The Minute Man Project

March 24, 2005 11:05 AM

For 30 days, we're going to shut down that illegal alien smuggling alleyOk, probably not; but when the War on Terror™ doesn't seem to include our own borders, what else is a citizen to do? The President has this take: "I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Mr. Bush said at a joint press conference. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way." Is the Minute Man project irrational? When the government refuses to put troops on the borders or even beef up the current border patrol, what are the available options?
posted by j.p. Hung (49 comments total)

I would have posted directly to the Minute Man site but it is down...hmmmmm.
posted by j.p. Hung at 11:06 AM on March 24, 2005

Wow. I agree with Bush!

That site is horrible.

What happened December 17, 1773? It was a date that few legal immigrants or illegal aliens know about or understand.

I'd say many *Americans* don't understand that. And if this is about protecting borders from illegal immigrants why would you disparage *legal* immigrants? Unless of course, this is really about something else...
posted by vacapinta at 11:09 AM on March 24, 2005

I had no idea LULAC and La Raza were anti-American, I guess I just missed those meetings.
posted by ozomatli at 11:16 AM on March 24, 2005

I'm pretty sure rednecks with guns aren't going to solve any problems.
posted by borkingchikapa at 11:19 AM on March 24, 2005

Interview with John Smallberries, Minuteman Project Volunteer

Illegal immigration is out of control. As a result, our nation’s security is at risk. A group of Americans has decided to do what George Bush refuses to do: protect Americans from the scourge of illegal immigration.

This is the first part of an interview with John Smallberries, a former Marine and a volunteer pilot for the Minuteman Project. The mythmaking and urban legends about the group have already begun, so I wanted to set the record straight and let you hear a firsthand account of what the project is and more importantly, why it is. Later this week I’ll interview the project’s founder, Jim Gilchrist.

---
Wasn't John Smallberries a character in Buckaroo Banzai?
posted by dhoyt at 11:21 AM on March 24, 2005

Unless of course, this is really about something else...

You mean those self-styled vigilantes could have ulterior motives? I'm shocked, shocked!
posted by clevershark at 11:23 AM on March 24, 2005

Anyone catch this little-reported story:

Syrians caught; in U.S. illegally
2 indicted on charges of impersonating Americans

A federal grand jury Wednesday indicted two Syrian men on charges of impersonating U.S. citizens after Border Patrol agents stopped them in southern Arizona and found an undocumented Mexican immigrant in their car.

According to a criminal complaint, Ala Salem Mamoud Al-Kurdi and Mohamed Tamman Nakchgandi, both citizens of Syria, were pulled over by Border Patrol agents on Feb. 18 on Arizona 86, a highway that runs through the Tohono O'odham Nation, a vast reservation southwest of Tucson.
posted by dhoyt at 11:25 AM on March 24, 2005

Why does the Minuteman project recruit people from all 50 states? I would have thought that states like West Virginia and Utah didn't have a big problem with Mexicans running roughshod over their borders, but apparently I'd be wrong!
posted by clevershark at 11:27 AM on March 24, 2005

I don't know about WV, but I grew up in Utah... a surprising percentage of Utah manages to convince itself that it has a problem with Mexicans running roughshod over its borders, clevershark.

You know. 'cuz they ain't white.
posted by gurple at 11:31 AM on March 24, 2005

Last fall, Arizona Senators McCain and Kyl along with Congressmen Kolbe and Flake denounced Proposition 200 that was overwhelmingly passed by voters.

I'm not sure that a vote of 55% to 44% can be considered an overwhelming majority.

Prop 200 was bitterly contested by opponents for being unconstitutional because it forces all Arizonans to present their birth certificate or passports to receive public services and to vote. It requires public employees to report anyone who cannot present these documents to federal immigration authorities. It imposes up to 4 months of jail time on any public employee (including doctors, teachers, firefighters, librarians, & social workers) who makes an error in enforcing immigration laws.
posted by chicken nuglet at 11:40 AM on March 24, 2005

Frankly, we can't have these ambitious, hardworking, entrepreneurial individuals entering america. They will ruin the baisic freedom loving, freewheeling, drive my car anywhere i want to spirit of America! Plus, it might also mean that i have to go get an associates degree in order to make more than mimimun wage.

</sarcasm>

On preview: Show me you papers, citizen!
posted by Freen at 11:42 AM on March 24, 2005

err.... Your papers....
posted by Freen at 12:03 PM on March 24, 2005

When the government refuses to put troops on the borders or even beef up the current border patrol, what are the available options?

