• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Similarly, the Border Patrol has done its share to spoil the ambience of East County by causing delays, interrogating locals, and intimidating passersby who are obviously American citizens at a Highway 94 checkpoint east of Jamul. The arrangement has transformed Streenan’s backcountry paradise into what he describes as a “maximum-security prison.”

“When they ask where I’m coming from, I tell them, ‘I’m coming from heaven and going to hell,’ because I’m going to the city,” Streenan says with a grin. “They’re only supposed to ask about citizenship. But they ask very irritating things like we’re in prison now.”

To exacerbate the situation, the prevalence of drug runners in the area has created a climate of mortal fear among locals. Rumors of corruption within the ranks of the Border Patrol have made many locals hesitant to report suspicious activities, lest they attract the attention of the Mexican cartels.

“[The authorities] can get paid off and come through here and shoot me down,” Streenan says. “I’m out here in the public. I don’t want to get killed. So you just don’t tell anybody anything. You don’t want to get blown away. Tell the wrong person, and you’re going to die.”

Streenan says he started noticing fewer illegal immigrants in his store and using the pay phone out front about eight months ago. “There’s no reason for them to come anymore,” he says. “There’s no work, just the drugs. And that’s dangerous.”

He puts the burden of responsibility on lawmakers, saying it’s the demand for Mexican drugs that allows the situation to exist. “They need to legalize it or do something to end this,” he says. “It’s not like they’re all smoking weed down there in Mexico.”

Many locals blame illegal immigrants for starting the 2007 Harris fire, which ignited just outside town and destroyed half the trailer park as well as several houses. The trailer park used to be full of tourists who would stay for a day or two before heading down to places like Mulegé or Loreto, in Baja California Sur. But tourists have been scared away from Mexico by the violence, Streenan laments, which means a gap in his annual income.

“Business is down probably about 42 percent a day,” he says. “I mean, everything is just gone.”

According to a report from the Public Policy Institute of California released in June 2008, California was home to approximately 2.8 million undocumented immigrants in 2006. While acknowledging that the figures can only be estimated, the report states that a quarter of the nation’s illegal immigrant population resides in California, making up 8 percent of the state’s population. However, illegal immigration is on the decline in the state, increasing by roughly 50,000 per year at the time the report was written compared to 100,000 per year in the 1990s. About 1 in 11 workers in California is an illegal immigrant.

“Two-thirds of California adults think that illegal immigrants should be allowed to apply for work permits that would let them stay and work in the United States,” says the report. Seventy-two percent of Californians believe that “most illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years should be given a chance to keep their jobs and apply for legal status.” Only 25 percent would like to see them deported.

Reflecting the observations of Craig and Streenan, the institute’s April 2006 reports says, “When our economy is strong, illegal immigration increases. Inflows declined with the downturn of the U.S. economy in the early 2000s.”

However, challenging the oft-cited argument that undocumented laborers lower the working wage for everybody in a given industry, the 2006 report finds that illegal immigrants “have little effect on the wages and employment of U.S.-born workers. Such effects are felt most by low-skilled U.S. workers,” to the tune of about a 4 percent decrease in lifelong earnings for men without a high school diploma.

Ironically, increasing border security, the report finds, increases the number of illegal immigrants residing in the United States. As the border becomes more difficult to cross, many cyclical crossers are staying in the United States for longer periods of time, if not permanently.

But illegal immigration is only part of the problem. According to some, the U.S. immigration system is flawed to the point of crippling the economy.

For the past 25 years, Steve Scaroni has run a lettuce and leafy greens farming operation out of Heber, a town in the Imperial Valley. Ninety-nine percent of his 1000 or so employees are people born outside the United States. Nonimmigrants, Scaroni says, simply will not do farmwork.

“American nonimmigrants don’t raise their children to be farmworkers. Farmworkers don’t raise their children to be farmworkers.”

Scaroni estimates that 60 percent of his employees are documented immigrants. Forty percent are nonimmigrant foreign workers. An H-2A visa allows foreign nationals to work in the United States for a predetermined length of time. Costly, time-consuming, and process-intensive, according to Scaroni, the H-2A application procedure is “the process from hell.” He tolerates it, however, because it is the only way he can staff his operation. “There are simply not enough legal workers in the country to do the work that needs to get done,” he says.

