increasing inequality of income[.]” Council of Economic Advisors, Annual Report to the President, February 1994, GPO, Washington DC.
U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, November 1995.
Skill Differences and the Effect of Immigrants on the Wages of Natives, Working Paper 273, Bureau of Labor Statistics, December 1995, David Jaeger.
“There is a clear correlation between the pattern of high-level immigrant settlement and reduced mid-income strata in large MSAs. Among the ten MSAs with the broadest mid-income share, all had a lower density of immigrants than the national average. The average foreign-born share for the ten was 3.9 percent, well under the national level of 7.9 percent average in the 1990 Census. Among the ten MSAs with the narrowest share of mid-income-earning households, all except New Orleans had immigrant settlement rates above the national average. The average immigrant shrae for these ten MSAs was nearly twenty-one percent (20.8 percent) of their populations, well over double the national average.” What is the Relationship Between Income Inequality and Immigration? (Summary Findings) John Martin, FAIR, Washington DC, October 1996.
“The Making of an Immigrant Niche” Roger Waldinger, University of California, International Migration Review Volume XXVIII, No. 1
GAO March 1998, Influence of Illegal Workers on Wages and Working Conditions of Legal Workers, GAO/PEMD-86-13BR.
“Immigrant Entrepeneurs”, Demetrious Papademetriou, Research Perspectives on Migration, Volume 1 No. 2, Feb. 1997, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington DC.
“Jobs Exist for Immigrants, Study Finds,” Patrick McDonnell, Los Angeles Times, May 4, 1998.
“Network Recruitment and Labor Displacement,” Immigration 2000, Philip Martin, 1992.
“Immigration, Evasion, and Decadence”, John Attarian, The Social Critic, Vol. 1 No.2, 1996.
Updated 10/02

I'm going to have to steal the original article for inclusion on the Dark Wind Project. It's well done and addresses issues that racists don't wish to address honestly.

This is amusing, though:

> illegals cost way more than they contribute to Amercia.

And of course no evidence to back up that assert is provided. Instead we get:

> Here is some accurate and more recent research from fairus.org

Woops!

Love it. When racists debunk themselves, it saves us time.

You're a little pussie white boy that grew up in the suburbs hating your conservative parents. Am I right? This is what made you who you are. And that's fine. But don't try to apply you "I hate my white conservative parents" syndrome on the rest of us.

I grew up in Long Beach (the most Diverse city in the United States according you USNews). And in case you wondering, I didn't grow up in good parts. Instead the North Side of the city. Jordan High School. My friends are primarily Hispanic, with some asian, white, black, and pacific islanders mixed in.

Fairus.org did not perform their own research. They cited independant sources from PhDs. If you were open minded you would notice that. Instead you are close minded like a racist.

You spew the term racist on a whim to make yourself seem like the "good guy". Sorry, you sissy white boy, racism has little to do with it. Some racists are definitely in the fray of illegal immigration (on both sides as I'm sure you're aware from reading your posts regarding Baldwin Park). But in the end, the battle over illegal immigration is much larger than race. If the illegals were all coming from Europe I would say send them back. China has 30 million people that what to come to the U.S. It would be a cool experiment to bring in all 30 million over at once so that they could displace all the illegals currently working here. Guess how fast La Raza and Mecha would be there to say "Send the Chinese Back"? Maybe two weeks.

You have not witnessed first hand the plight the illegals have brought onto cities such as Long Beach, Wilmington, Carson, Compton, Paramount, Los Angeles, etc. You don't know your @ss from you elbows on the subject. You're just a self-hating little pussie white boy like Michael Moore. Stick to what you know, go make a orange caramel frappacino and go rollerblading.

I may be taking excessive liberities and may be painting with too wide of a brush in telling you who you are. But so are everly last one you you mofos that scream "racist" whenever you don't agree with something.

Mr. Donnachaidh:

> I would very much like to see these articles

That's what public libraries are for. By all means, please educate yourself.

> First you quote only $5bil in welfare being used annually by immigrants.
> Then you quote $2.5bil being used by Los Angeles illegals alone.
> So are you saying that illegals in LA use a full 50% of all services given
> to ALL immigrants? While only contributing 4.7% of taxes paid by ALL immigrants.

Apparently you read this with the same misunderstanding that Mr. Turner reads the inscriptions on Danza Indigenas.

The first quote deals with taxes paid versus welfare paid nationally. The second quote deals with taxes paid by undocumented labor in L.A. County alone versus all services received. This may be news to you, but welfare isn't the only social service available. In other words your attempt to combine these two completely different statistics to derive your calculation of "illegals in LA use a full 50% of all services given to ALL immigrants" is at best incorrect, at worst manipulative.

> Seems to me that your numbers show there is quite a large problem with
> illegals in LA disproportionately taxing american social services.

Seems that your convoluted combination of the numbers shows quite a large problem with your conclusion.

======

Mr. Gotti:

I suppose taking your "little free advice" earned my some new epithets. As for "Get ready for insults back," I don't recall anywhere in my response to your comments calling you a racist specifically, although I did call your arguments and statements racist. Regardless, I can deal with your ad hominem attacks and still look at your contentions without rancor. Instead of addressing your calls for me to retake bourgeois economics or the silly notion that the capitalist class doesn't for the most part control both supply and demand, instead of commenting on statistics from an extremist reactionary organization you so liberally quote--as you said, I quoted research which isn't all that current, I will say that we should take your contention at face value, for argument's sake.

Let us assume that your argument "illegals cost way more than they contribute to Amercia" [sic] is unequivocally true. Let us take your statement that "You fight it from BOTH sides. Both supply and demand. You assume I only meant supply. Wrong!" is what you really mean. Then my simple proposal empowers you like nothing else to do what you say you want to do. By matching "legal Americans" with jobs you are fighting the issue from both sides like you say. Please don't think I thought you meant only supply. By marshaling your resources to match Americans with jobs otherwise "stolen" by undocumented labor, you do just as you say--deal with both supply and demand.

It's funny how a focus on statistics has drawn Mr. Gotti and Mr. Donnachaidh from the true message and patriotic call that my article was intended for. Let us all assume that your numbers are absolutely correct and mine are horribly outdated. This heightens the nationalistic fervor with which you should take on the program of action I outlined in my article. Considering the energy you both exerted in commenting on my article, would it be safe to assume that I can count on both of you to match at least two able bodied Americans a week to jobs that otherwise would fall to undocumented labor?

Between the two of you that would be four less jobs filled by undocumented laborers a week. Think of the possibilities if all like minded peoples did the same. The problem would quickly disappear, and then you really call me names since all of America's problems would be solved at once and you will have proved they were all caused by undocumented labor. Time is of the essence--your "Great Country" needs you--fill jobs with "legal" labor today!

p.s.