Sensible immigration laws would be a nice start.

These guys are waaayy too late. Like 500 years too late.

And another thing, many of these Latino immigrants are totally native blood, unlike these rednecks with guns. So which group has a true claim to this land?
posted by nofundy at 12:17 PM on March 24, 2005

I just read a big economist article about immigration, and our laws are pretty sane... allowing about a million immigrants a year, including loopholes. Of course, closer to about three million will enter the states. I think we should evaluate what the healthiest level of influx is from Mexico, then work with Mexican officials to make sure the most deserving citizens get through. I don't think we should sanction or reward illegal immigration because, well, it's illegal and harms those who are waiting patiently to enter the states legally. However, they are going to come whether we like it or not, so we should address that as well as we can.

And nofundy.. I think you're getting into a whooooole new world of controversy there ;)
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:47 PM on March 24, 2005

The agriculture industry and the service industry in large parts of the country depend on undocumented immigrants. From the American Immigration Law Foundation:

"According to a report prepared in 1990, undocumented immigrants paid $547 million in Illinois state tax, while the national aggregate contribution equaled $7 billion. Surprisingly, The Urban Institute also found that undocumented immigrants contributed a national total of $2.7 billion to Social Security and another $168 million to unemployment insurance taxes, both programs they will be unable to access because of their legal status."

And in advance, yes, I know they're biased, but who isn't?
posted by goatdog at 1:05 PM on March 24, 2005

I'd just like to point out that without illegal immigrants from Mexico, our economy would collapse.

Without them, who will clean up rich peoples' houses? Who will wash my car? Who will sign up for dangerous asbestos removal without health insurance?
posted by rocketman at 1:09 PM on March 24, 2005

As long as business makes a few more pennies profit with the virtual slave labor of "illegal" immigrants, then it will continue unabated.
How can someone condemn a person who wants to work, and work very hard for very little, in order to eat and feed their family?
I just can't understand that.
Oh, wait!
They're brown bean biting bitches and all our troubles are their fault dammit!
Brown is the new black.
Gotta hate someone, I suppose, eh?
posted by nofundy at 1:10 PM on March 24, 2005

I just hope no one's hurt... unless it's in an ironic fashion.
posted by Capn at 1:18 PM on March 24, 2005

I'm not sure that a vote of 55% to 44% can be considered an overwhelming majority.

In these sad days when 51% constitutes a "clear mandate", 55% is practically unanimity.
posted by clevershark at 1:22 PM on March 24, 2005

*ahem*.
posted by basicchannel at 1:56 PM on March 24, 2005

I'd just like to point out that without illegal immigrants from Mexico, our economy would collapse.
Without them, who will clean up rich peoples' houses? Who will wash my car?

Reminds me of the movie A Day Without a Mexican
posted by Nauip at 2:28 PM on March 24, 2005

Nofundy, I would add that in addition to low wages, illegal-immigrant labor also provides a unique opportunity for American business to save a bundle when it's time to pay those payroll taxes. If their illegal employees are paid with a check rather than cash, most claim a high number of dependents in order to avoid paying income tax at all. Low taxes, low payout.

I work in the restaurant business, and most of my co-workers are (allegedly) illegal immigrants. Most of them have no intention of staying: they want to work here for a while, save their money, and go home. For this particular group--and I in no way make any claim they are representative--the guest-worker visa program proposed by Bush is a much more attractive option. Amnesty is looked upon with suspicion, and as an impractical solution--the application process takes too long, for one thing.

I don't hold out much hope that this will be dealt with in any sort of intelligent manner, however. Adding a gun-toting citizen militia to the mix is certainly not going to help anything.
posted by halcyon_daze at 2:35 PM on March 24, 2005

NPR Morning Edition did a story on this yesterday and interviewed border patrol officers who expressed concern that unarmed civilians would attempt to guard the border. Although immigrants may not be dangerous, drug smugglers certainly are. Have the Minute Men addressed this issue?
posted by chicken nuglet at 3:12 PM on March 24, 2005

Let's start out by noting that once someone starts calling names (redneck was used above), it's a good guess that they aren't primarily interested in the subject matter at hand.

Okay, to the issue. Here's the thirty second version.

The benefits of illegal immigration to America seem to be largely for those who are already set, or who can reasonably expect to be so (fewer and fewer of us, it seems).