Four years ago, fed up with the bureaucratic shuffle of H-2As, it was Scaroni who hopped the fence. He opened a sister farm in Guanajuato, Mexico, where his workforce costs a quarter of what it does in this country. After shipping and charges imposed by Mexico, his costs are on a par with his U.S. costs, but across the border he has no problem finding workers who are dependable, motivated, and legal. Scaroni is baffled by the absurdity of having to outsource his business to another country, calling the current U.S. policies “asinine.”

“U.S.-consumed vegetables and farm products will be produced by [foreign laborers],” Scaroni says. “The question for the U.S. is, will they be [foreign laborers] working in the U.S. on U.S. farms or [foreign laborers] producing U.S.-consumed vegetables in Mexico and third-world countries.”

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

Visduh March 24, 2010 @ 3:52 p.m.

Here we go again with the term "vigilante." The Minutemen, and especially Britt Craig, are definitely not vigilantes. They watch and they report to the duly-constituted officers of the law, the Border Patrol. A vigilante is one who takes the law into his/her own hands, and metes out punishment. There are many instances of vigilante justice in US history, but the activities of the Minutemen on the Mexican border are not one of them. These guys are just adding their manpower to watching the border and assisting the Border Patrol, as the author admits.

Vigilantism arises either when there is no legal law enforcement, or when it is so corrupted that it is aiding and abetting the law breakers. If one wants to read the accounts of the latter, look no farther than the vigilantes of the Montana gold camps in 1863-64.

The Reader put an incorrect headline right on its front cover this week.

0

David Dodd March 24, 2010 @ 4:29 p.m.

"A motorbike appears in a plume of dust on the American side, and the helmeted driver yells, “What’s your citizenship?”"

That's not exactly "report" and "observe".

0

Visduh March 24, 2010 @ 7:16 p.m.

The author didn't say the motorbike was driven by a Minuteman. He was very careful not to accuse anyone of unlawful activity. Who knows?

0

nada March 25, 2010 @ 2:57 a.m.

NOPE! The Reader has it right for once. The Minutemen are vigilantes.

0

Visduh March 25, 2010 @ 8:32 a.m.

nada, please 'splain that allegation. I used the dictionary definition of the term.

0

nada March 25, 2010 @ 5:15 p.m.

What's up with Britt "Kingfish' Craigs eye? Did somebody squirt scalding hot beans in his eye?

0

borderraven March 26, 2010 @ 7:01 a.m.

President George W Bush, the Commander in Chief of the US military, and of the militias, called the Minutemen "vigilantes", but while some people think the term is an insult, perhaps you will find it proper, since it refers to those citizens of a society, who are vigilant and watchful over the welfare and safety of the society. A vigilante, like a militia, will get educated of the treats to a society, and detect those threats, and rarely, but if needed, take immediate actions to sound the alarms and confront that threat. Vigilantes and militias are the eyes and ears in our society, and they have the powers to detain and arrest if needed.

0

David Dodd March 26, 2010 @ 7:07 a.m.

RE: #3

Visduh, it is implied that the person on the motorcycle was not a border agent with the following sententence in that paragraph:

"The men vanish in a haze of dirt, and it occurs to Stockwell that he has just had his first encounter with a Minuteman."

As I maintain, that is far from the "observe" and "report" that the armed, untrained, non-officials who lurk near the border pretend to be doing.

0

borderraven March 26, 2010 @ 7:10 a.m.

I have to disagree with Visduh.
A vigilante has the power to affect a citizen's arrest and must report the crime in progress, but rarely may make a physical arrest. Vigilantes cannot inflict punishment or torture, as that is the function of the court system. Vigilantes cannot commit hate crimes. Vigilantes may use the force needed to affect the arrest.

0

Visduh March 26, 2010 @ 5:19 p.m.

Looks like I'm outvoted on this one. That doesn't mean I have changed my mind about the term though. We could have lots of back-and-forth with the term "militia" too. That is for another day.

0

JohnEdwardRangel March 27, 2010 @ 9:13 a.m.