> Take Reading comprehension with Economics.

I think I will also need to take basic vocabulary, since I was at a loss understanding some of the words you employed in your invective like "assertative." I will make sure that I am very assertive in learning all these new words.

First you wrote,

"A 1991 Los Angeles County report noted that undocumented workers in the county contributed $4.3 billion in taxes to all levels of government, but used only $2.5 billion in services. "

The Los Angeles county report is wrong or you presented it wrong.

Let's assume Los Angeles County had 1 million in undocumented workers in the year given. To contribute $4.3 billion dollars each undocumented would have to pay $4,300 to all levels of goverment as said. No way did they pay that much in taxes or they are making much more money they I would have originally thought (back in 1991 mind you). Afterall, we always hear how they are only taking "low paying jobs that no one wants". Or perhaps there was more than 1 million illegals in Los Angeles County for the year in question to pay out the $4.3 billion. I doubt that for 1991, probably now though. Sorry, but the numbers don't jive.

Illegal immigration is a net drain on the tax-payers. Too many studies have stated so. And studies that state otherwise almost always are done by some organization that has something to gain by having illegal immigration. Tyson Foods could create a study telling of the wonderful things illegal immigration brings to America because Tyson Foods crammed out nearly all their American workforce to hire illegals. What exactly is a Professor from Stanford going to gain by seeing illegals sent home for stating that illegals are a net drain on society? Not a damn thing.

Aside from that, illegal immigration leads to overcrowded schools and is hindering the education of American youth. You can't possibly argue this. Let's keep going, illegal immigration is bankrupting hospitals. Another point you can't argue. Further more, illegals are breaking the law by coming here in the first place. Still another point you can't argue. The Constitution is "For the people, by the people". If the majority of the nation says send illegals back, who are you to question them and the Constitution and say no.

As far a assertive goes, that was a misspelled word. A rather minor mistake when compared to your "that insults black people" logic that started the whole use of the word.

BTW, you can't call someone's actions racist and then claim "but I didn't call you a racist directly". The two go hand in hand. If you claim my arguments are racists, then you are indeed calling me a racist. I take major offense to that. You cannot possibly know someone's true nature and beliefs by reading a few paragraphs from them. If you want to question me beliefs, that's fine. But keep from just throwing out the word "racist" to make you appear righteous. Otherwise, I'll just backlash in the same manner.

Herr Skeels,

I'm glad you told me to research your "business week" artice you quoted numbers from. I did such, and found a rebuttle to it.
It seems the author of the business week article, Michael J. Mandel, was not quite honest in listing the services that immigrants receive when compiling his numbers.

"Mandel also manufacturers a myth we'll be hearing again: that immigrants pay $90 billion in taxes, but receive only $5 billion in welfare. He achieves this happy result by the simple expedient of omitting all other benefits that immigrants receive, notably education and health. Even Business Week's editorialists realize this in their dim way--they call for federal subsidies for heavily immigrant school districts. (Borjas also calculates immigrants are a net loss to the welfare system. This time, Mandel ignores him.)"
National Review August 3, 1992 v44 n15 p14

So yes, as you stated above, there are services other than welfare that immigrants receive. So if one is to be honest with numbers, ALL services recieved should be listed.

further more:
"INCARCERATION COSTS

California has received partial compensation under the federal State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) that was established in 1994 to compensate the states and local jurisdictions for incarceration of "undocumented," aliens who are serving time for a felony conviction or at least two misdemeanors.

The recent SCAAP amounts that California has received were:

FY’99—$237,981,284
FY’00—$240,784,042
FY’01—$225,683,084
FY’02—$220,241,046
FY’03—$95,304,541
FY’04—$111,899,215

The amount of SCAAP awards has been declining in both total distributions and even more as a share of the state’s expenses. In FY’99 the state received 38.6% of its costs. SCAAP data indicate that California's illegal alien inmate population had increased by 31 percent from the 30,785 inmate years in FY'99 to 40,225 inmate years in FY'02, while compensation declined by seven percent."

1. Counting the dollars paid by low-wage workers is pointless. The entire purpose of taxes is to pay for common needs, and to do this, you have to take more from the wealthy and give to those without. A better measure of the contribution of any worker to the economy is to, somehow, measure their output or productivity.

2. The idea that deporting the undocumented would turn around the situation for labor, and specifically for the African American working class, is fantasy. The flow of undocumented workers into America has existed since the 1940s, and existed during the years of high unionization in the 1950s.

In fact, the people without papers were part of the labor movement that helped create the 1950s for many working people. Today, Los Angeles is one of the few cities where unions have real political power, and that's due partly to the fact that membership here is growing. That, in turn, is due to the fact the unions are willing to organize workers regardless of status. They're just taking a realistic approach to the situation.

3. The cost of deporting the undocumented would be immense, and basically cost a lot without returning that much back to the people in higher wages.

4. Capital flight has been happening for a while, and that's the main cause of many lost jobs. Companies flee, not because labor here is expensive (which it is), but because there are few or no tariffs on products shipped back into the country. This is nice because of lowered prices, but bad because manufacturing jobs are being sent away, to be replaced by less secure service jobs.

5. For African Americans, the situation is even more acute. Within counties and states, companies have moved operations out of cities and into suburbs for 40 years. That's the primary reason for the economic mess for many African Americans. It's a combination of factors: the exit of manufacturing jobs from cities, the exit of more affluent African American families from the same areas (to the suburbs) altered the economic base, and, of course, history.

Ejecting one group of competing workers won't change all these factors, or any of them really.

I thought I made it clear that I would willingly accept the statistics I quoted were dated and that we would assume that all your statistics were true. This in mind, why more statistics instead of positive action? Surely two men with such an overwhelming command of data proving undocumented people are the cause of all our social ills would be first to take it upon themselves to solve those problems in the most efficient and direct manner. After all, S.O.S. and similar groups have only targeted one border and one ethnicity to date. Think of how difficult it will be to deal with the vast northern border, South Florida, large sea ports, and all the other places undocumented peoples gain entry across the arbitrarily drawn lines we call our land. Instead of this inefficient methodology, you have the solution to deal with the entire undocumented labor "problem" at once.

Indeed, you have ignored my call wholesale and done nothing but present more reasons why you vehemently oppose undocumented people. I suppose (to my astonishment) my call to action is so compelling, that you can't argue against it directly. Instead a barrage of statics, blame, and ad hominem tactics are all that are mustered in response. What is it about my simple proposal that is inferior to vigilante border patrols and train station monument protests? It would seem that you folks are serious enough to attack the problem at its source rather than ineffectually harassing the periphery.