For those on the upper end of the socioeconomic ladder, you get cheap labor, good ethnic restaurants, a warm sense of helping those less fortunate. To say nothing of a chance to sneer at people less compassionate than yourself.

For those lower on the socioeconomic ladder, you get the price of housing going up, higher tax bills to pay for more public services, decreased wages for unskilled labor, and an increased competition for unskilled jobs. Also more crime.

No doubt someone will point to an article that shows the economic benefits of illegal immigrants. There are other articles as well, and I would note that economists are up there with weathermen in terms of forecasting ability. Unlike weathermen, they cannot agree about past history.

All this having been said, I am sure that put in similar circs, I like to think I would have the gumption to do just what a desperate Mexican would do. But that raises the questions, where do America's interests really lie?

I don't have any answers, nor think that the minute men are wholly sensible. This is not, however, the black and white issue that some would make it out to be, and the frustration the MMs feel at government ineffectiveness is not wholly misplaced.

Okay, have at.
posted by IndigoJones at 3:47 PM on March 24, 2005

A few weeks ago I met a good number of the folks involved in this project, including Jim Gilchrist (who started it). I was surprised by the lack of racial hatred and the people leading the project didn't have that "oh my god this guy is a kook" quality I was expecting. As far as I can tell the vast majority of the people attending this event are normal people, retired for the most part and fed up with the situation on the border. There is long standing (though not always proud) tradition of American citizens rolling up their sleeves and taking care of things while the government lags.

Mostly I'm curious about how this event is going to unfold, so I'm bringing my camcorder and a lot of dv tapes.
posted by ordu at 3:52 PM on March 24, 2005

I agree with a lot of what IndigoJones said. I also find it a bit humorous that one of the largest complaints against Bush is that his policies are steered largely, is not solely, by a desire to help his fellow big business buddies out. Yet here in this thread, everyone seems to be surprised that in regards to this issue, they are in agreement with Bush! I speculate that it might be a matter of looking at it through different eyes (most people want to look at it compassionately, but be sure that the politicians are looking at it economically).

I personally don't know enough about immigration policy to suggest a better alternative than the one already in place, but I do find it very odd that Bush plans on cutting the future budget for Border Patrol, especially during this harrowing time as we find ourselves in the middle of the War on Terra.
posted by billysumday at 4:09 PM on March 24, 2005

I thought during WW2, volunteer spotters were the norm? What does the government have against it? Although I think the government should open the borders more to poorer Mexican immigrants there should be a large volunteer force to monitor problem areas so we can forego spending billions on sophisticated surveillance equipment and huge imposing walls separating us from Mexico. Too much of the border seems too reminiscent of the evils we wanted to be rid of from the Iron Curtain.
posted by JJ86 at 7:55 PM on March 24, 2005

u know, there was a time when ~1/3 of America was Mexico. Oh, yeah, and then we stole it. Hah, and now everyone who has moved in there is like "oh no! the Mexicans are invading". Ah, history, how you jest!
posted by ba3r at 8:22 PM on March 24, 2005

I think all of North and South America is stolen land, if you consider it in a certain way.
posted by beth at 8:45 PM on March 24, 2005

Damn their patriotic hides! The more Mexicans that come here the more delicious food we have! Pineapple tamales! Tortas! Burritos! A plate-full of dozens of steaming little tacos sprinkled with cilantro and onions, soooo good, washed down with real Horchata after a long night of bar hopping! Oh man, I'm so hungry now.

Seriously, I can't imagine Los Angeles without all the delicious Latino food we have here. Tres Leches cake! Imagine there being no Tres Leches cake you sadistic, food-hating Fascists!

My only complaint about Mexican immigration is - specifically - that obnoxious, wannabe gun-running, drug-smuggling ranchero music that blasts through my neighborhood at any hour of the day or night. Of all the cross-cultural influences Mexico was formed with, why in the hell did they pick a Germanic polka?

I would fully support this grass-roots grabassery if they just searched the immigrants for any CDs with covers depicting guys in mustaches and matching suits while wearing straw Vaquero/cowboy hats and standing on the running-boards of SUVs while displaying silly amounts of weaponry and/or trying to look tough. They could confiscate said CDs and let them on through. I realize that this may make some perfectly good CDs contraband, but that's a risk I'm willing to take.
posted by loquacious at 9:26 PM on March 24, 2005

Is the Minute Man project irrational?