I lived in Dulzura for ten years.It is down the road( Hwy 94)from Potrero.I arrived just before Clinton began operation: gatekeeper.My grandfather and I witnessed firsthand, the terrible hardships endured by the human beings, driven into the rugged hills of the east county. On weekends my grandfather would prepare sandwiches and I would hike into the nearby hills and deliver them to those I passed on the trails. Many of them told me of the hardships they'd encountered.I had several run ins with what I came to call, The FOX (F*****g Old Xenophobes)Militia. None of them positive.The one I most vividly remember was with an armed, white haired fellow, with a thick southern drawl, who told me to go back to Mexico. I told him I was born in Los Angeles. That seemed to piss him off even more. He then accused me of being a coyote and then a drug smuggler. I wanted to tell him that I was just a humble man taking food to people I see suffering. But I didn't think he'd understand.
0

Robert Hagen March 27, 2010 @ 9:17 a.m.

I thought the article was vague and opaque on numerous counts, beginning with the mystery of who approached the filmmaker, and the use of the term motorbike. That sounds British, and BP ride quads, which was referenced at the end.

The Minutemen aren't vigilantes in my opinion, at least in the pejorative connotation. They definitely have the right to do what they do.

Where I take issue is calling themselves Minutemen. Thats like me thinking I'm Abe Lincoln, or Douglas MacArthur. The real Minutemen created this country.

The so called Minutemen in East County are as full of crap as Thanksgiving turkeys. They are reportedly former veterans. Unlike the Minutemen of yore, these give a bad name to the military. Primarily because they bandstand and issue grievances while taking up a logistically futile and actually inane position. The border is over two thousand miles long. If you want to catch an illegal, why not go your nearest Jack in the Box? How many illegals have been caught? Very few. Those that were are released in a day or two.

The worst thing about the Minutemen is that they created a bunch of political drama and furor, but U.S. immigration policy has been stuck in neutral for over 20 years. At what point do people say themselves, 'who is to blame for this?' instead of 'lets decry the odious illegal alien?'

The guy that owned the farm knows the codespeak. Americans won't do farm work? Please. He says it two or three times. For ten bucks an hour, Americans will do farmwork. He wants to pay alot less. Then comes the $5 per tomato argument.

The articles most desultory element of all, in my opinion, is quoting one man as being supposedly the top Minuteman in some vague romantic fashion, and then closing out by having the man with the eye patch agree to accept worker permits.

As a footnote, I find it disturbing that this 'Kingfisher' fellow is quoted at length regarding murdered Border Patrolman Rosas, but no actual law enforcement officials were interviewed on the matter. For people who call themselves Minutemen, you'd think there would be a little more respect and consideration for someone who actually got killed doing their job.

Overall, the article has enough apparent holes in it that a good editor might have said

'I love what you've got. Go get this stuff to bring it to a professional level, and it'll be ready.'

Instead, theres flavor, theres interesting real people, but theres gaping holes in the specifics of it. I liked it and read it in its entirety with interest in one sitting without my mind wandering, but its vague qualities caused me to ask more questions than were answered. However, I do think the article showed sensitivity to all parties concerned- difficult to try, more difficult to pull off. So, kudos for the article.

0

Robert Hagen March 27, 2010 @ 3:27 p.m.

Additional thoughts on immigration reform:

We have some 10 million undocumented residents in the U.S. It may be quite a bit more. According to the cover story, a full 8% of the population of California is undocumented (or, if you prefer, illegal.) I trip out if someone is conservative and concerned about internal security threats, and doesn't see the wisdom in getting these people on the map, and out of the so called shadow society. 10 million strangers with no papers? Its not secure, and its not good for society in general.

Getting the shadow society on the rolls, getting them squared away will help hold up wages. When they have illegal status, they depress overall wages. Now, undocumented work force has contributed to overall economic growth, but there's no denying that under the informal scheme currently employed, overall wages are driven down.

What I'm saying is that there is room for improvement. You have to give Kingfisher credit, because at least hes willing to compromise. So many people are coming at this issue from a no-compromise attitude- on both sides, that its become a hard wedge issue in SD county, and then has spread all over the country.

Europe has immigration problems due to their large population of muslims from Africa. We share with Europe the problem of large immigrant populations that aren't integrated.

I want to emphasize that I am mindful of the upset that this hot button issue causes. I'd like to see a good bill come out of Congress, and I think its doable, but truthfully, I think it can't pass with the economy not fully recovered, because jobs are hard to come by in alot of sectors, and ultimately no matter where you stand overall, the jobs in the U.S. have to be available for American citizens, if they're looking for work.