I've personally seen in Garden Grove, in Alhambra and twice in Baldwin Park that the representatives of vigilante anti-immigrant groups are hopelessly outnumbered. So I suppose statements regarding the "majority of the nation" are something we will have to wait on. I'm sorry Mr. Gotti takes "major offense," to my characterization (rightly in reading his original post, although we can allow for the fact that maybe he didn't word it the way he meant) of his statements being racist. Only he knows his "true nature and beliefs" and it would be presumptuous to think otherwise. However, if someone agrees, even in part, with stock S.O.S. phrases like "inferior cultures," "third world cesspools," "vermin," or any of the other bigoted, white supremacist, unequivocally racist language they employ constantly, then please educate me on how that isn't racist.

I applaud you, for the most part, for avoiding in your discussions the incendiary language employed on the S.O.S. website. My quotes of Mr. Turner and other quotes from S.O.S. postings are not to make myself appear "righteous." Those statements are racist in and of themselves and make no one righteous, but certainly point out their author's unrighteousness. I have grown weary of this banter, and I am sure you will follow up with another round statistics, name calling, and other innuendo. I probably won't reply directly to you gentlemen anymore, since you apparently aren't interested in solving what you state is the problem.

Perhaps one day your groups will take up my plan of action. Having solved all the nation's problems by doing so, I will have to admit you were right all along in that undocumented people are to blame and not the bourgeoisie ruling class who I've been blaming. I await that day.



P.S.
I recall when I was a young man in the military, meeting many fellow caucasians from parts of the country I had never visited who held hateful views of their fellow human beings for myriad reasons. I was never able to understand their thinking and still can't. I was fortunate enough to get an education at a large local university later in life and began to learn how racism originated. Later I found Engels and Marx provide the clearest explanation for racism and its role in our economic system.

I can't say when my ancestors from Ireland and England came here if they were documented or undocumented. That distinction has always been arbitrary and always depends on political currents and material conditions of the time. I do know that they were oppressed, called mics, drunks and a whole host of other racial epithets. They, like each wave of European immigrants were scapegoated and blamed for all the same types of things undocumented labor is now. Through racial and religious persecution the Irish in particular share much in common with their Mexican brothers and sisters. No wonder Los San Patricios realized the folly of fighting for an imperialist land grab and changed sides. No wonder Ulysses S. Grant called the invasion and subsequent annexation of sovereign Mexican territory "one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation."

I sincerely hope that one day working class people can stop blaming and hating each other. That day is possible when all of us in unison realize who is really to blame for all the social woes Mr. Gotti eloquently lists over and over. After all, there is plenty to go around for every one, it's just that some people take far more than their fair share and then some. Racism and immigrant scapegoating are convenient ways to keep us from uniting. But unite we must, for we "have nothing to lose but [our] chains."

Ulysses S. Grant Quotes

I have never advocated war except as a means of peace.


There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword.

Where did find your quote ?

Grant fought with Zachary Taylor against the Mexicans.
Why is it that those that espouse Marxist thinking fail to realize that that ideology has killed more than 20 million people in the 20th centuary and that facts seem to be lost on their thought process?

Oh now it's just 20 million and last year it was 200 million. Where exactly do you get this 'data'? I think it may be below your waist.

LOL, you make me laugh.
I was generalizing, but if you want true numbers you can do the mathe and the research instead of looking at contrails...

Few would deny any longer that communism--Marxism-Leninism and its variants--meant in practice bloody terrorism, deadly purges, lethal gulags and forced labor, fatal deportations, man-made famines, extrajudicial executions and show trials, and genocide. It is also widely known that as a result millions of innocent people have been murdered in cold blood. Yet there has been virtually no concentrated statistical work on what this total might be.

Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito's Yugoslavia.

Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing.

By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot's rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.

In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987.

Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century's international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone--one communist country-- well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.


Be sure to read and verify before putting foot in mouth..
Baa, woof, baa, woof!!

You can do math. Do you know the death toll of 'capitalism' or the jackels of Wall Street? Let's see... there was the Philippines, Indonesia, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia(we financed Pol Pot you know*) and then there's South America . So.. our murder is better than some else's murder. That makes sense. Thank you. Woof .
*
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/polpot.htm

Or maybe not. Try quibbling about definitions or direct involvement vs. having it done by proxy, docxy.
Oh and didn't the war that the Bush, Rockefeller ( through the Union Bank) families actually finance Hitler who managed to kill 50+ million Russians count also? Maybe. Woof.

Just debunk this massive research by one of my betters. Thanks again, Cecil.
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725.php

Ya want me to furnish some data on how we contaminated the Hepititus B serum and even when we knew the blood supply was 'tainted' the manufators of blood clotting products got rid of their stock by selling it ti 3rd world countries? Woof.
You may now speak.

Bow wow, little doggy. Your ideology doesn't take into account that China backed the North Vietnemese and North Korea, so why would they back the US in Cambodia? State verifiable numbers. State facts and not hyberbole. Your apparent dislike of the republic is evident.

The big guns get pulled out for fed up. You are again blessed...
heh heh

But at times I feel an urge to:
'Your apparent dislike of the republic is evident.' shades of fresca...
Your shit aint sticking. I love this country, just not the fascist maggots that have stolen it.
You may now take a bow.
Woof.

Don't know fresca or BA.

But please dispute the numbers of deaths under a utopian regime, that says its for the people, and against the cognoscenti.

You dance the same step so maybe you should.
On a serious note, I think what I wrote earlier is still apt.
You think our killing is morally superior to someone else's? Or are you into blind denial? Did you even review Cecil's thread?

"Capitalism" wasn't invented by anyone. The term was coined by Marx to describe his thesis that in the mid 1800s, the dominant system taking over the world was based on capitalism. Capital was the most important factor in creating change in society.

The defense of capitalism came later, as a kind of propaganda to defend imperialism. Until then, I think the preferred term was "laissez faire" to describe what capitalists wanted. The communist ciritcisms of the US and imperialism stung, and the terminology they used stuck.

OK, I'll look at it.

Hi, how are you doing?

1. I am a member of SOS and a Minuteman. I am subject to being called to military duty.

I feel there has been a misconception over the use of the word "vigilante", since neither the US Constitution, nor the Laws of California, prohibit citizens from enforcing the Constitution, or laws derived from it, or defending America from a foreign invasion. No where in the laws does it say, if you see a law being broken, that is creating a danger to life or property, that you cannot take the law (a gun) into your hand and enforce the law. Even if you are on probation as a convicted criminal.

The word "vigilante", is defined (Merriam-Webster) as "a watchful, observant, person acting vigilant, and a person who enforces the laws, when government fails to act." Do vigilantes carry weapons, or firearms? Yes, they can, under the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Can citizens train or practice, in paramilitary tactics, or units? No. Can citizens be sworn to duty on a Posse Comitatus? Yes.

