Minuteman Ron Branstner, who spoke at an "immigration reform" meeting in Austin this fall, dropped by yesterday morning and left a comment on our earlier post about Javier Morillo-Alicea's column What's a Minnesota politician doing with the Minutemen?.
We are posting it here.
Rather than fisking Mr. Branstner, we'll first cut and paste the comment without editing or reaction:
That fact that this article was published is amazing to anyone that knows the truth.
Javier Morillo-Alicea is an appointee of the twin city mayors who support a sanctuary policy. which is in violation of federal law 1324 (a) (aiding and abetting). So how can we take anything this man says seriously.
In todays standards if anyone defends this country they are vigilanties. Maybe we should consider changing the Paul Revere story and call Minuteman of there time vigilanties.
The open border groups are above reproach and should be denounced when ever they open their anti american sediments mouths.
Dick Day is a hero to do what other politicians will not. Mr. Day risked his life on the border to find the truth.
But maybe americans can't handle the truth.
Now we'll unpack Branstner's remarks. First, he asks BSP readers to disregard Javier Morillo-Alicea's column because the labor leader and activist is "an appointee" in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Both cities have adopted policies in which the police don't actively conduct status checks. Therefore, Morillo-Alicea shouldn't be listened to.
This claim is an ad hominem attack, an attack to the person, rather than the substance of the arguments being presented. It also is argument by assertion and guilt by association; that is, if one doesn't hold to Mr. Branstner's worldview, then he may simply dismiss the other person's arguments as wrong, though the case isn't argued. Nor can anyone appointed by mayors of "sanctuary cities" have a voice in the immigration debate, sullied as he is by contact with Rybak and Coleman.
So let's take a look at those appointments; apparently the Yale University grad's service stems more from his union leadership than from his immigration reform activism, for two of the three appointments have to do with economic development issues. From Almanac:
Morillo-Alicea is president of SEIU Local 26, which unites over 5,100 property service workers — janitors, security guards, and window cleaners. He came to Minnesota in 2000 to teach anthropology and history at Carleton College. Morillo-Alicea taught a year in the Macalester College History Department before a sudden career change and good fortune moved him out of academia and into the labor movement. Currently, he serves as an appointee of Mayor Chris Coleman to the St. Paul Riverfront Development Corporation and to the St. Paul Human Rights Commission. He is also an appointee of Mayor R.T. Rybak to the Minneapolis Private Industry Workforce Council.
The section of the U.S. Code that Branstner brings up is found here, among other places. Branstner simply asserts that his reading of the code is the law of the land, but does not make the case that this is how courts have interpreted it.
Next, Branstner writes: "In todays standards if anyone defends this country they are vigilanties..." An odd statement in light of current support for the troops in general, and of recent Minnesota history in particular. At Governor Pawlenty's bidding, members of the Minnesota National Guard have gone down to New Mexico to assist the Border Patrol. Here's what one pro-immigrant advocate said about the move:
Mariano Espinoza, executive director of the Minnesota Immigrant Freedom Network, also called the National Guard mobilization a "band-aid." He wants Congress and President Bush to focus less on border security, and more on matters like increasing the number of guest worker visas. Espinoza says that would allow more immigrants to work in the United States legally.
"We need to fix the broken immigration system with comprehensive immigration reform and providing venues for people to come to this country. Militarization is not the entire solution," Espinoza said. "It could be one of the solutions, but not the entire solution."
Even Espinoza admits that sending guard members could be one of the solutions. He doesn't call them vigilantes, nor (as far as we can find) did anyone else. Veterans Day events were packed this year in Southern Minnesota, and Guard members returning from Iraq were greeted with hearty welcomes. No, sorry, it isn't just "anyone" who "defends our country" who gets called a vigilante. The Minutemen somehow seem to have earned that designation that eludes the Border Patrol and the members of the armed services.
Look below the fold to discover why.
