how many folks from each side were there?

The counter-protesters were hardly "lily white" and there were at least 50 of us. The Minutemen have attracted a small number of black members -- sad but random. The Minuteklan try to use them as cover to prove they aren't racist. Unfortunately the local media is letting the bigots propagate this image, that they like immigrants, just no the 'illegal' ones. But its beyond obvious that they are bigoted racists with neonazi and klan members. That's why chants like 'Minuteklan go home' and 'no racists no KKK no fascist USA' are totally appropriate. Also no human being is illegal, and to say otherwise is just the heights of bigotry.

The only problem is that our side was not big enough -- we need more people out there organzing against the Minutemen and against all those who whip up racist venom against immigrants. We must fight for immigrant rights and amnesty. "Minuteklan (y Bush) escucha, estamos en la lucha!!"

Estimates in the media seem to be roughly 100 minutemen/minutemen supporters and 50-60 folks their to protest their racism and xenophobia.

Re:Liberals Mistreat Black People

Your understanding of racism seems to be quite different from mine. Tokenism, though a nice strategy to try to cover up racism, is racism in and of itself.

I think your argument is incorrect (though I can't tell you what to think). Much of the immigration to this country on the Mexican border in the last 10 years can be traced back to NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Eliminating "barriers to trade" included protections that helped Mexican farmers avoid the corn "dumping" that occurs now. That is, heavily subsidized US corn is allowed, or forced, under NAFTA, into Mexico without tariffs, making it much cheaper in real terms for US farmers to produce corn than those farming in Mexico. Coupled with the multinational corporation invasion that occured under NAFTA, many in Mexico were forced to leave farms in rural areas (as corn was no longer an industry would allow them to earn a living) and move to more urban areas, often taking jobs in factories (also thanks to NAFTA (and other free trade agreements), many US corporations have moved their factories abroad, both to Mexico and worldwide, where labor is cheaper (ie workers are paid less), environmental standards are looser (ie US companies pollute without accountability, killing people quickly and in the long term). However, such jobs are often akin to prison labor, with sub-poverty wages and dangerous working conditions. At least 400 women have been murdered in Mexico's "maquiladora" zones, an area home to many factories near the US border, see www.amnesty.org.uk/news/press/14788.shtml or other stories for more information. Fleeing dangerous working conditions, many have chosen to cross the border into the US. These are but some of the many causes of immigration to the US from Mexico.
Once here, immigrants are often forced into low paying jobs (and subject to racism, classism, and faced with many other obstacles) with little benefits for corporations with little accountability. It seems as though many in this country are quite eager to employ immigrants at low wages to do service sector jobs, yet racists such as the minutemen don't want to see immigrants. That, my friend, is racism.
Enforcement of laws (including immigration laws) that are inherently racist, is racism.

Personal encounters with minutemen who have claimed that immigrants "only rape and murder 'our' children" would also lead me to believe that the minutemen are racist. I would encourage you to do more research into the minutemen, what they are saying in public, what they are saying in private, and the potential consequences of their desired vision for the future.

the above comment was in reference to a comment that has since been redacted.

I was at the rally and I have one question... why would anyone protest enforcing current laws on the books. All that does is support the exploitation of these immigrants rather than help them. Not to mention, kind of destroys the purpose of the rule of law, which is one of the foundations of the United States.

we protest these laws because they are racist.

You want the laws, allright then all people of european descent need to be deported back to where they came from, they came here illegally and killed Indians who were here before the Europeans! So if you put the law in effect then you can't really have the laws because people who came here on the mayflower and other boats, which were some of the founders of the U.S. were here illegally!

And while we're at it, we'll get the Indians to give back the land they stole from other Indians, and we can resurrect the long dead tribes that were wiped out in territorial wars hundreds of years before Europeans ever made an appearance here, and then we can go make the English give Scotland back to the Scots, and South Africa will go back to the African people, and we'll give Australia back to the Bushmen. How'd that be?

(Please note the extreme sarcastic tone of this remark. Your proposition is pure idiocy at its finest.)