You said, "Statements like Joe Turners' about "cultures that are inferior" are inherently racist." I will agree with you, that he probably shouldn't have put it the way he did. But he was expressing how he feels, about seeing his country, impacted by an uncontrolled flow of outsiders, who are fleeing their former country, and bringing their culture to America. They are converting their neighborhoods, into mini-versions of what they are running from, complete with the problems, from which the fled. People of many cultures are doing this, and they are refusing to become Americans, by holding onto their "Old Country" ways.

Welcome to America. We speak English here. Please learn our customs and traditions. Please become good American citizens.

Let me say, that I am for immigration. I am not for open borders or uncontrolled immigration. I like to travel, I have a passport so I can do it legally. If a country, like Mexico, makes getting a passport, too expensive or too difficult, then address it to that country.
Why would millions of people travel so far and risk so much to leave their country, and join ours? The people are voting with their feet and coming here. The problem is that they are failing or refusing or ignoring the laws. They violate federal law by not entering the country properly. Laws are established to control numbers and health of persons entering our nation, and protect the people living here. Our laws have taken hundreds of years to be formed. Their cultures are plagued with rampant infectious diseases, which must be brought under international control, or the entire world suffers a major extinction of the human kind.

Forty years of trying to clear racism from America, a then the Mexicans, had to step up, to call a few groups of Americans "racists", because the Americans, acted to defend their country, from an invasion of undocumented immigrants.

I'll comment anyway on the White Supremacist groups: They are not welcome in the SOS/MMP, but are free to pursue their own agendas, in their own fashion, without permission of the SOS/MMP. If you see the white supremacist groups at an SOS/MMP function, they are asked to step to a separated area, and do their own thing.

I must say, that at some recent protest rallies, I did appreciate the apparent self-outting, of the Anarchists, Brown Berets, Brown Pride, Open-Borders Coalition, Reconquistas de Aztlan, MEChAs, Socialists, Communists, etc., on the opposition's side of the street. I had fun explaining the players to some passerby. I did not like being called a racist, or hearing "Viva Aztlan". Aztlan, ain't going to happen in my lifetime, or yours. I got news for you the US Government, will let you take your game to a point. But when you create a crisis, then expect some management.

OK, the focus on the southern border, is an issue with you. Can you read a map or use Mapquest? Please consider that the founders of SOS, MMP/CHDHQ, FBP, and the USBPA, are all from: Ventura, CA; Aliso Viejo, CA; Tombstone, AZ; Oceanside, CA; and Chino, CA. So, you see they live within 300-miles of each other and within 125-miles of the southern border. All of these founders have seen first hand and been exposed to the mass migration of undocumented foreigners from south of the USA-Mexico border, plus they live closer to it, making the USA-Mexico border most convenient to visit. This availability, coupled with the greater numbers of crossers at the southern border versus the northern border, make the southern border the "squeaky wheel". As the old saying goes "the squeaky wheel gets the grease". Is it the fault of the anti-illegal-immigration groups, if statistically, the greater number of crossers over the southern border, of the USA, come from Mexico? No, it is not. It is beyond my control, how about you?

2. Yes, enforcing the US Constitution, and laws derived from it. Have you read the COTUSA or the Bill of Rights? It is We the People granting limited authority, of our elected officials to govern us, but We the People, have the responsibility to supervise, our elected government, and hold them accountable to us, since we can hire and fire as needed. BTW - should any group overpopulate the country and eventually succeed, in placing a native born citizenry, of foreign descent, in the power of the government of the USA, and they misuse that power, then it will be the people's duty to "reboot the machine".

NO, I don't accept your rationalization, that a group, of American citizens, stepping forward to uphold the US Constitution and enforce the laws, is acting as "racists", when they have had no control over the content of the undocumented invaders, who have been streaming across, our borders, or their choice of borders to work on first. You might have inferred it, but it is beyond the control of mortal men.

3. Not as simple as you think it is. However, if the borders were controlled, and all illegal invaders, were deported, the US Government, could under the Selective Service System, provide able bodied and willing workers, with clothing, training, housing, and employment, in agriculture, textile, service, janitorial, transportation, construction, distribution, etc., as needed. But of course, legal workers, have good legal documents, and can apply for work at reputable employers.

4. By eliminating employers who hire undocumented immigrants and by securing the borders, we can begin to gain control over the theft of services in medical and education. By, building internment camps, as temporary holding facilities, for OTMs, halting the "Notice to Disappear" and by deporting the illegals, we can clear the decks, and get down to the business of running this once great nation back to the top of the economic scale. I also see a need to freeze/control rents, and real estate valuations, reduce/control inflation, enforce a living wage, and allow workers to establish personal savings accounts, while re-enforcing the single-income household. But, hey, I'm not the President.

The sight of men loitering outside of the Home Depot store, is the symptom of the problem of uncontrolled borders. The fact that so many men congregate outside, merely suggests, that they lack the documentation to seek work through approved means, and thus must resort to openly soliciting part-time work. "La Migra. May I see your papers please?"

What sweatshops? Sweatshops are against the law. If you know of any sweatshops, or slave labor, then you are supposed to report it to the cops or the FBI. perhaps a code enforcement division of the Mexican City of Los Angeles de Mexico. But, if sweatshops are culturally accepted, by Mexicans, then where is the crime?

What about NAFTA and the maquiladoras? Good or bad and how so? Are they a Win--Win or a Win--Lose or a Lose--Lose?

5. I have proven the SOS/MMP to be non-racist, in their efforts along the southern border, because they have no control over the content of the border crossers. The SOS/MMP do not determine the race of the person who decides not to follow established protocols for legal and healthful entry into the United States of America. The fact that the majority of illegal crossers on the southern border, are form Mexico, is not the fault of the SOS/MMP, but de facto evidence of a failure of cooperation from the governments, of the USA and Mexico, to do the job, for which they were hired.

I must say, that at some recent protest rallies, I did appreciate the apparent self-outting, of the Anarchists, Brown Berets, Brown Pride, Open-Borders Coalition, Reconquistas de Aztlan, MEChAs, Socialists, Communists, etc., on the opposition's side of the street.

Since I have answered your post, please indulge me.

About citizenship, culture, and loyatly:

I am an American, of the American culture, and loyal to America. I love America.

How about you?

Your .gif has no references. I could produce a similar 'table' and it would mean the same thing.
Nothing.
Did you view Cecil's thread?
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/11/22725.php
Now that is what I call research.
'fairly irrefutable' my butt.

I viewed this :
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
and it also lacks references.
Someone spent time for this manure, and it was a waste of time.

