May 3, 2006


Minutemen recruit blacks against illegal immigrants (MARK BROWN, May 3, 2006, Chicago SUN-TIMES)

For the handful of self-styled immigration enforcers from the Chicago Minuteman Project, this was old hat.

This time, though, they had some new comrades-in-arms: a contingent of African-American men, mostly ex-offenders involved with an organization that advocates finding jobs for individuals with criminal records.

"These people haven't served time for their crimes, and they're getting amnesty," complained Mark Carter, 32, of Lawndale, who says he went to prison on a drug offense. "We're being pushed aside. The ex-offenders should have got amnesty before any illegal aliens. Are there certain laws that certain people can break?"

Carter's friend from Roseland, Paul McKinley, a leader of the group, Voice of the Ex-Offender, later suggested a solution with eerie echoes: "Send them back where they come from."

Illegal immigration is an extremely sensitive issue across the African-American community, and the problem of unemployed young men with criminal pasts is just one subset.

The confluence of interests among nativists, blacks and Labor creates a delicious dynamic.

Posted by Orrin Judd at May 3, 2006 9:39 AM

"The confluence of interests among nativists, blacks and Labor creates a delicious dynamic."

Wait until you see the delicious dynamic created between the Bloods, Crips and the Mexican Mafia.

Posted by: NC3 [KKK] at May 3, 2006 10:28 AM

What could be more American than recent immigrants running mobs? There are no movies more beloved by the same middle aged white guys who hate immigrants than the Godfather and Scarface.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2006 10:32 AM

1) One of the favorite lies of the web of lies that is the illegal immigration conspiracy is the big, big one to the effect that the wetbacks are not per se criminals. Like the other big lies of infamy, this one is repeated again and again, with shameless depravity, until it looks like the truth.

Well, what is it? Is illegal immigration a crime, or is it not a crime? As they say, you could look it up. Why not look it up in the U.S. Code? I would wager that definitions of crimes might be there, in the law books.

Well gosh all gee--Title 8, Section 1325 does tell us that illegal immigration is a crime and that those who sneak into the country are, in fact, criminals. It is not a big crime, not the first offense, anyway.

We may debate whether it should be a crime at all, or whether it should become a greater crime, but we may not contest that it is instantly a crime.

Strong evidence of the bad faith of the criminal immigration conspirators is that they vehemently oppose compromises on future laws whereby concessions to the wetback cabal are to be matched by inhancement of the penalty for the crime.

This tell us that they are bargaining for a "heads-I-win; tails-you-lose": amnesty and line-jumping now, and criminal business as ususal in the future.

2) As for other criminals asking for the solicitude offered criminal immigrants, we may see a certain logic. If the laws are to be outraged for some, why should they not be relaxed for all.

We should recall the fate of cultures undergoing catastrophic failures of morale upon renunciation of this or that element of their core culture. What emperor-worship had been to the Japanese, respect for law and order has been to us. Consider only the arguement, made on these pages, that "I'm a liar and cheat, we're all liars and cheats, I'll bet you're a liar and cheat too, so let's not enforce the laws on anyone." Does not that attitude of cynicism and expediency change who we are and how we live?

3) As to the political effect of all this, this issue has the potential to be "the Big One" for political realignment. It is definitely a coalition-buster, for both parties. We need to be very, very careful about who is left standing to pick up the pieces.

Posted by: Lou Gots at May 3, 2006 12:13 PM

Thank you for your thoughts Mr. Gots. Could you now look up the part of the legal code where it explains Felony(you know, actual crime) vs. Misdemeanor(not a crime, but we don't like it)?
As a second question, since the U.S. code is so long that no one knows whats in it in total, and everyone has broken some part of the code, does that mean that we should all leave and give the country back to the Indians?

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 3, 2006 12:28 PM


If it is a crime, a dubious proposition given the failure to enforce it and the universal complicity in violating it, it is an immoral law and deserving of no respect. The Underground Railroad was technically a criminal enterprise too.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2006 12:29 PM

I hate Illinois "Minutemen"!