A quick look at the References.com entry for "vigilantes" suggests why. The Border Patrol and the Guard are well established military and enforcement agencies operating under the control of a constituted government. Vigilantes are private, extralegal groups. Recent article in the Orlando Sentine discusses opinion about the Minutemen:
. . .Minutemen have been called "vigilantes" by President Bush and bigots by immigration advocates. The Anti-Defamation League, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform consider them extremists who employ the tactics and rhetoric of white-power groups.
Members describe foreigners using loaded words such as swarm and horde. They rattle off facts and figures gleaned from the Internet -- even when the facts are fiction.
They have claimed, for example, that illegal immigrants are responsible for 7,000 new cases of leprosy in three years. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, however, says the real number is fewer than 1,400 in 10 years.
"Some of this stuff is entirely false," said Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, "but it's accepted as reality."
Potok, however, doesn't think most border-security types are "unrobed Klansmen." Many, he said, are "well-meaning" and correct when they say the government's immigration policies "are completely broken."
But he is troubled by the movement's methods and the mean streak it seems to nurture. At any gathering of border-security proponents, you'll see T-shirts that, at best, can be described as unkind. One reads, "Because sneaking across the border is illegal, stupid ." Another depicts Uncle Sam saying, "I want you to speak English or get out!"
"They're not debating policy," Potok said. "They're targeting individuals." . . .
As for calling Paul Revere and the original Minutemen "vigilantes," Ranstner's got it bass ackwards. Like used car salesmen festooning their lots with the American flag, the contemporary Mintemen have borrowed a name from history in an attempt to transfer the authority of the patriotic symbol to their own actions. Transfer is a classic propaganda technique.
Here's a pretty accessible and reliable article about the original Minutemen:
Although the terms militia and minutemen are sometimes used interchangeably today, in the 18th century there was a decided difference between the two. Militia were men in arms formed to protect their towns from foreign invasion and ravages of war. Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength. Usually about one quarter of the militia served as Minutemen, performing additional duties as such. The Minutemen were the first armed militia to arrive or await a battle. . . .
Not vigilantes by any definition, but rather a part of the well-regulated militia. The suggestion that Minnesotans will now bad-mouth the historical Minutemen is but another false connection, self-pitying self-name-calling that only the contemporary Minutemen are suggesting.
Brantner's next utterance, "The open border groups are above
reproach and should be denounced when ever they open their anti
american sediments mouths" is just plain incoherent. To be above reproach
means to be "Too good to be criticized; perfect." Nor does he tell us
which "open border" group Mr. Morillo-Alicea can claim membership. Is
it the SEIU? The St. Paul Riverfront Development Corporation? Former
Mayor Randy Kelly, under whose watch St Paul adopted its current policy?
The Random House Dictionary defines anti-Americanism as "opposed or hostile to the United States of America, its people, its principles, or its policies." What did the union leader and activist write that was anti-American in What's a Minnesota politician doing with the Minutemen?, the column to which Branstner objects:
These vigilantes offer division, not solutions, in the immigration debate. Dick Day should not have fraternized with them in his recent visit to the border.
In our national dialogue about our broken immigration system, our political leaders have two choices: They either can come together to find solutions that are practical and fair, or they can fuel the flames by appealing to worst in us by creating fear and confusion around the issue. Unfortunately, in his run for Congress, Minnesota state Sen. Dick Day has chosen the latter path.
According to a recent report in the Star Tribune, Day, R-Owatonna, recently traveled to Arizona at the invitation of a group called the Minuteman Project. It's been widely reported that the Minutemen are a group of civilian vigilantes that take the law into their own hands by patrolling the U.S.-Mexico border fully armed, without the official sanction of the United States Border Patrol or local law enforcement. Their members advocate the immediate expulsion of all undocumented immigrants in the country, no matter the effect on our economy and society, and for the construction of a 700-mile-long fence along the border, no matter the cost.