Yes.
posted by jonp72 at 9:34 PM on March 24, 2005

Who will mow my lawn?
posted by stchang at 9:35 PM on March 24, 2005

loquacious, I would venture to say that the chances of any CD which meets all of your criteria being "perfectly good" asymptotically approaches zero.

I'm all in favor of vigilantism, but really, aren't there better things to focus on? What ever happened to tarring and feathering corrupt politicians and revenue agents? Them were the days, let me tell you.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:37 PM on March 24, 2005

Silliness and personal taste aside, does anyone have any good links about that Ranchero music, how it evolved, why it's so popular? I'd like to understand more about it. I realize I'm probably mis-naming it, but I know someone knows what I'm talking about here. Oompa-pa, oompa-pa. Not traditional Mariachi, which is generally only obnoxious in white folk Mexican restaurants like El Torito or some shit.

As I understand it it does indeed derive from polka, from when Germany was in what is now Mexico, so long ago.

What I primarily know about it is that it drives me right the fuck up the nearest wall, and it seems to be listened to by those who enjoy it only at bone-thudding, concrete-melting volume levels.

Woot! My girlfriend and I are going out for some tacos and more in downtown LA as soon as she gets off of work. The cravings are just too much to bear now. Take that, Minutemen! Hot, steaming tacos of love!

*waves hello to Olvera Street and the east side for anyone who cares.*
posted by loquacious at 9:57 PM on March 24, 2005

Who will mow my lawn?

Legal residents? Welfare recipients? Local kids? Yourself?

seriously, i can't imagine los angeles without all the delicious latino food we have here. tres leches cake! imagine there being no tres leches cake you sadistic, food-hating fascists!

Uh, Latino food has been in LA for years. Most Mexicans, especially in that 1986-1992 period, did come here legally. Then in 1992 the maquiladoras in the border regions started popping up, which exposed regular agrarian Mexicans to the wealth of the United States.

The fact is that illegal immigrants drive down wages. Why does my mom make $9 an hour as a SUPERVISOR of a little garment shop? If there was rational border control, then the wages at the bottom might go up.

For the truly seasonal positions, we import the workers and pay them a fair wage that Americans would take ($13-$15 an hour). Restaurant work, nanny care, and warehouse work is NOT seasonal. There are enough Americans unemployed or underemployed that would gladly take those jobs. The New York Times did a story on how Home Depot is hiring older Americans who want to make a buck. They pay them a fair amount and surprise surprise find there is a decent talent pool with skills that beat the person fresh out of high school.

And we need to be fair to the people already waiting in line. Mexico has a special line for its green card applicants because there are so many people. Immediately crack down and deport people who jump the border, fingerprint them and if their fingerprints match someone in the green card applicant file ban them forever. When the situation is cut down, then I would start speeding up the line of people that want to live here permanently, instead of playing this "guest worker" charade.
posted by calwatch at 11:55 PM on March 24, 2005

I, for one, would be willing to pay more for goods and services if there were more of an immigration crackdown in this country. I know that agricultural goods in particular are artificially kept at a low price due to the scandalously low wages that illegal farm workers command.

I wouldn't mind paying some extra on things if this meant that everyone in the country was genuinely earning minimum wage or better. That is, after all, the way things are *supposed* to be.

We do need tighter borders. It's rather crazy that ours leaks like a sieve. But we need uniformed border patrol, not vigilantes.
posted by beth at 12:55 AM on March 25, 2005

Uh, Latino food has been in LA for years.

TWAJS. I was born and raised here. "Latino food" has been here since before California was a state in CONUS. I'm not actually worried about it disappearing. At least not until I start seeing the precursors to ethnic purging and persecution. Which this "Minuteman" horsehocky at least faintly reeks of.

America also has a pretty big issue with Irish illegal immigration, not to mention illegal immigration from Europe in general. But that's just not as easy to recognize and target, and not quite so "other" or alien. What about China? What about Korea or Vietnam? How about Russia?

Why aren't these so-called Patriots all panty-twisted about the known fact that Russian organized crime is rapidly becoming a huge issue here in the States, trafficking in everything from live humans to weapons, drugs, technology and more.

Most Mexicans, especially in that 1986-1992 period, did come here legally. Then in 1992 the maquiladoras in the border regions started popping up, which exposed regular agrarian Mexicans to the wealth of the United States.

I'd like to see some good, reputable statistics on the 1986-1992 thing, but the latter just doesn't make any sense to me, and just doesn't sound right - as cause or effect.

