Return of the Nativist

The history of Irish immigration to America is grand indeed, but the chronicle of overcoming adversity and bigotry has always been marred by the flare-ups of our own version of arriviste nativism. Predominantly Irish rioters rampaged through the streets of New York in 1863, as blacks become the scapegoat for Irish anger over the Civil War draft. In the 1870s Irish American immigrants attacked Chinese immigrants in the western states, driving them out of smaller towns. Immigrant Denis Kearney led a mass movement in San Francisco in 1877 that threatened harm to railroad owners if they hired any Chinese. For immigrants so recently and flamboyantlhy deined their own rights, these episodes are a black mark on the long struggle of Irish Catholics in America.

And then there's Jim Gilchrist.

Gilchrist, whose name in Gaelic means "servant of Christ," is an Irish Catholic American who sends me emails urging support for his Minuteman Project.

The ironically-surnamed Gilchrist founded the Minuteman Project two years ago, with the aim of stemming the flow of illegal immigrants from across the border in Mexico. Gilchrist and his band spread a thin veneer of law enforcement and grassroots political credibility across their organization, but the Minuteman Project is nothing short of a return of the Nativists, that know-nothing, last one in shut the door bunch of haters that opposed European immigration a century ago. And sadly, the Minutemen - and one Jim Gilchrist - are the direct descendants of the haters who lynched the blacks and the Chinese in the 19th century.

That this movement is led by another Irish Catholic, the child of an immigrant culture that faced ethnic and religious persecution on these shores, is both sad and horrifying to this Irish Catholic.

Make no mistake, the Minuteman Project is a project of hate. While it describes itself as "a citizens' Neighborhood Watch on our border" - "white Martin Luther Kings" in Gilchrist's words - their actions tell another story.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a well-respected civil rights organization, white supremacists and neo-Nazi's are prominent Minutemen. At the group's rally last April kicking off a month of volunteer "patrols" along the border, members of the racist National Alliance were in action:

Prominent among the demonstrators were two men who confided that they were members of the Phoenix chapter of the National Alliance — the largest neo-Nazi group in America. One of the two, who sat in lawn chairs throughout, held a sign with arrows depicting invading armies of people from Mexico — a sign identical to National Alliance billboards and pamphlets, except without the Alliance logo.

In fact, National Alliance pamphlets were distributed in Tombstone and this predominantly Hispanic community just two days before the Minuteman Project got going. "Non-Whites are turning America into a Third World slum," they read. "They come for welfare or to take our jobs. Let's send them home now."

Then there was Minuteman volunteer Joe McCutchen, carrying his .38 snub nose automatic. Here's his take on the immigrants:

"A lot of these people coming in, they're diseased. They've got tuberculosis, leprosy. I mean, you don't even want to touch them unless you're wearing gloves. So why the hell should we pay our taxes to cure them? ... They're turning our country into a Third World dumping ground. We're losing our language to them, losing our culture. They're taking over, and if we don't stop [immigration], our society will not survive. That's why I'm here."

On their so-called patrols, the Minutemen say they will peaceably detain illegals and call local law enforcement. But during one incident last year, members of the group physically assaulted a young Mexican and forced him to be photographed wearing a T-shirt with a Minuteman slogan on it - you know, just for laughs.

Gilchrist knows the language of the haters of the far right, the quasi-David Duke code words, the kind of language that might pass Pat Buchanan muster. Here's what he told Fox News host Alan Colmes last year:

Alan, there are supremacist groups out there of all races, colors and creeds. It's not just white supremacists. Why are you picking on them? There are brown. There are purple. There are red.

Yeah, those purple supremacist groups are a real threat to our way of life. A month ago, a group of students from my alma mater rushed the stage when Gilchrist was booked to speak at Columbia, and fought a brief, pitched battle with his handlers. Reading what Gilchrist has said over the past few years, they would have been far more effective in their goal of marginalizing his views by letting him speak.