Posted by: Bob at May 3, 2006 12:52 PM

OJ, I would point out that Mr. Gots thinking is common in the Republican party, and why the Democrats have been able to smear us as Nazis for so long.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 3, 2006 12:53 PM


But that's been a political plus because it's made Democrats the party opposed to whites.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2006 12:59 PM

Robert Mitchell

Nothing Lou Gots said could be construed as Nazi.


I wouldn't say Democrats hate whites, that would malicious and untrue.

Better to just accurately say that they hate America and everything it stands for. (The party of pinkos, punks, perverts)

Posted by: h-man at May 3, 2006 2:59 PM


I didn't say that either. Their rhetoric over the last fifty years though has made them the party of blacks and the GOP of whites.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2006 3:03 PM

Thanks for your thoughts H-Man. I was calling attention to Mr. Gots little 'Orders, I must follow the Orders!' routine. I am not claiming he is a Nazi, but that is what the Democrats are referencing when they call Republicans Nazis. I am sorry that I was not more clear.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 3, 2006 3:05 PM

One of the benefits of a particular tradition of faith is that the ideal of forgiveness, having been practiced, or at least pursued, aids one in putting aside slights.

The objection has been raised that respect for the law is a "Nazi" trait, but I reply, on the contrary, that the Nazi view of legality is dimetrically opposed to the view that laws are rules of general application, applied equally to geese and ganders, Jews and "Aryans," Mexicans and Poles, without regard to either the passions of the moment or the interest of the state.

Part of the Nazis' depravity was not that they respected law, but that they did not. Laws were written and re-written to suit ideology, and Nazi judges intepreted and applied laws according to shamelessly biased canons of construction: what helped the Party and the "race" was law.

But this is all part of the record: you could look it up.

Posted by: Lou Gots at May 3, 2006 4:35 PM

It's no coincidence that our immigraqtion quotas were put into effect when our elites were eugenecists.

Posted by: oj at May 3, 2006 4:51 PM

Thank you for your forgiveness and thoughts Mr. Gots. But we said that 'I was only following orders' was not a defence at the end of WWII, because the Nazis were able to manipulate those who did respect the law, without judgement. Some of us feel that the current laws are 'intepreted and applied laws according to shamelessly biased canons of construction'. Which is why your arguements to authority fall on deaf or suspicious ears.

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 3, 2006 5:32 PM

Orrin writes:

"If it is a crime, a dubious proposition given the failure to enforce it and the universal complicity in violating it, it is an immoral law and deserving of no respect."

Hmmm. Wonder what other laws fall into that category?

Posted by: ted welter at May 4, 2006 7:41 AM

Sodomy and speeding.

Posted by: oj at May 4, 2006 7:56 AM

The Tax code.....

Posted by: Robert Mitchell Jr. at May 4, 2006 11:12 AM

...and ripping those little tags off the upholstery...

But seriously, Orrin's argument is the exact same argument people make for legalizing drugs (drug laws are selectively enforced, and at least with marijuana, largely ignored depending on where you go).

But I suspect that Orrin doesn't have as much sympathy for potheads as he does for "undocumented workers" (who were arguably the the first subcultures to smoke marijuana in the U.S).

But that is what is so entertaining about this site--Watching oj defend his worldview (well, at least his pose) which says that speeding and immigration laws should be abandoned, while sodapop and cigarettes should be banned. And he thinks Pat Buchanan is wacky.

Posted by: ted welter at May 4, 2006 12:12 PM


To the contrary, we've achieved a prison population of two million precisely by taking drug crime seriously.

Speed limits and immigration rules are convenient so that we can crack down on egregious offenders, but no one takes the laws seriously otherwise.

Posted by: oj at May 4, 2006 12:25 PM

So let me get this straight. People are fed up with immigrants committing "crime" so they enlist the help of ex cons to stop them??????????? Kinda hypocritical if you ask me. I guess in addition to having Neo Nazis and Klans men, the minutemen now have drug dealing Gangster Disciples and Vice Lords. Only in America.

Posted by: Vincent at June 7, 2006 12:28 PM