[Fuck the police. Instead of protecting individual rights, which is what they claim to exist for, they protect white supremacists from anti-racists.]

Sorry Slugo, but in this country, the police protect you from harm and others from harm. Both sides got to exercise your free speech, you were not allowed to conduct political violence and that's why America is the great country it is. We vote on things and are not held down by those (i.e., you) who practice political violence. And we have the men and women in blue to thank for that, not "progressives".

Actually, your kind will run to the justice systems and shady lawyers when you fuck up and get a little manhandled by the police because you break the law and then resist. You are guilty but you expect to exercise all the safe guards in our system, the system you hate.

Just remember, if we ever go to your system and you and your friends are in charge, you have NO such protections. If you fall out of favor with your leadership, some 21st centery Che will walk up and put a bullet in your head, no trial, no defense, no civil liberties, just "progressive" social justice. Look around you at your peers and ask yourself, "Would this guy/gal do that?" and realize that from how wacked out and emotional they get at demonstrations, fuck yeah they'd bust a cap in mom's head for the revolution.

The illegal invaders clearly prove once again why we need to secure our borders. They believe American laws do not apply to them and demand citizenship at all costs. The illegal immigrants truly believe we are fascists because of this fact: The USA is a sovereign nation with borders. Sadly, we are dealing with ignorant people that will say and do anything to make the United States hand over our beloved country on a silver platter. They continue to show their contempt for the principles our nation was founded upon- Laws. The mob mentality of the invaders will continue until we step up and defend America or lay down and allow our lands to become an extension of Mexico. Why don't they protest in Mexico for the freedoms they demand from the USA? With more than 12 million illegals here in the USA, that should make an army large enough to take over Mexico and its corrupt leadership. To that I say, "Let the Revolution begin."

[we protest these laws because they are racist.]

Immigration laws, laws that allow LEGAL IMMIGRATION, favor those people who you claim others oppose on the grounds of racism.

So the same race is welcome when they immigrate legally, and not when they are criminals and illegally cross our borders.

There is no racism in that and you should apologize and resign.

You right wing wackos can foam at the mouth all you want, but you're losing. The number of immigrants is this country continues to grow as does the number of people who support immigrants rights. Your laws are racist, ineffective, and stupid, just as you are racist, ineffective, and stupid. Also, let me add, fuck the police.

You crazy right-wing wackos can foam at the mouth all you want about what you ridiculously call an "invasion" of immigrants, but you are still losing. The number of immigrants in this country continues to grow just as the number of people who support immigrant rights continues to grow. Your laws are racist, ineffective, and stupid, just as you are racist, ineffective, and stupid. Also, let me add, fuck the police. And I agree with the author of the article that, damn, these white supremacists certainly are some seriously ugly people!

Not that I like the Minutemen, but, aren't they entitled to the same freedom of speech as you are?

Never mind that their message is misguided, but the First Amendment does protect their speech, too. Right?

Any point of view you may have tried to convey was lost in all the cursing. It's all so ignorant on your part, show some maturity.

I, for one, believe that you should take your fight to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Sudan and all other countries that have their citizens emigrating. Take that fervor you display here, in all it's childlike mannerisms, and go there to fight for justice for those people.

The NAFTA argument is a nonstarter. While American yellow corn is subsidized and thus cheaper than Mexican what happened was more complex.

Mexican industrial farmers had been producing yelow corn for animal feed and switched over to white corn used for food. The industrialists came to dominate the supply of white corn to the idustrial market previously supplied by rural farmers. The Mexican village production would have been able to find markets.

The failure was that added value should have been added in the villages locally. There is a rising demand for meat and as much corn as the villages could produce could have been used between locally processed food and feed. Instead it was too easy to go north. This meant that it became increasingly hard to staff a traditional farm. Young risk takers who could have made a career in meat left to work illegally in the U.S.