Lastly, immigration issues are not exclusive in terms of being hot button issues- look at health care reform. People differ, and theres alot of stress out there. Although I have my little feelings from the past on the Minutemen, I don't begrudge them their ideas, or position. The American way is supposed to be that if you feel strongly on an issue, you should take action. I think very few Americans are actually bigots, but in this type of issue,like playing the race card, its easy to perceive someone as being prejudiced or redneck or what have you.

Its a tough issue, but once again, I give kudos to the article for being sensitive to all parties concerned.

0

Visduh March 28, 2010 @ 7:35 p.m.

In response to post #13, I think diegonomics has it just about right. How many of these recent Reader cover stories have really been well-written and thought out? Not many, I'd say. This one, with its vaguely lurid headline and photo was of a similar vein. There was a time when a Reader cover story was exceptional, in-depth, and held the reader's attention to the end. Take a look at the cover stories we've seen in the past three to four months, and I think most will agree the stories have been mediocre at best. Reader, try harder!

But, diego, what is a "former veteran?" A veteran is a former warrior or at least an ex-servicemember. These folks are then "former-former warriors" or "former ex-servicemembers?" Never use two words when one will do.

0

l2009 March 29, 2010 @ 2:27 p.m.

I was extremely disappointed to see this story as a "Cover Story" on the San Diego Reader. The fact that you intended to positively feature a group of racist extremists such as the "Minutemen" is quite mindboggling and disappointing given all the other activities that are going on in our San Diego communities. The "Minutemen" are racists that despise immigrant’s period and do NOT differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants despite them arguing the contrary. For example, Brandon mentions that Border Patrol don't question his presence in the desert because he is a "gringo"....implying that color of one's skin determines nationality?

Officer Rosas was a Latino Border Patrol agent...I guess if he had not worn a uniform he would have been treated differently by both the "Minutemen" and his own agency. How about feature the good doings of the border patrol instead of Minutemen? These are exactly the causes why our immigration system is broken: Prejudices!!!These prejudices don't let us move forward as a country nor acknowledge the broken immigration system only prolong it. The majority of “illegal” immigrants actually come in legally but overstays their visa term. Others who try to come in legally better be ready to die waiting in line for an answer....

If a Chinese national enters our country by boat without a visa...he is an "illegal". If a Cuban enters our country by boat without a visa than he/she is welcomed with "legal permanent resident" status and eventually U.S. citizenship under our "Wet feet, dry feet policy" regardless of criminal history, etc...and nobody seems to throw a fit about it. Don't we owe a whole lot more to China than to Cuba ?!?!...

I guess this is why Tony Dolz a Cuban immigrant and one of the founders of the Minutemen Project feels he has the right to speak out against illegal immigration...fortunately there was a policy in place to welcome him with open arms and doesn't limit the number of Cubans coming to America nor checks their criminal history and has to wait almost a couple decades to be cleared by DHS. It is important to note that all of these anti-immigration flawed statistics used in the articles are funded by John Tanton a "white supremist": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tanton

Instead let's work on reforming immigration for America. http://reformimmigrationforamerica.org/

Let's stop the hate rhetoric that has prevented us to move forward in this issue for decades. History shows that people have migrated since mankind has existed. In the world, Extreme Nationalism has only proven to be disastrous (World Wars etc) and this is what the founding fathers ran away from in the first place…they were immigrants too ?!?! “Illegal immigrants” didn't exist back them because Native Americans didn't deemed them illegal.

0

Ponzi March 30, 2010 @ 10:03 a.m.

There are some very good comments here, even more enlightening that the story.

My opinion is that not every person in Mexico is trying to immigrate to the United States, just their poor and disentranced who are desperate for work to live and feed their families. Why does Mexico have problems with crime related to the drug trade? Because their geography interfaces with the biggest customer of illicit drugs.

Why is Mexico home to so many people who illegally immigrate into the U.S? Because their geography interfaces with the country with the biggest demand for illegal labor. In both instances the problem can be stopped by eliminating the demand.

Ironically there is a large camp of people who say that making drugs “legal” would eliminate the crime and other problems related to drugs. With that logic, it would seem we could correct illegal immigration as well by granting all of the present illegal residents, legal residency.

You see, the problem is not the supply, but the demand. It is not the Mexicans fault, but the employers who hire them. If they all had rights, the same rights we all enjoy, they could demand the legal wages and benefits that we all enjoy. That alone would stem the problem because it would undermine the cost advantage employers (who employ illegal’s) enjoy.