With an election only five days away, Gilchrist was hitting the send button big-time this week, penning this little missive from one Irish Catholic to another:

"We aren't taking anything for granted. We know the American people agree with us, by a large majority, a super-majority, but we are continuing to work with pro-security candidates to get our message out. If Americans who care about border security don't get out to vote this election, we can kiss the United States Constitution goodbye - but I believe we will see a great turnout, and it will be because no true American wants to lose his country for lack of border security."

Haters like Gilchrist hide behind "security" and immigration quotas, but always manage to slip that little "culture" thing in there, as if American culture wasn't polyglot, an ever-shifting amalgam of rich influences from everywhere on the planet. Funny, that's exactly what white Protestants said about Gilchrist's kind a hundred or more years ago: these Irish will change our culture, and for the worse. Perhaps Jim Gilchrist should peruse some of the literature of the day, it reads like a Minuteman's diary, substituting Mexican for Irish, of course. [Does he even realize that 75% of Mexican immigrants are Catholics? Does he see any hypocrisy?] From an 1854 short story:

"I can't imagine, Carrie, why you object so strongly to a Roman Catholic."

"Why, Edward, they are so ignorant, filthy, and superstitious. It would never do to trust the children alone with one, for there is no telling what they might learn."

One of the candidates this proud Irish-American touts for Congress next Tuesday is Republican Randy Graf of Arizona, who is for the open 8th CD against Democrat Gabrielle Giffords. Graf doesn't just support the Minutemen - he is a Minuteman [that's him on the left "on patrol" in the fight for freedom of the borders]. The district is 84% white and on the border with Mexico, so my guess is Gilchrist's gang and Graf's campaign believed an anti-immigration push would keep the seat in GOP hands. Here's what they say:

You can help strike a blow against the powerful groups in Washington that continue to condone the massive violation of our national borders. You can be a part of taking Minuteman Project to the next level by helping  Randy Graf get elected to Congress where he will serve alongside Rep. Tom Tancredo and work for you to stop the border invasion.

Not happening. According to Real Clear Politics, a fairly conservative site, Giffords is dominating Graf by an average of 10 points in the cumulative polling. Graf is losing despite the very public endorsement of Mr. Straight Talk, John McCain, who clearly will do anything to try and get the conservative base behind his craven White House bid. Graf is being laughed out of Arizona.

See, the thing to remember about the Nativists and the Know-nothings and the Klan, and all the various leagues of hatred and prejudice, is that they failed in the end. Such will be the failure of the Minutemen on Tuesday. And this Irish American will be staying up late to watch another Irish American get buried politically.

Comments

[btween]

Faith and begorrah, Tommy me lad, ye spake as tho the klan and it's like are dead, when they've been thriving under rocks here in Amerikay fer nigh a hundred fifty yairs!
I once heard an Republic of Ireland MP on the WBAI show Radio Free Erin say that "the Irish are the most racist people on earth". So I googled the phrase "the most racist people on earth" and the results were interesting and sort of ironic.
Blacks, Jews, Japanese and Indians dominate the top of the list. One offered that "White women are the most...".
Racism and scapegoating are siblings, but like most right wing, racial or religious "movements", there's a powerful economic reason underlying the activism.
Anti-immigrant, anti-black, anti-Catholic movements in this country, going back as far as the colonail Boston catholic church pogroms have been orchestrated by the economic elite - the sherrifs, bankers, judges, and businessmen- who whip up jingoistic or religious frenzy in the ignorant masses of easily manipulated white trash fieldhand serfs who then do the dirty work.
Big business in America is schizophrenic on the issue of immigration (legal and illegal). The Chamber of Commerce opposes limitations, in order to provide cheap, exploitable labor for the dirtiest jobs, while the multinationals want to keep the work force where it is, so there's no scarcity of sewing talent in their sneaker factories.
Gilchrist is a puppet, as all of these rubes are puppets serving "the Man". Mr. Charlie Whitey will never accept his as one of his own. Gilchrist is no different than the GL Rockwells, the Ian Paisleys and the David Dukes of the world.
Pay no attention to the cretin behind the curtain. Ignore them and they will go away. Make them pay for any crimes they commit, certainly, but a bunch of college students rushing the stage serves only to enhance recruitment.
Think back to the H Blocks at the Long Kesh prison in Ireland. The British suspended the IRA terrorists' status as prisoners of war, suspended habeas corpus and lowered the standard for evidence so low as to allow for the conviction in absentia at the supergrass trials. That was one of the biggest favors Britain could have done for them, it inspired thousands of otherwise non-radicalized Catholics to take up arms against the Crown.
We risk the same thing here by villifying, thus validating the Minutemen.
I say ignore them, and they'll fizzle like so many other neo nazi startups that have come before them.