To the original poster

By the way I am Black. My father was a development agronomist. I have relative in Mexico. My mothers family operated a small farm. You should do some real research because your analysis make you come of looking like a dumbass.

i agree that the minutemen are a bunch of xenophobic white men, but this article lost me completely. whats with all the cursing? why behave like teenagers? nobody wants to listen to this shit. this is why indymedia, instead of being a breakthrough clearinghouse of pertinent information is instead a voicebox for disgruntled misinformed opinion. when you start to host real investigative journalism let me know. cause this stinks.

hey, whoever wrote this, i commend your actions. this has to be done. Stop these kkk-wannabees in their tracks. it is from these 'civilian' groups that such passion against immigrants gets turned into federal legislation that criminalized a whole people, destroying families, killing some, detaining others. So please, wherver there are minutemen, stop them. but also, do education work. flyers, workshops, videos. support local immigrant organizing as well.

that said, this article needs some cleaning up if you want anyone to take you seriously. its just too self-righteous. gotta be more self-critical and stop saying "scumbag" "ugly" "trash" every sentence. it just makes the whole thing devolve into quasi-hate-speech, the same exact shit that minutemen say about immigrants. i think theres better ways of describing direct action against racists that don't just say 'fuck x, fuck y, fuck z' and 'we won!'. people at indymedia know to fuck the police. we know that racist vigilantes are scumbags. so lets hear more about who these people are. Why were they there? Who was on your side? How did it get organized? Whats the follow-up?

but all in all, good work.

Wow. This is today's 'left'? On the same side as Bush, corporations and the Catholic church. How much did Cheney pay Indymedia for this article?

And you wonder why no one will take your position seriously... You try and defend your opinion by acting and sounding like a 13 year old.

Keep up the good work. It makes our job so much easier. Who do you think the moderate fence sitters will side with?

A screaming mob of anarchists that stand on street corners yelling obscenities, who's only defense is that these people are just racists.

or

A bunch of middle american, clean cut, next-door-joe's that just want a more protected border?

Well, judging from the size of the minutemen rallies, which brought out a few dozen white supremacits, compared with the size of the pro-immigrant marches, walkouts, and rallies which have brought millions of good people out, I'd say that the anarchists yelling obscenities have a lot more support than the dumbass "middle american, clean cut, next-door-joes" who are filled with fear and xenophobia.

The leftists are not the enemy. They are just irrelevant. The enemy is Bush and his open borders agenda.

I'm glad the leftists are out there. Let a bunch of smelly, ugly, left wing scum chant "U.S. Out of North America." It helps our cause. The key is waking up the sleeping giant that is the Right and convincing them that the Iraq war is irrelevant and the real war is here. And the obstacle there is the neocons.

Wow. You crazy minuteklansmen think that Bush and the neocons aren't right wing enough? The comedian Jeff Foxworthy should do a new stand-up routine called, "you might be a fascist if..."
The first part could go, "If you think that Bush is not right-wing enough, you might be a fascist".

That's hilarious that minutemen think Bush has an "open border agenda". The third highest reason for a person to go to federal prison in this country is for immigration offences. And in case you haven't read the papers today, Bush is sending the National Guard to do border patrol, thereby even further militarizing the already over-militarized border. Yes indeed, "you might be a fascist if..."

Well, yes, Bush has an open borders agenda. Enforcement against businesses that hire illegals have plummeted under Jorge compared to Clinton. Bush could care less about the invasion. He and his corproate buddies want their cheap labor. The leftists of course could give a shit about the working man, it's too much fun to listen to their ethnic studies professors about how the illegals are sticking it to whitey.

As far as the national guard goes, it is an obvious ploy to quell the GOP grassroots revolt. He assured his buddy Fox that it was just "temporary" and he won't build a wall.

Bush is the biggest leftist to ever be president. Higher spending, new welfare entitlements, a neocon war to "spread democracy" to the deprived without even the pretense of caring about the American national interest, the Mexican invasion, and centralization of executive power that would make FDR blush. Bush is the best thing that ever happened to the Left.