I feel that it’s a waste of time, for ordinary citizens at least, to be patrolling the border. It’s asking for trouble. It’s not patriotic. It's just stupid.

If Americans want to work on this “problem” then they need to focus on its cause. If Americans are compassionate, they need to find a solution that is fair to the illegal residents living here who have put down roots. We cannot deport millions of people because they are integrated into our society and economy. We can enforce the laws that we have on businesses that are breaking the law in their hiring practices and workplace standards.

This is a supply and demand issue. Those people don’t leave their familiar surroundings, family and friends to come up to the U.S. for a vacation or adventure. They don’t risk their lives hiking through mountains in 100 degree heat, or on an overcrowded small boat, or in the engine compartment of a car, just for fun. They do it because there is opportunity here and they know it doesn’t matter if they have citizenship or not, someone will give them a job.

We are such hypocrites to demand this migration stop while we enjoy foods picked by them, meals cooked by them and live in homes cleaned, landscaped and even built by them.

0

elmexicano March 30, 2010 @ 11:03 a.m.

These minutemen are no better than the mules coming accross with drugs from Mexico. These are just a bunch of racist vigilantes.

0

SDaniels March 30, 2010 @ 12:53 p.m.

re: #2 and #3:

Can we please raise the bar on this discussion at least in regards to accuracy, Visduh? First of all, this part of the piece is not describing "the author's" experience--it is from the p.o.v. of Brandon Stockwell, a student filmmaker.

And why argue pointlessly that it was not necessarily a minuteman? Who was it, then? Santa? Should we perhaps conclude, then, that you do not approve of this kind of behavior?

"A motorbike appears in a plume of dust on the American side, and the helmeted driver yells, “What’s your citizenship?” Before Stockwell can answer, a Border Patrol truck that’s following behind skids to a stop, and the half-amused agent says, “Oh, never mind. You’re definitely a gringo.” The men vanish in a haze of dirt, and it occurs to Stockwell that he has just had his first encounter with a Minuteman."

Yep, sounds pretty vigilante-ish to me, too.

And why so defensively quick to jump on the term 'vigilante,' when this was actually such a mildly phrased, and even evasive, article? With some exceptions, such as refriedgringo points out, minutemen seem to be in this piece, at least in the figure of Craig, characterized more as people who wait and watch, i.e., who are "vigilant."

Clearly, Chad's focus was not on the goings on of the summer of 2005, when tempers flared and some ugly standoffs took place between anti-border demonstrators and self-style minutemen. A lot of loosely belted holsters were stroked, and a lot of ugly, racist braggadocio was also loosely belted, as illegal lines were drawn in the sand by --yes--armed vigilantes with no legal business taking up the business of "protection."

I regret that an intelligent but misguided young cousin of mine joined this group, otherwise known to be comprised of bored retired vets and their wives, who would otherwise be watching reruns of Gunsmoke and sipping iced tea, and young, hormonally challenged bucks, who would otherwise be sitting in a circle jerk playing fantasy wargames from their laptops.

I do believe that these people come together not only out of boredom, and complex wishes to play out aggressive fantasies, but out of foundational racist, ethnocentric values. It isn't coincidence that tea-partiers and proto-terrorist religious groups (seen recently in the news) all use imagery of the 18th century new American patriot.

0

SDaniels March 30, 2010 @ 12:53 p.m.

(cont.)

They articulate these images based not on their origins in freedom for all, but on freedoms for SOME. If the figure of the American (armed) patriot is meant to reinforce and celebrate foundational freedoms, and the protection of one's birthright of citizenship (as well as warn away those without such birthright as they define it), what happened to that other very important foundational concept and practice of open border immigration, and a commitment to earn one's rights by sincere oath and demonstration of those promises, rather than on blind birth and a visual identity politics of skin color?

What happened to the values of a diverse citizenry based on a will to commit to citizenship through hard work and the all-important desire and right to pursue happiness? Mmmmhmmm...

0

Origami_Astronaught March 30, 2010 @ 1:40 p.m.

l2009 - Not sure which story you were reading, but I can't find any stats in here which could be deemed anti-immigration. If not neutral, the stats actually serve to debunk common anti-immigration myths.