I delved into your 'deeplinks' and found more opinion by 'researchers' I have never heard of and niether have most people. Like I said. much time spent on a bottomless well of opinion.
I guess I just don't know your specialists. Like any talking or typing head, they are available for the purposes of muddying the waters.
One could waste much of their life combing out the tangles of disinformation.
I invite the reader to go there and check it out.

I stopped reading your commentary after the first paragraph. Please lookup the definition of "vigilante" and note that there is a difference in those that report crime as opposed to those that try to enforce the law. Also while you have your dictionary open you could lookup "racist" and perhaps gain a new understanding to which side of the illegal immigration debate that word largely applies too given what we have seen at places like Baldwin Park. Learning a few basic facts like this should add greatly to the validity of your commentaries.

BorderRaven's essay is well written, articulate, and addresses some of the issues brought up in my original essay. Of the some issues he address, I can't say I agree with all of them, nor can I say all of them justify many of the actions and rhetoric employed by his group. I can say that he presented himself in a reasonable and amicable manner and he represents a voice from their group that is vastly different (and much welcome), than the ones we hear more frequently. BorderRaven also demonstrates that this issue can be discussed in an open and frank manner without the childish name calling and resorting to ad hominem. It is somewhat sad that most of his fellows are unable to display that degree of thoughtfulness, but at least it makes us aware that not all of your group are products of pure reaction.

I laud BorderRaven for providing a concise definition of vigilante. It is important that both sides of this debate are clear on what the word means. The definition he uses is precisely the one I mean when I employ it (contrary to some posts in this thread, asking me to look the word up), and we agree that this isn't necessarily a derogatory thing. I use it so that we are clear that the activities of these groups are not limited to protest alone. We are in some disagreement over whether undocumented entry constitutes "law being broken, that is creating a danger to life or property." Certainly, current immigration law is broken, but I would be very interested in hearing a reasonably argued contention that it directly and overtly threatens life or property.

We can agree that technically vigilanteism isn't illegal or theoretically dangerous. In practice we see that there are grave problems with it, especially when it leads to situations of confrontation or violence. The incident in which a man held a group of people at gunpoint for a protracted time in Arizona comes to mind. Yes I am clear that this individual was in no way a member or even affiliated with the MMP. But in all honesty we have to ask if situations like this would have or won't continue to occur when an atmosphere is created that fosters that behavior. Furthermore, we need to take into account that the presence of armed people outside of so called official law enforcement could feasibly lead to an escalation of violence. It isn't hard to imagine a scenario under which all parties being armed find themselves in a very dangerous straights. This topic actually warrants much more care then I can spend time on, but I hope that bringing it up will lead to thoughtful consideration.

> You said, "Statements like Joe Turners' about "cultures that are inferior"
> are inherently racist." I will agree with you, that he probably shouldn't
> have put it the way he did.

BorderRaven's honesty regarding the racism of Mr. Turner's and other anti-immigrant group member's rhetoric is both refreshing and necessary for this debate. I am glad to see the courage and understanding that goes with this admission. Unlike one commenter who recommended I look up the definition of the word, BorderRaven and I both use the term exactly as it is defined. In fact, most lexicons include "a belief of inferiority of another group" as part of their definition. Let me be clear that most of us understand that not every participant of SOS/MMP are blatant racists. On the same note it is certain that some members are. Also, I would not deny that there is probably a number of opposition that would fall under the anti-immigrant groups' characterization of being racist as well.

It would be just as intellectually dishonest to say everyone in SOS/MMP is racist as it is for them to say that every member of the more militant Latino nationalist groups are racist. That said, we need to allow for discussion at some other time about the differences of racism of the oppressors versus the oppressed and all the attendant thinking that goes along with that. Time for discussion on how to end racism entirely would also be nice. Time doesn't allow for that now, but unlike many posting here, I think BorderRaven displays the intellectual curiosity and thoughtfulness to deal with these topics at some other time. That said, it is important for all those that make racist statements to understand that they will be labeled as racists. Racist is as racist does. If one holds racist views or expresses racist sentiment, then one is a racist.

I do have problems with BorderRaven's apologetics for Mr. Turner's rhetoric. While it is reasonable to try and understand the man's frame of mind when he makes these comments it doesn't excuse it. This wasn't an off the cuff remark made in the heat of the moment (even that wouldn't be excusable). This was something he wrote, which meant that he had time to carefully think about what he said. It is fair though to look at the rationales.

> But he was expressing how he feels, about seeing his country, impacted
> by an uncontrolled flow of outsiders, who are fleeing their former
> country, and bringing their culture to America. They are converting
> their neighborhoods, into mini-versions of what they are running from,
> complete with the problems, from which the fled. People of many cultures
> are doing this, and they are refusing to become Americans, by holding
> onto their "Old Country" ways. Welcome to America. We speak English
> here. Please learn our customs and traditions. Please become good
> American citizens

Aside from the rhetorical flourish (which I am just as guilty of) we would be well served looking at this more closely. Firstly, although it has been several years, I have been to the county in which Mr. Turner resides many occasions and though I haven't been to every city there, my recollections of it are nothing but of upper middle class neighborhoods and very anglo-oriented cities. Unless this has changed drastically in the past few years, I fail to see where Mr. Turner's prolonged first hand experience with so called neighborhood dilapidation comes from. On the other hand, I have lived for many years in Echo Park (Barrio Echo Parque, as we affectionately call it). Aside from recent gentrification, this community is made up primarily of immigrants, undocumented and documented alike, of many different culture and ethnicities, but certainly with a very large contingent of "Latin" peoples. I am not threatened, haven't contracted infectious diseases from being in their proximity, or have seen any of the other drastic, almost apocalyptic things that many in the anti-immigrant camp attribute to the presence of undocumented people.

Anecdote aside, let us look at the rest of the statement. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of immigration history (undocumented and documented alike) will recognize these time worn phrases. The Know-Nothing movement and many others employed similar language. Whether it occurred in the period before what we call immigration law came into being or after, influx of new groups have always undergone this same characterization. Every large group of immigrants, German, Irish, Italian, Puerto Rican, the list goes on ad infinitum, has been accused of bringing their culture here, converting neighborhoods, not learning the dominant language and keeping their "Old Country ways." When we speak of every large cities' "little Italy," "Chinatown," or of Pennsylvania Dutch country, or Solvang, we are discussing the same thing. However, today these communities are no longer vilified like they were at the time that they were scapegoated as some sort of threat to the prevailing culture. In fact they are often cherished for being "Old Country." Did not the earliest Anglo immigrants (undocumented, but most call them various names like pilgrims, settlers, etc.) bring their culture here as well? The fact that theirs became the dominant culture (we won't discuss the implications of that now), does little to change the fact that each successive group, starting with the Asiatics (i.e. Native Americans) who most would agree were here first, brought their culture here.