My family had a business that relied heavily on immigrant labor. We were large-volume screen printers for a long list of recognizable international clients, so textiles basically. (Not a sweatshop, especially considering we we're always on the production floor working just as hard as our non-family employees, and really, we felt like many of our employees were family and were extremely thankful for their work ethic and willingness to help us accomplish a pretty boring, mind-numbing and difficult job.)

When NAFTA hit and the maquiladoras started taking away our business, not only did we have problems finding work, but finding employees to fulfill that work. And we know we weren't alone, inside or out of the textiles industry, as we talked quite frequently to our fellow medium-sized business owners, many of whom also relied heavily on immigrant labor.

"The fact is that illegal immigrants drive down wages. Why does my mom make $9 an hour as a SUPERVISOR of a little garment shop? If there was rational border control, then the wages at the bottom might go up."

Why do I make barely more than that doing tech work? Why does my Mom make far less than that writing and creating textbooks? I don't see hordes of immigrant workers (Mexican or not) lining up for my job, or hers. (Yeah, now there's outsourcing of CSR and tech support to India and elsewhere, but that wasn't really happening when I was much more active doing support, so it's moot.)

Why does Wal-Mart barely pay beans even after years of service, even to management positions, no matter where you are?

It's not an immigration problem, it's a worker's rights problem, and the problem of international consolidation of places of employment.

I'm pretty sure outsourcing manufacturing and service industry jobs overseas has cost us millions more in terms of jobs and the dollar value of those lost jobs than illegal immigration ever will.

But you don't (often) see people refusing to shop at places like Wal-Mart, or organizing actions against companies that short-sightedly sell us all out by giving most of their jobs to people overseas that can't afford to buy their product at the wages they pay them, and then coming back to us to sell us that product that we can still afford, for now, at a much greater profit.

How long can this economic model last? It just seems totally foolhardy to me, and it seems like it would threaten not only our national economy, but the global economy at large.

But we all love a bargain, so we shop away - right in the face of a potential (if not inevitable) catastrophe.

---

We don't need tighter borders. We need no borders. We need to banish the very concept of the anti-humanist, militant and military-minded nation-state.

The only reason borders exist is to extract tarrifs and taxes out of resources that cross through the membrane and to protect state-owned resources both natural and man-made, not the protection of citizens - unless you're counting those citizens as resources of the state.

And that, to me, is the crux of it. I don't feel that you're seeing the larger picture if you're claiming to be for real workers, and for living wages if you play right into the hands of the Corporate puppeteers that seem to have their strings running everywhere and controlling just about everything they can.

Nation-states and borders only strengthen their position and leverage. It is because of these artificial labor scarcities created by borders impeding the natural flow of people across the planet to where the resources and wealth are.

If there wasn't cheap labor abroad, there would be much less profit to be made. If these corporations were held accountable for their practices of outright, senseless profiteering for the sake of it, held accountable for aggressive monopolization of markets, held accountable for artificial price inflations, and held accountable for abusing the broad base of workers that actually supported them - not vice versa - then we might just start to take a real crack at why so many of us have been working so hard for such a small piece of such a large pie for so long.

To quote IshmaelGraves: What ever happened to tarring and feathering corrupt politicians and revenue agents?

You want to be a real Patriot? Fix America. It's broken, and stealing food from it's mothers and children and schools to fund unaccountable black budget projects researching more and more efficient ways of killing people, and better and better ways to monitor and control it's citizens like cattle, and blowing billions if not trillions of our money in our name on a specious, ill-contrived war of aggression and dominance.

Our infrastructure is crumbling, from roads to hospitals and affordable public utilities and services. We've lost our compassion and civic-mindedness and civic pride. We've lost our way.

Fix America, and then we can afford to welcome any and all with open arms to a clean, well stocked house with plenty for all, just as our forefathers intended us to.

Our forefathers didn't intend for us to act like sullen, candy spoiled, insular little brats who haven't learned the wholesome and wonderful values of sharing, or the value of cultural diversity.

And considering how much we've squandered over the last four years - measured both in lives and resources - the cost of doing this kind of fixing is peanuts in comparison.

---

Lastly - despite my pretty extreme views against nationalism in almost all forms above - this actually makes a bit of sense:

"Immediately crack down and deport people who jump the border, fingerprint them and if their fingerprints match someone in the green card applicant file ban them forever."