[Tom K]

The best way to stifle vigilantism of any kind is to make a reasonable effort to enforce the laws that make sense, and to repeal or amend the ones that don't.

[Tom W.]

Ah, so in the absence of 100% enforcement, vigilantism is ok? What do you think of the Minutemen, TK?

[The Emerson Avenger]

Happy All Souls' Day from The Emerson Avenger.

[Tom K]

In the absence of 100% enforcement, some vigilantism is inevitable. In the absence of any serious effort at enforcement, it will become common, rather than exceptional. And, if you believe that a law is just, and it is not being enforced, than vigilantism is good, or at least unobjectionable: if the state abrogates its duty to protect my family or property, for example, I'm not gonna be too interested in hearing the moral case against protecting them myself.

Now, the Minutemen aren't protecting their families from immediate harm. They are (I assume they would say) protecting the country from the harm that (they believe) will follow from the government's (undeniable) failure to take its own immigration laws seriously. If the laws are to protect the country, and the country doesn't care enough to enforce them, then I suppose a good case can be made that that's the country's problem, not theirs. But a country comprised exclusively of citizens so lacking in a sense of civic responsibility as to think that the country's problems are not in some way their own will not long persist. So, I'm not too eager to criticize people for trying to help their country by enforcing reasonable laws that are being flouted.

So, I turn a few questions back at you: is it reasonable, or unreasonable, for the United States to limit and oversee what foreign national come to live here? And, if it's reasonable, and the popular will reflects this belief by not repealing or amending those laws, why exactly are you so angry at people who attempt to fill the enforcement gap? Is it that you think they are all racists, or the dupes of racists, hiding behind professions of civic-mindedness? If you were convinced otherwise about them, would your position change? Or is the racist charge just a way to attack all the members on the basis of characteristics that are undoubtedly shared by only some? And if the racism (or intolerance, or xenophobia, or whatever you want to call it) is only a convenient way to attack them, rather than the real reason for doing so, what is your real reason?

My take on the Minutemen: I'm sure I wouldn't get along well with many, maybe most of them. I imagine I would despise quite a few. But they, unlike most of the political and chattering classes, are at least acting as if they take the concept of the law as a reflection of the popular will seriously. And again, it's not about my preference for any particular immigration levels: I think those should rise or fall as public opinion dictates, this being a democracy. I tend to favor liberal levels. But the important point is, whatever levels are established should be taken seriously by the govt., which is charged i) not to pass laws unless they reflect the pubilc will, and 2) out of respect for the serious responsiblity to protect the people's interests, as expressed by the people, to enforce those laws they pass.

[Slappy]

Tom K: It was not the founder's wish that the government pass laws solely by the will of the people. I assume by will of the people you mean a majority of the vote. This is not true. Many of our laws are there to protect the minority from the majority. This inherently does not serve the will of the people. The laws serve to protect everyones right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Or something similar along those lines. Our country's history clearly shows that the will of the people can be wrong and immoral. So when the minutemen are judged not by the will of the people (which you seem to give great importance) but by what is right and wrong by the Constitution then the MInutemen appear wrong. Of course the Constitution can be interpreted many different ways as can any book of authority. It was written as such purposely to reflect the will of the people but one can still only stray so far from its meaning without contradicting it.

To sum it all up: THe will of the people only goes so far and is not as important and protecting individual rights. The minutemen under ZERO authority are attempting to remove individuals of their right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And once they are on USA soil, they inherit those rights. (Gitmo clearly shows that even Bush realizes this)

And to boot, they're a bunch of ass-backward racist thugs.