Historically all predictions that the refusal of culture X, to immediately assimilate would lead to the downfall of America have proved to be straw-men. I am sure that BorderRaven and more reasonable minds understand that. The second part of this debate always leads to a discussion of legality which, I will discuss from a different perspective. One of the inherent problems with the anti-immigrant movements' (I mean the ones that aren't motivated by racism, since that is its own problem) approach is that they have telescoped onto what they see as cause and effect of social ills. I am spending more time than I want on all this, so I will try to argue several points briefly towards this, but they need much more time to argue effectively. Please see them as thing to consider for further thinking and debate rather than points easily picked apart. At the last Baldwin Park event, an older gentlemen who later identified himself as SOS, had been listening in on a conversation we were having with some of the residents. When he brought up the issue of legality and we tried to place that in the light of historical context, he said "I'm not interested in history, I'm interested in now. They are breaking the law now." Problem with this is that without understanding history, we have trouble understanding now and even more in understanding the law now.

The oft used phrase "people are voting with their feet" would apply to anyone moving from one country to another. The range of reasons for this is as broad as the people that immigrate: religious or political persecution, economic opportunity, change of scenery, etc. A good majority of America's original Anglo settlers were because of the former, as scene by the Puritans, Quakers, et al. When we look at mass immigration, there is usually a common factor. The influx of Irish during the great potato famine is certainly a good example. In other words, when people immigrate en mass from one place to another, they may be "voting with their feet," but there is invariably some sort of push behind them. The reason this is important to understand in this context is that we need to look at the current influx and who is really responsible. The U.S. ruling class, along with the ruling classes of other countries, have created conditions that have pushed people into voting with their feet, regardless of the legality. IMF, WTO, and World Bank structural programs, NAFTA, S.O.A. trained death squads, overt or covert military intervention, funding of right wing governments and para-militaries through benevolent sounding organizations the the N.E.D., have created conditions that force so many to vote with their feet. I would venture that a forced vote isn't a vote at all, but we can address that at another time. I would further add that none of these policies are in the hands of just about anyone reading this, but we will look at why it is important.

Just as my original post call SOS/MMP to a different course of action, I would like to quickly propose the following. Instead of focusing narrowly on just undocumented immigration and the supposed effects (some of which may be slightly legitimate, but I won't go into that), your memberships should consider the broader issues. I have seen in various statements from both SOS/MMP that outsourcing and the awarding of certain types of work visas are held in just as much contempt by your groups. When those things are taken together with the fact that the vast majority of undocumented laborers come here because of economic oppression, reasonable thinkers in your group should think critically about what the real problem is.

I'm not asking you to overcome an aversion to Marxist ideas (although the educated among you will have read them, even if for being able to disagree with them), but can you at least entertain the idea that all of these things are related and for the same reason? We need to ask ourselves why outsourcing, increases in HB1 and other visas to immigrant technical workers, and what you call the unchecked flow at the borders (hence some of your member's boast that they are doing what government refuses to do) occurs and who it serves. I know the answer to this, but it is important that you reach your own conclusions.

I'm not asking you to become a leftist, but to examine this question of who is really at fault here seriously. Even within the confines of your beloved bourgeois representative democracy there is room for reform. Your efforts would be much more effective, broad reaching and reasonable if they were directed in that regard. While they fight for ever cheaper labor, and correspondingly greater profit, by all the things mentioned above, your group's efforts are really just aimed at a small symptom of the problem, and at the wrong end of it at that. While my initial essay hinted at that (albeit slightly tongue in cheek), the truth is that the real "squeaky wheel" you folks often refer to, isn't what you say it is when we look at the big picture. Again, I don't expect to join me in thinking that nothing short of working class self-emancipation is the only answer. By all means, please come up with a strategy that works within the framework of our existing form of government and economic system that can solve these economic problems. Our history has proven that working class struggle (this most times includes the middle class) has brought reforms, although most of these have been eroded over that past 30 or so years. Understand that scapegoating has never effectively raised wages, improved working conditions, brought us an eight hour work day, eliminated child labor (here) or any other gains. Struggle by U.S. labor did this. Struggle by labor and unions, side by side with the petty bourgeoisie, middle class, and yes, anarchists and socialists is what has always obtained these concessions.

History has shown what happens when the middle class decides that they are threatened by both the ruling and working class at the same time. The experiences in Italy, Spain and Germany are testament to how that isn't a good thing. Which brings me to that next topic.

> I'll comment anyway on the White Supremacist groups: They are not
> welcome in the SOS/MMP, but are free to pursue their own agendas, in
> their own fashion, without permission of the SOS/MMP. If you see the
> white supremacist groups at an SOS/MMP function, they are asked to step
> to a separated area, and do their own thing.

Some will appreciate your seemingly Libertarian outlook on this. An attitude of indifference may have some appeal, but as I hinted in my original essay this has given these people in their minds a degree of legitimacy. I am clear the majority in your groups want to maintain a degree of separation from them and I would hope that all of you would be fundamentally opposed to what they represent. However, nothing short of outright denunciation of their presence and participation (even on the periphery) is going to demonstrate your groups' intentions. What those White Supremacist groups are and what they represent is far too dangerous to maintain an aloof attitude towards. I would make the same denunciation of any rhetoric on our side that called for the extinction of Anglos or similar hate language.

> OK, the focus on the southern border, is an issue with you

BorderRaven's statements regarding the proximity of certain borders being the reason for the focus on that certain border. This is entirely reasonable, and we all know that this is certainly one of the primary motivators for the location of SOS/MMP activity. However, when we read about a MMP volunteer coming from as far as New York, it makes us wonder why they aren't taking up borders closer to them. Posts to the SOS site seemingly come from all around the country. One frequent poster claims North Carolina as home. While the proximity argument is certainly valid and understandable for your memberships that live here in the Southwest (granted, the vast majority of your active memberships), it doesn't explain the rest (granted a minority). Although there are some very large local seaports within the same geographic are a we are discussing, we can leave that alone. As for the the percentages driving the priority of which border your focus is on, again there is a degree of validity to that. I would refer you to my discussion earlier about outsourcing, HB1 visas and undocumented influx. We can agree to disagree, but while you maintain "how many" is what is important here I will maintain "why" is really the issue.

> US Government, could under the Selective Service System, provide able
> bodied and willing workers, with clothing, training, housing, and
> employment, in agriculture, textile, service, janitorial,
> transportation, construction, distribution, etc., as needed.