While the Minutemen are treated by some as just another voice in the immigration debate, they have demonstrated that they are an extremist group with no interest in real solutions. It's been documented by the Southern Poverty Law Center that they've attracted racists and hatemongers into their ranks and have spawned a slew of copycat organizations that are even more explicit in their agenda of hate. Witness Dave Bertrand, the Minuteman who hosted Day's personal visit to Arizona and who describes himself as a "culture warrior." Bertrand has posted photos and stories of Day's visit to the border on his website.
Sadly, that's not all you'll find there. Bertrand's blog is also filled with paranoid rants about a supposed Hispanic conspiracy to "take back" the United States for Mexico. He believes that America is on the brink of a civil war brought about by too much cultural diversity. Indeed, just last October, he wrote that Confederate-style secession from the United States "may be a viable solution to avoiding a civil war."
The racial anxiety that underlies Bertrand's radical positions on immigration is palpable. In a post entitled, "The Rebirth of America by Sex," he argues that the government should be actively encouraging American citizens to have more babies because "Hispanic opponents supporting illegal immigration are encouraging their culture to mass produce children in order to outnumber the Anglo Saxon and other cultures that make up the United States." So a fully armed vigilante advocate for secession from the United States who fears Hispanic reproduction was Day's exposure to our southern border.
Americans want honest, long-term solutions to the immigration issue, but while we've been waiting for Congress and the president to act, one thing is clear to most of us: Fear and hatred have not brought us closer to a comprehensive solution. Is it clear to Day as well?
Most of us recognize that a workable, long-term solution to the immigration issue will include some combination of sanctions on employers who exploit undocumented workers, an earned path to citizenship for those who have worked hard and paid taxes for years, more-effective border security, and a controlled, legal immigration flow. Most of us also recognize that deporting 12 million people and erecting a 700-mile-long border-fence will not solve the issue. And none but the most politically opportunistic want our honest political debate poisoned by paranoid rants.
Immigration is a tough issue, but an enforcement-only approach of raids, detention centers and border fences -- all paid for by taxpayer dollars -- won't solve it. It's time to replace the chaos of our broken immigration system, which exploits immigrant labor and hurts all American workers, with a pragmatic, controlled system that works for all of us.
As Minnesotans, we must challenge our political candidates and elected officials to bring people together to address the tough issues head-on. But so far, Dick Day has shown that he's more interested in dividing us.
As Minnesotans, we deserve better.
Javier Morillo-Alicea is an immigration reform advocate. He is also president of SEIU Local 26, a union of more than 5,000 janitors and security officers in the state.
Both the Minutemen and Morilla-Alicea dislike some things about American policy, but that doesn't make either party "anti-American."
Finally, Branstner tells us that Day's weekend trip to Arizona is makes him a "hero" who risked his life. Certainly Day would like voters to believe that, and yet one has to ask what real risks were involved in tooling around the desert with the Minutemen. Heat stroke? Rattlesnakes? A blown tire? As for Americans not knowing the "truth" that only Day could deliver, Gil Gutknecht risked his political life last year to deliver that news over and over again. He lost the bet.
Branstner would have readers believe that he is possessed of a "truth" that would not allow the column to be published. And yet it is difficult for us to discern that "truth." Like Dick Day's conflation of criticism with censorship the other day in the Mankato Free Press, it seems as if both believe their version of the universe trumps any policy discussion.
Bonus: We noticed a curious thing in Day's MFP screed:
I’m simply the kind of guy who needs to see a problem first hand rather than take the word of special interest groups or government agencies.
This no doubt explains why he didn't contact the Border Patrol and set up a ridealong before heading to Arizona to dally with the Minutemen. Somehow, it would corrupt his judgement to go through channels with a government agency (we're not sure which ones he means other than the Border Patrol when it comes to, well, patrolling the border). Nonetheless, he sure did want the Strib to think he was accompanied by its agents. In the new column, he admits to simply talking to agents while he was there.
As to why his hosts the Minutemen aren't part of a special interest group? Here's part of what the Rochester Post Bulletin said right after Branstner's Austin meeting. Must just be part of Planet Dick.
Comments