It sounds nice. I'd be more likely to say it would work if we could actually secure a frontier and then enforce it as law, but we can't even do that. I like the idea of it. Make it highly unattractive to come here illegally, because you risk never being able to visit or legally become a citizen.

But on the other hand, it's that kind of fatal totality that drives people to do stupid things like run from the police in high speed chases because of the 'three strikes' laws. If you suddenly don't have anything to lose, it becomes much more likely you're going to do stupid shit to survive and escape. I'm pretty sure it would backfire, and horribly.
posted by loquacious at 2:50 AM on March 25, 2005

I'm always amused, as a Briton, when Americans discuss the problems of immigration. You know, if the Native Americans ever kick you out, it's unlikely we'll be able to fit you all back in here. Sorry, I know that isn't helpful...

If you want some more northern-European white Protestants, demographics suggest that the Ulstermen might want to move on from Northern Ireland in the next few decades. They have a similar world-view to your founding fathers, and they are English-speaking and Protestant, and some of your opinion formers seem to think that is important.

But seriously, if this is about economics: immigration holds down the wages of people with whom immigrants compete, but immigrants do the jobs that locals refuse to do. Immigrants may allow businesses to cut their wage bills, but if they don't, then businesses in lower-wage countries will take over the market because we insist on paying as little as possible for goods and services. Finally, where immigration is permitted, the quality and skills of the immigrants can create a dynamism and energy in the economy that would not result from restricting the flow of ideas and people across your borders. Surely your own economic history teaches you this? Economist magazine on immigration.
posted by alasdair at 3:49 AM on March 25, 2005

Given some of the mixed highlights of immigration history in modern Britain, I wouldn't smile too much when discussing America.

The argument isn't over immigration per se. It is over numbers and rates and control and assimilation. Areas where reasonable people can differ. MM's problem is a government that refuses to address the issues at all, save in a self serving hypocritical way.

An aside- Ulster Scots have been coming to America since the 1690s, thanks very much. For more information, go here
posted by IndigoJones at 5:25 AM on March 25, 2005

What I liked about the Economist article (linked above) was the suggestion that the real problem with illegal immigration is that it's an all-or-nothing proposition i.e. if the immigration controls were relaxed, Mexicans would be free to enter and leave the US as the job market expanded and contracted. All the "They just want a piece of the greatest country on earth" chest-beating seems a little silly when polls reveal that many Mexican immigrants would prefer to go home after a few years in the US, if they could be assured of an safe way back in later. But for now, it would seem, they're making the rational decision and staying for as long as they can.
posted by idontlikewords at 6:44 AM on March 25, 2005

I'm surprised that these largely Republican groups haven't figured out that Bush is pro-business beyond any consideration of immigration reform. If we really wanted to slow the flow of immigration, we would encourage business from Mexico and points further south with trade bonuses and more importation from there rather than China, but that would mean taking away from American businesses in the form of cheaper labor.
posted by destro at 7:01 AM on March 25, 2005

Given some of the mixed highlights of immigration history in modern Britain, I wouldn't smile too much when discussing America.

No, you're absolutely right, immigration is a big and messy problem here, too, and has become a big election issue (we have an as-yet-uncalled General Election in May). But it isn't the case that 98.5% of Britons are immigrants, as is the case in the United States*. Given that, you might expect the arguments and policies to be different, and to be fair they are: what is sometimes surprising though is how similar they are.

* Of course, 100% of us are immigrants if you go back far enough, but you get my point.
posted by alasdair at 8:31 AM on March 25, 2005

But it isn't the case that 98.5% of Britons are immigrants, as is the case in the United States

I do get your point, and let me apologize if I sounded testy earlier. Not in the best traditions of MEFI.

Here's a leg pull question, though.

At what point does a tribe get to be called native? Should a Norman descendant (Isle of Wightian, e.g.) of 1066 vintage get to be called English? How about Saxons? Celts?(And let's not even discuss the Windsors.)

How about if a pilgrim son or daughter comes back lo these nearly four hundred years later and asks forgiveness?
posted by IndigoJones at 6:08 PM on March 25, 2005

At what point does a tribe get to be called native? Should a Norman descendant (Isle of Wightian, e.g.) of 1066 vintage get to be called English? How about Saxons? Celts?(And let's not even discuss the Windsors.)