Why aren't they doing that now? Why does that have to wait for control of borders and mass deportations? You touch on the fundamental problem here, but take it no further. Who is served by not preventing employers from seeking ever cheaper labor, whether through outsourcing, by what you call a lack of effective border policing, or by other means. It isn't you and I. Why aren't the existing politicians in power listening to your groups' contentions? You speak of 'the people's duty to "reboot the machine".' Why would that have to wait until your vision of "native born citizenry" being supplanted, be a call of action for you. Although we can look at my original essay as satire, the reality is that the economic incentive for undocumented labor is absolutely the crux of the problem. The demand for cheap labor doesn't come from those who have to sell themselves out of economic necessity to provide it. When an earlier person posted about supply and demand, what they fail to recognize is that nobody willingly becomes that supply unless compelled to do so. Who wants to work under terrible conditions for terrible wages? People only do that when they have no other alternative. The opposite side of that coin is entirely different. We would be hard pressed to find employers that don't want the cheapest labor possible. Whatever euphemisms are current like downsizing and outsourcing, they all represent the same thing.

I won't touch the majority of BorderRaven's point 4, which hints of utter reaction (especially words like "internment camps"). This point

> I also see a need to freeze/control rents, and real estate valuations,
> reduce/control inflation, enforce a living wage, and allow workers to
> establish personal savings accounts, while re-enforcing the
> single-income household. But, hey, I'm not the President.

Sounds like BorderRaven may almost be progressive. Except for single-income household, which depending on what he means by it, is reactionary unless qualified. Why would you need to be president? Name one reform in our history, be it labor rights, civil rights, woman's rights, etc. that came from the benevolence of "enlightened politicians." Nay, every single one of them came through struggle. Strikes, protest, and mass mobilization by the good people of this country have forced the politicians to make concessions. I would say that you, and probably a good number of your memberships would be much better served at looking at those roads to fixing social problems.

> Since I have answered your post, please indulge me.
> About citizenship, culture, and loyatly:
>
> I am an American, of the American culture, and loyal to America.
> I love America. How about you?

Gladly.

> I am an American
My birth certificate, DD-214, and passport all indicate that I am as well.

> of the American culture
I suppose by being born and raised here would make it nearly impossible to be anything but. I don't mean that in a derogatory or critical sense, I just think it is seemingly a rhetorical device. A discussion of culture, especially in a place with an amalgamation of so many cultures, would take far too long for the scope of this forum.

> loyal to America
This is a curious topic. By loyalty do we mean law abiding? If so, then I try to abide by the law to the best of my ability even when I may be in disagreement with some of it. For the sake of total honesty I must say that there is one exception, I have a bad habit of breaking the posted speed limit most of the time.

Is loyalty somehow related to a willingness to "defend and uphold the Constitution?" This is a complex topic, but rather than dealing in the abstract I turn to concrete examples. Would I defend my neighbors if another group of people were OVERTLY trying to kill, harm or oppress them? Unequivocally yes. Would I demonstrate blind loyalty to the U.S. ruling class by killing, harming or oppressing another group of people to increase empire and profit for the ruling class? No, I wouldn't if it was avoidable. Of course the ruling class themselves espouse that last sentence, as seen by the fact that the sum total of active military duty in high posts of the current administration is negligible to none. Not that this would be much different if the other ruling class party held the reigns.

I suppose it would serve to know exactly what we mean by loyalty before I try to answer the question as it was posed. Answering the question in a different fashion, I would have to say that first I am a child of God, a human being, and then an American. My priorities and loyalties flow from and in that order.

> I love America. How about you?
Again this opens such a wide range of questions. Jingoism and extreme nationalism have no place in my life. Do I love the majority of my sisters and brothers that occupy this place we identify as nation? Yes. Do I love peoples of other places where other lines indicating region or nation have been drawn for myriad political reasons? Yes. Do I love some of the other places I have had the good fortune to visit like Japan? Yes. So if we mean do I love America by do I love the majority of working class peoples who reside here, then I would most certainly say yes. If we change that definition, I might have to answer differently.

=========
P.S.

The reactionary participants (this is not directed at BorderRaven) on this forum consider any dissent or criticism of the U.S. ruling class' foreign policy as "hating America." I've always wondered what that means. However abstract the statements "un-American" or "hating America" may be, it might do us some good to look at them. What is America anyway? Are we referring to a geographical location, the people that populate the location, the form of government, the economic system, or even the range of cultural expression found across the location.

Regardless of how we try to define it, I can't say that I or any of the leftists I associate with "hates America." Do I hate the U.S. ruling class along with the ruling class everywhere that oppress, exploit, and cause widespread death and misery? Yes. Understand (since few of the reactionaries here will read Marxist theory) that we don't see the capitalist class as specifically belonging to any given nationality. They make use of state apparatus when it serves them, then ignore and even fight it when it doesn't. This is why they are prone to jingoism when it suits them (i.e. let's make war profits), and are completely nationless when it doesn't (i.e. sorry we just outsourced your job to country X).

The red baiting here is interesting and I will address it in part. I make no bones about the fact that I am a leftist. For a Veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, raised in fairly reactionary neighborhood, and for a long time educated under our reactionary system, this was not something I just decided to become one day. It was the result of much reading, looking critically at history and life experience. The people here that dismiss leftists out of hand because of various propaganda and historical misinterpretations, would be well served investigating what they criticize. "Contempt prior to investigation" is a "principle... which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance," says the reactionary Herbert Spenser. I though it best to quote someone as far from the leftist tradition as they come, plus some of my fellow trudgers will recognize the quote from another context.

For all the talk of "Communist Democide" in this forum let me say the following. The Marxist tradition I belong to does not recognize Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or any of the collection of totalitarianisms, state capitalisms, and others mentioned as being remotely socialist or communist. We recognize the handful of short held workers' power the only examples of real socialism (i.e. the Paris Commune, the initial Bolshevik revolution [pre-Stalin], etc.) You won't get any argument from me over statements like "Stalin was a mass murderer." But since I don't recognize Stalin as a Marxist, statements regarding all those how have died because of Marxist ideology hold no weight with me. While I could say how many people have died as the result of competing, and particularly right wing ideologies, a tit for tat comparison of how many people have died for this or that political belief is tedious in the light of the following.

Wars and mass murder are always committed against the working class by the working class under the direction of the ruling class solely for the benefit of the ruling class. Whether that ruling class is dictator, Stalinist bureaucracy, venture capitalist or landed gentry. Who of us ever benefits from war? With the exception of a handful of war profiteers, and those whose class position grants them immunity, everyone suffers. The oppressed come in many forms. The family in middle America that loses a loved one in our current attempts to recolonialize the Near East--suffers. The family of the dissident killed by a government claiming to be communist (in a real worker's democracy, which is true socialism, it would be hard to find a dissident)--suffers. A family murdered in Columbia because of rumors that they may be FARC-EP friendly--suffers.