I'd have to agree with most of what your above comment says. But I can't take seriously any claims of a mexican "invasion". Invasion is what the U.S. military is doing to Iraq. I don't know of any neighborhoods in the U.S. that have been bombed by Mexicans recently. Mexicans aren't dragging U.S. citizens out of their homes at night, handcuffing them, putting bags over their heads, and then taking them to detention centers to be tortured. In fact, it's a lot more likely that a Mexican will be kidnapped by U.S. citizens in uniforms and taken to a detention center to be tortured. Mexicans haven't used chemical weapons like white phosphorous and MK 77 firebombs against the U.S. Coming into this country to work hard, low-pay jobs is hardly an invasion. As for workers getting screwed by the low wages, that's true, and it's also true that Bush and his corporate friends love the low-wage labor they can get by exploiting immigrants. But the blame for that is not on the immigrants, it's on the corporate scum who exploit them. Too often in this country people point the blame downward, accusing the victims instead of the victimizers. The blame needs to be pointed upwards. Immigrants are not the reason for the exploitation of workers. It's the greedy guys at the top who need to be deported, not immigrants. Deported to where? How about the North Pole?

"The third highest reason for a person to go to federal prison in this country is for immigration offences."

And what percentage of these are employers who hire illegals? ZERO.

I fail to see how welcoming limitless numbers of Latin America's poor is a benefit to anyone in this country other than the corporate scum who exploits them.

Keep up the good work...maybe then we can get even MORE troops on the border.

Classic...just classic. Your "protests" did the exact opposite of what you wanted. Now hand me my fries...

!

No one can stop illegal immigration from a country with lower economic freedom (such as Mexico) to one with as higher level of economic freedom (such as the U.S.)

Any Republicans who want to try to win "the war on immigration" as well as we've won the "war on drugs" should remember that drugs still get into the country, but at least they don't vote.

Republicans who truly believe in the free market should embrace more immigrants (expanding immigration to have more legal immigrants) and make sure they know that the U.S. is a rich country because of economic freedom, and that the Republicans stand for economic freedom, and that the Democrats would love to turn the U.S. into a country as economically unfree as Mexico.

According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, "Foreign firms continue to list bureaucracy, slow government decision-making, lack of transparency, a heavy tax burden, and a rigid labor code among the principal negative factors inhibiting investment in Mexico."

Even though I'm not a supporter of capitalism as the highest value, I still think the current situation is anti-capitalist because of the welfare state. If we didn't have a welfare state or government subsidies to private interests, I might have a different opinion of the immigration situation. As it stands, this just looks like more socialism for the rich to me, with the middle class paying the welfare costs of big business's cheap labor.

Besides, does anyone seriously doubt that the long term result of this is just turning the United States of America into another Latin American basketcase with incompetent socialist governments, leftist politics, a terrible economy, and a lower standard of living? Our government will be just as statist and socialist as theirs if this migration continues. The capitalists are digging their own graves. Put down the Ayn Rand and take a look at what's happening to your country.

Your protest effected no change, didn't generate more communication, or bring the two sides more toward the center...

The minuteman message apparently resounds better in the halls of Congress and the White House.

Standing on sidewalks screaming that these people must be racists and that no one is illegal as the sum total of your position sounds ridiculous.

They can point to facts and figures, costs and crimes. You? insults.

They sit in a desert to uphold the rule of law (that part keeps being left out of the discussion) to demonstrate their belief. You? What...left work early to be at the rally then went back to a friends place and bragged about how well you trounced those evil nazis? Mocked the minority members of the group as being Uncle Toms? real enlightened....

You denounce these actions as racism. All this does is demonstrate that you don't even know what the problem is. This has nothing to do with skin color. You want an open and free border? Then come up with a plan. Show me how that socially and fiscally we can absorb all the huddled masses that want to be here and I will be behind you 100%. The problem? It can't be done.

Thanks to you we finally have troops on the border and nice big fence.