Ooh, great question - and entirely appropriate to the subject (if you don't mind me saying so). I would argue that a tribe gets to be native when their narrative entwines with that of the dominant cultural story. We all agree that the Welsh are Britons: we tell rude jokes about them, and we ascribe to them certain national characteristics that differentiate them from the normal British story, but we do not regard them as alien: as Henry V says in one of the greatest national-myth stories "For I am Welsh, you know, good countryman." I would further say that thanks to London Transport and NHS workers, black comedians (e.g. Lenny Henry) and sportsmen (e.g. Daley Thompson), and a shared colonial history, the Windrush 1950s/1960s black immigrants are now part of the native tribe, despite their relatively recent arrival. Some would disagree. Somali immigrants from the 1990s, refugees from the complete breakdown of their home country, I do think are yet so placed within our national narrative that they are native. Given time and opportunity they may be: some might argue they are now. What I think these disparate examples demonstrate is that a native of a Britain cannot be strictly defined, but is dependent on politics, culture and history.

Not much of a hard-and-fast answer, I'm afraid, but I think one that reflects our impure, muddy, vague and glorious history.
posted by alasdair at 7:57 PM on March 25, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

How about if a pilgrim son or daughter comes back lo these nearly four hundred years later and asks forgiveness?

You will have to swear an oath of allegience to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth: if you can stomach it, I'd certainly welcome you! My family managed it: from American to British in three generations, but there was some helpful marriage and Canada was involved somewhere...
posted by alasdair at 8:04 PM on March 25, 2005

IndigoJones:
"you get the price of housing going up, higher tax bills to pay for more public services, decreased wages for unskilled labor, and an increased competition for unskilled jobs. Also more crime."

you take a moment to preempt any economics based responses, while you're own assertions are based in, what economics right?

So dropping theory, I say, show me the data.

I for one think that immigration and remissions to third world countries are going to be the one way that the third world ever catches up/ doesnt disintegrate as the first world grows.
posted by stratastar at 9:13 PM on March 25, 2005

you take a moment to preempt any economics based responses, while you're own assertions are based in, what economics right?

Walked into that one, didn't I? As to data, as I suggested- plenty of articles for the cherry picking.

I do have anecdotal evidence, however, of working class friends whose real estate values go up as Latino families (in this case) pool saving and buy houses intended for single families. Followed by higher taxes for schools, increased competition for unskilled jobs. The whole litany. Said friends tend to move away after a while.

Not so sure about the immigration and remissions being the salvation of third world countires. (Data?) Me, I'd put more stock in Rule of Law, often lacking in such countries. With that in place, business can flourish, and the energetic might not feel any need to come here.
posted by IndigoJones at 8:32 AM on March 26, 2005

Not much of a hard-and-fast answer, I'm afraid

Neither was the question, for that matter. Thank you for the run through. Interesting.

If you ever get a chance, get a hold of Charles Waterton's "Essay on Natural History" and "Wanderings in South America". Nineteenth century eccentiric of impossibly ancient lineage. He referred to the royals with disdain as "Hanoverians", and used the term in place of Norway when referring to a common species of rat.

The French traditionally claim that anyone who learns to speak like a native is in, but I suspect that has worn down a bit since the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. (Wore down before the Dreyfus affair, come to that. Ah, the French!)
posted by IndigoJones at 6:26 PM on March 26, 2005

ah it's late I have an exam tomorrow and i don't' have time for googling (time to waste on mefi though right)

but in MANY Central American Countries, remissions have become the number one source of income (especially since the coffee crisis drove prices down, causing many farmers to oh right immigrate to the U.S.
Rule of law? hah! The ability to prosper surely matters... and the institutions and laws that exist in 3rd and 2nd world country's don't lend themselves to prosperity and "business flourishing" but the problems are a WHOLE bunch more difficult than that (read up on the New Institutional Economics). One would imagine that development "experts" could get it right, except for oh the difficulty part.

Anyways, the lesson is, as far as I can tell, international aid in economic crises does matter, especially when it starts hitting, i guess "close to home," (white flight redux huh...)

as for anecdotal evidence (not denying yours): I also know for a fact that many immigrants do alot of the jobs that you and I, (or other americans) don't want to do... and the fact that they want to move to the nice areas, (good schools, good health) is just plain smart (backlashes aside)...

or we could go with the European system of immigration: minority ghetto suburbs ringing the cities... (out of sight out of mind)

ah my point if I have one in there, is that it's all connected...
anyway.

/end tired ramble without coherence
posted by stratastar at 11:14 PM on March 27, 2005