[Tom K]

You raise a good point, Slappy: govt. has an obligation NOT to enforce "the will of the people", as expressed by the democratic process, by means that violate rights secured by the Constitution. But I don't think anyone seriously argues that enforcing immigration laws, as a general principle (apart from how they're enforced in certain instances) does that. So I don't see that the govt's failure to enforce the immigration laws can defended on that ground.

[Tom W.]

OK, Tom I'll answer your questions...

1. Is it reasonable, or unreasonable, for the United States to limit and oversee what foreign national come to live here?

Reasonable.

2. And, if it's reasonable, and the popular will reflects this belief by not repealing or amending those laws, why exactly are you so angry at people who attempt to fill the enforcement gap?

Tons of wiggle room here, of course. But I'll cut to the chase with two answers. One, the government is clearly in the process of deliberating new quotas and amnesty programs, at the behest of business mainly, to keep as many of the immigrants here as possible. Because they're valuable. That brought the haters out. And two, because they're so obviously haters. Brendan sggests ignroing 'em and they'll go away like the pathetic neo-Nazi's. I say, call 'em out, get 'em fighting. Then ignore 'em.

3. Is it that you think they are all racists, or the dupes of racists, hiding behind professions of civic-mindedness?

Yes - well-put.

4. If you were convinced otherwise about them, would your position change?

I wouldn't be as convinced of their hatred and hypocrisy, but yeah I'd oppose the pure vigilantism of it, as President Bush does.

5. Or is the racist charge just a way to attack all the members on the basis of characteristics that are undoubtedly shared by only some?

I'm not sure about unbdoubtedly Tom. Many reasonable people can worry about immigration: too much, too little, too undereducated, too needy, etc. It's a legit argument, as is our reaction as a society to how we welcome and assimilate immigrants. But these guys are haters.

6. And if the racism (or intolerance, or xenophobia, or whatever you want to call it) is only a convenient way to attack them, rather than the real reason for doing so, what is your real reason?

N/A

[Slappy]

Minutemen are denying these immigrants the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To be more specific, they are denying them the ability to provide for their children. These immigrants are doing nothing that most of us wouldn't do ourselves for our children. And that alone shows the Minutemen to be wrong.

[Tony Alva]

"Minutemen are denying these immigrants the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

...And that is why liberals will never be taken seriously on the issue of immigration. The constitution guarantee’s this right to American citizens, not those who have blatantly broken the law to enter our country. How about they pursue there right to liberty/happiness in Mexico, or go through the U.S. immigration process legitimately? Yes, the process needs to be fixed, but granting rights to those who scoff at our laws is out of the question, period.

See Tom W.'s answer to question number one...

[Tom K]

*4. If you were convinced otherwise about them, would your position change?

I wouldn't be as convinced of their hatred and hypocrisy, but yeah I'd oppose the pure vigilantism of it, as President Bush does.*

Why? Surely, you don't expect anyone here to accept "as President Bush does" to be an adequate explantion of your position.

[Slappy]

Tony Alva: Life, Liberty and pursuit of happiness applies to anyone within our borders. An illegal immigrant has the right to free speech. A visiting foreigner who may not have the right to bash his government at home can freely bash our government within our borders and has every right to. Being an immigrant, legal or illegal does not remove you from your rights. This is why Gitmo is in Cuba. This is why our torture chambers (POW prisons) are hidden on foreign soil.

And nobody is "granted" this right. These rights are inalienable.

Unless you propose locking up all illegal immigrants or attempting a nationwide sweep and dumping millions of people off at the Mexican border there is no other choice but to accept them and bring them into our fold. Let them provide for their families and pay taxes like we all do. Creating a massive illegal fugitive underclass is frankly a stupid idea.

Life liberty and pursuit of happiness is a fundamental philosophy behind the laws that govern this country. "Give me your poor..." These are great words inscribed on the Statue of Liberty.