If it were true that we accomplish nothing, then why are so many right-wing wackos so pissed at us? Why are there so many angry racists posting angry messages on this thread? If we were truly as ineffective as you suggest, then all you right-wing wackos wouldn't be wasting your time trying to get us to stop what we're doing. You're right that the minuteklan's message resounds better in the halls of congress and the white house than our message does. Slimy politicians have always been more tied to racist interests than they have been to freedom. But real people, thinking people, decent people, see the minutemen for the scum that they are. Don't forget, There were millions in the streets for immigrants rights in the past couple of months. The minutemen could only muster up a few dozen angry white racists to come out in support of their KKK agenda. But while decent people don't like the minutemen, the KKK and neo-nazi groups sure do seem to support the minuteman agenda!

So, why should there be borders and why are people illegal? We've been through these strawmen on multiple threads on this subject, but if you want to go through this exercise again, let's go about it.

Otherwise, there are some very good discussions on both sides in earlier threads this year on the immigration issue, the minuteman issue, as well as dealing with the American Renaissance conference.

So does every human being in the world have a "right" to live in the United States?

There is no right for there to be a United States or any other nation. So, it is the United States that has no right to restrict access to land that belongs to no one.

Since, there's a nation-centered ethics at work here, and not a land-centered ethics, since it's a "rule of the few" at work, and not a confluence of the many, you get the deep bigotry that's behind immigration laws.

By what right does the United States make these decisions? It signed treaties with Indians that were fraudulent; it stole land from Mexicans, whose people had little say in what their government was doing; it imported slaves to hold its hegemony, and it created the myth of a democratic system that's never existed to legitimize its corrupt and arrogant manifest destiny. It raped the North American continent of its resources, tamed wild rivers, killed off many species of animals and plants, and has acted as a perpetual bully to anyone who isn't "American," then set up laws to further aid to this mask of righteousness.

By what right does the United States do anything, let alone tell someone that they can't come here? Especially to people whose own policies have led them to come here in the first place?

There are several points here I disagree with.

First, reaching back to my libertarian days, I may grant you that states with borders are unimportant by themselves. However, states do not equal nations -- and nations do exist and people will defend them. Certainly, the display of militant Mexican nationalism that we have seen over the last couple months has not been condemned by the Left. Why shouldn't Americans be free to display their own national and cultural pride? Your post implicitly says there is a Mexican nation and not an American one. Why not?

Because nation-states are still the international norm, our survival as a people, for now anyway, is tied with the survival of our state. Why is it that everyone else is allowed to defend their right to exist and not us?

And what are you talking about that the land belongs to no one? Of course it does. While your anarachist zines may say free the land, I really don't think you have thought through the consequences of this policy. Should I bring a few dozen of my friends to crash at your house and then angrily protest when you request that I leave? By what right could you tell me to go? Should we all raid farms in the Midwest, eat all the food, and then protest when we are arrested? Do you honestly think such a society could survive? If you are going to be an anarchist, at least be a market anarchist.

Our policies are bringing them here? How about the Mexican government's? Unless you literally maintain that the United States government must ensure an equal standard of living for every person in the entire world, regardless of where they live or their ability or desire to work, you are saying we can't defend our borders. Who is going to pay for all this -- the same American middle class that is getting screwed by both Bush and the Left? And how are they going to do this when the American government, as you just claimed, doesn't have a right to exist? Will you finally go away when we are all living like Third World peasants? Is that the glorious revolution of which you dream?

By what right? By the sovereign right of the American people to defend our independence. We do not need to ask permission from our enemies to defend our right to exist as a nation and as a people.

Everyone on the planet has migrated from somewhere else.

Let’s look at this more carefully.

First, reaching back to my libertarian days, I may grant you that states with borders are unimportant by themselves. However, states do not equal nations — and nations do exist and people will defend them. Certainly, the display of militant Mexican nationalism that we have seen over the last couple months has not been condemned by the Left. Why shouldn't Americans be free to display their own national and cultural pride? Your post implicitly says there is a Mexican nation and not an American one. Why not?

My post hopefully implies that there is both a Mexican and an American nation, but my position is that there should not be either a Mexico or a United States. As an anarchist, I am against all displays of nationalism as an inherently arbitrary divider between people.