We, the working class peoples of the world have suffered enough. If you are a working class person you have much more in common with the Iraqi oil worker, the Guatemalan seamstress, the Laotian peasant, the Japanese auto worker, and the Danish deck hand than you ever have with the Kerrys and Bushes, the Elisons and Gates, the Rockefellers and Lays. It is with my fellow workers that my solidarity lies, and my heart goes out to. From Acton Ohio to Zimbabwe, from Kyoto to Havana, from Los Angeles to Dresden, from Basra to Sydney, I am your fellow worker, your comrade, and we have a world to win.

Well, the language has mellowed here, but not the sentiment.

Border Raven's entire discussion of the legal status of migrants is a red herring for what SOS and the Minutemen want: the Europeanization of the continent. Nothing else explains their insistence that Spanish heritage is dominant among Mexicano/as, that terrorists are the only threat on the northern border, that those who protest against them are nearly all illegal and should be deported, that "good" Mexican-Americans adopt Euro-American ways and English language. They stand in proximity with proud white supremacists, they allow white supremacists to glorify their actions without constraint or condemnation--this is way past libertarianism and well into affiliation. Turner tells them to cool it on their fora because the media is watching, and they can't even manage that. The racist (yes, there's that word again) comments by Turner and others are merely icing on that racist cake.

If they had their way Sedona would look like Boise. I see no one in SOS walking away from all that, no one taking up illegal immigration without racism, without hatred for all Mexican culture.

But let's look at the cazamigrantes on, as they were called in yesterday's Tecate newspaper, on the border. They call themselves patriots, even as they undermine US relations with Mexico. They proclaim themselves heroes as they hunt down those least able to protect or defend themselves and their families, migrants who cross the border without the protection of any government, without a dime in their pockets, without community, without weapons, without food and water. This, to the MMP, is bravery: to raise their guns against people, even children, at their most vulnerable.

Bravery to SOS is keeping the neediest in our communities from getting work by trying to shut down day labor centers, making sure that even undocumented workers who want to contribute to the workforce can't do so. They begrudge sharing their wealth (and everyone of us is wealthy by international standards) even with those who live in their own communities, meanwhile doing their damnedest to make sure their neighbors can't get work.

Such heroism! Such bravery! Such patriotism!

Border Raven is a bird of prey, feeding on migrants at the border, by definition a cazamigrante. To seek unity with him is to accept that Border Raven has a right to that identity. To agree with him is to affirm that identity. Soar with him if you will, but recognize where he is when he isn't winging his way through dialogue with you.

Thank you for reminding me. I lost my place.

I still hold onto, and should know better, hope some of them are misguided and just need a little push to see things for what they really are. I leave my last post on that breeze, still appealing to sanity, but knowing that you are right. Your gentle reminder brought me from those heights and back to the ground.

Caught up in the winds of this discussion I lost sight of who this is about. The most vulnerable, the downtrodden, the defenseless. Those exploited and oppressed beyond anything I can imagine.

I am ashamed of my intellectual arrogance, allowing me to forget them. Allowing me to try to defend our position which needs no defense. As if the inherent dignity and humanity of every human being needed my rhetorical affirmation. I am ashamed and apologize. When I lie in my bed tonight I will think of them. Displaced, hungry, exhausted, cold, full of fear, clinging to that one hope.

> Border Raven is a bird of prey, feeding on migrants at the border, by
> definition a cazamigrante. To seek unity with him is to accept that
> Border Raven has a right to that identity. To agree with him is to
> affirm that identity. Soar with him if you will, but recognize where he
> is when he isn't winging his way through dialogue with you.

The poetry is beautiful. Thank you for reminding me.

En solidaridad!

Quote>>>>
>>>>>>>>>

Civil groups will watch actions of cazamigrantes in California JOSE ANTONIO ROMAN Four outstanding organizations of lawyers of San Diego announced the creation of a coalition to monitorear the activities of the cazamigrantes calls - groups of civilians whom they have programmed to initiate his patrolling in the border between California and Mexico in the next weeks -, and with it to dissuade or to denounce possible abuses against the human rights of the migrantes that they try to enter the United States. The Lawyers Race of San Diego, the Civil American Liberties Union, National Lawyers Guild and the Association of Inmigration Law Attorneys are the four organizations with one long trajectory in the defense of the civil and human rights of all that resides in estadunidense territory, including the migrantes, that have been united to recruit and to train volunteers to observe close by to the watchmen and making a detailed registry of the interactions of these with the migrantes.


END Quote<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>> It's got nothing to do with imperialism or exploitation.

LOL.

I doubt if even right wing capitalism-defenders would agree with that. Capitalism and imperialism go hand-in-hand. BA, your ignorance is astounding.

Wealth redistribution is a good thing, and was part and parcel of the ideology that founded the USA. Read some Jefferson or de Tocqueville. You can't have democracy without equitable weath distribution.

>>Please lookup the definition of "vigilante" and note that there is a difference in those that report crime as opposed to those that try to enforce the law.

There's a difference between the definition and the history of vigilantism.

The history of vigilantism is one marked by midnight raids and lynchings of minorities, poor people, and petty criminals. What the Klan was to the South, vigilantes were to the West. Here's an excerpt from a page I found about a local vigilante group:

-----------------------

"four horse thieves were lynched by vigilantes from El Monte, who were arrested. Frank King signed a petition demanding the release of theses men, calling them "some of our Best Citizens," and they were never tried. Finally, on January 29, 1857, the three King brothers were principles in a lynch murder. A Mexican, thought by some to be Jose Santos, one of a notorious band of outlaws that had killed the sheriff and instigated revolution, and by others to be an inoffensive servant was wounded and cornered in a swamp near San Gabriel. The swamp was set on fire, and while the owner of the land was imploring the gathering mob to capture the man alive, the Mexican raised his head above the reeds, and was shot and killed by one of the King brothers. The mob wanted to whip the body; later, at San Gabriel, the corpse was stabbed, mutilated, and decapitated by a drunken mob, and three more persons were killed."
[re: Magazine, Olsen, R.; "Truly Western" 1980?]

-----------------------------

Historically, vigilantes are murderous thugs who get some support from the state, for carrying out a racist, anti-democratic project of violence and intimidation against minorities. What evil deeds the state cannot do, because it's constrained by laws and a Constitution that are supposed to apply to people equally, vigilantes execute to maintain the status quo.

The primary criticisms vigilantes lodge against the state and police is that they are not violent enough, not murderous enough, and not powerful enough. Indeed, to day, the SOS says the same thing. They openly advocate for a police state.

Indeed, they will even say that their members are "some of the best Citizens," recycling the rhetoric of those who defend vigilante murderers.