"However, challenging the oft-cited argument that undocumented laborers lower the working wage for everybody in a given industry, the 2006 report finds that illegal immigrants “have little effect on the wages and employment of U.S.-born workers. Such effects are felt most by low-skilled U.S. workers,” to the tune of about a 4 percent decrease in lifelong earnings for men without a high school diploma."

John Tanton was part of the National Policy Institute. Zero connection with Public Policy Institute of California.

diegonomics - It should be obvious from the text that Stockwell perceived the man on the motorbike to be a Minuteman.

"For ten bucks an hour, Americans will do farmwork. He wants to pay alot less."

Wild! You interviewed Scaroni, too? :-)

"The articles most desultory element of all, in my opinion, is quoting one man as being supposedly the top Minuteman in some vague romantic fashion, and then closing out by having the man with the eye patch agree to accept worker permits."

Read again. Stockwell's perception. How does Craig's endorsement of a functional imported workers program make the story "desultory"?

Being one of such profound contradictions yourself, you should have no problem grasping Craig's willingness to embrace a solution, even if it does challenge your perception of the Minutemen as little more than a group that "created a bunch of political drama and furor."

You said it best: "You have to give Kingfisher [sic] credit, because at least hes willing to compromise."

Hope that patches up a few of the "holes" you found and thank you for the kudos.

Good input, Ponzi. Please revisit the text and you will find that virtually every point you bring up has been addressed.

SDaniels - ever the voice of reason. :-)

0

Visduh March 30, 2010 @ 9:02 p.m.

Before this story of vague and ambiguous descriptions is sent off to the great dustbin of mediocre Reader efforts, I'd like to mention that the term "vigilante" is highly pejorative. All sorts of folks who cannot abide the notion that someone or anyone out there resents the lawlessness of the border and its daily abuse by those who will not respect it want to put a bad label on those who disagree. (How's that for a run-on sentence?) The term is inflammatory. The term is inaccurate. The term implies all sorts of extralegal activity which the story does not involve.

If the so-called Minutemen were apprehending border crossers, holding them against their will, beating them up and/or kicking them back across the line, they would be vigilantes. This story mentions none of those activities. The closest thing to that was a motorbike-mounted person of indeterminate identity accosting a guy who was climbing the border fence.

The true vigilantes to which I referred in posting #1 did find it necessary to take some very drastic action. One of the first of twenty-or-so outlaws they summarily hanged was the elected sheriff! Now, THAT'S vigilantism. Nothing in this story, or in any of the anecdotes in these postings comes close to that sort of activity.

So, in a nutshell, I object to the term because it carries a very strong implication of lawless and brutal activity that this story does not involve. 'Nuff said.

0

Ponzi March 30, 2010 @ 9:08 p.m.

It IS Vigilante-like behavior... period.

0

Ponzi March 30, 2010 @ 9:11 p.m.

The propensity to approve of this bizarre behavior in-and-of-itself is prima face evidence of bigotry and racial bias.

This activity serves no purpose and is not appreciated by the professionals that are charged with performing this service on behalf of the U.S.

You can portray it anyway you want and try to frame it as innocent, but it is useless, unappreciated, obstructive and hateful as far as I am concerned.

0

David Dodd March 30, 2010 @ 9:57 p.m.

Regarding the term "vigilante", I think that any reference to "The Oxbow Incident" isn't a valid correlation anymore, although I tend to understand where Visduh is coming from because the term implies punishment. There is little evidence of punishment from the "minutemen", at least from what I have read. My issue is twofold: Ponzi put it in better words than I could, "useless, unappreciated, obstructive and hateful." My other issue is the lack of training of armed men who are not officers, wandering around in the desert near the border looking for anyone with brown skin. To me, it is a form of radical ethnic nationalism practiced in countries where the very next step is ethnic cleansing. The United States of America has a border patrol who are, ostensibly, trained to maintain the border. If the border patrol cannot maintain the border then there are much larger issues at hand, none of which can be solved by civilians with guns.

0

SDaniels March 31, 2010 @ 10:11 a.m.

re:#22: No run-on ;)

Yes, Visduh, we know that "vigilante" and "vigilantism" are pejorative terms. Are you familiar with some of the rhetoric of the folk for whom you argue in support, both at great length, and to ambiguous purpose? They form a clearly racist organization--check it out!

Ponzi in #24 and refried in #25 have spoken adequately for me, so I'll rest my case with them.

0

Sign in to comment