This is not to say that the two forms are therefore equally bad. The United States has historically oppressed many of its own people and people throughout the globe, including Mexico. It has used wealth, resources, and military to dominate and serve as an obstacle in the self-determination of people in a way that only the largest empirical powers ever have. So, to the extent that the United States is guilty of a greater scope of oppression, American pride makes even less sense than Mexican pride, which at the very least seems to signify to many a rallying point to signify the common history of an oppressed class, the way being an African does for an entire continent, or being black does for people with that skin color. So, when I see a Mexican flag, it’s not so easy as to say that what I’m seeing is a bald case of nationalism the way it is when I see an American flag.

Even so, I do not think the state of Mexico is any more legitimate than any other state. Boundaries are used to preserve the status quo and a relationship of oppression. While the Mexican boundaries are smaller than they might have been without the outside oppression of the United States, they are too large for the people who wish to determine their own destiny who happen to live within the control of the Mexican police force and military. This repeats itself all over the globe. There is what scholars call internal colonialism that exists within every country. The United States is a double perpetrator in the colonialist game, as internally colonizing large groups of people within the boundaries of its own borders while exerting its control beyond its borders by using governments throughout the world to do its bidding, without any input from the people of these countries. A power structure stays in place among all the ruling classes throughout all the nations of the world to keep that system in place.

Because nation-states are still the international norm, our survival as a people, for now anyway, is tied with the survival of our state. Why is it that everyone else is allowed to defend their right to exist and not us?

Are you having trouble surviving? But, if you are, then I would still tell you it’s not the immigrant who is to blame but the policies of the governments of the world, chief among them the richest countries in the world, especially the United States, and the multinational corporations who have created this mess.
But, you say that “our survival is tied to the survival of our state,” which is an amazing claim. People make it all the time, but you have a huge burden of proof. I’m not sure how you could possibly know such a thing. And, for the purposes of this discussion, you’ve done nothing more than beg the question.

And what are you talking about that the land belongs to no one? Of course it does. While your anarachist zines may say free the land, I really don't think you have thought through the consequences of this policy. Should I bring a few dozen of my friends to crash at your house and then angrily protest when you request that I leave? By what right could you tell me to go? Should we all raid farms in the Midwest, eat all the food, and then protest when we are arrested? Do you honestly think such a society could survive? If you are going to be an anarchist, at least be a market anarchist.

I can honestly say I’ve never read an anarchist zine. However, I am making an ethical point; you are turning it around with pragmatic challenges. First, I’d ask you to consider the ethical point. By what right does anyone own the land? At least John Locke attempted to give a rationale for it however misguided he was. He said that people own the land because they make improvements upon it and therefore can be said to have made the land better and therefore by right has ownership to the land. Of course, I find a lot wrong with this rationale, starting with the questions about measuring what “improvement” is. Presumably a nation claims its ownership of land because it has the ability to protect the space upon which improvements to the land for use by humans can be made. Since that is the first prerequisite of survival, and the nation-state is best equipped to handle this challenge, so the argument goes that the land belongs to a nation. The nation whose people may best use the land have more ownership rights to it. That’s how it goes, right? Is that what you are talking about? If so, let me know before I go further. It’s a familiar argument used throughout the 19th century to steal land from Indians who weren’t using the land well enough.

Now, to your practical concerns, I wouldn’t know where to start since the problems run deeper than your loaded questions. We shouldn’t expect there not to be problems; there’s nothing utopian about the anarchist worldview. The question is simply what is more just and less oppressive and allows people their greatest empowerment and therefore the greatest opportunity for expression. I would argue that comes from small communities that recognize and respect the wider community of beings in the world, including the land, the animals, and much more besides. Being a so called “market” anarchist makes everything and everyone a commodity, and so its built on an ethos that accepts an oppressor relationship right from the onset. So, it is inherently self contradictory.

Our policies are bringing them here? How about the Mexican government's? Unless you literally maintain that the United States government must ensure an equal standard of living for every person in the entire world, regardless of where they live or their ability or desire to work, you are saying we can't defend our borders. Who is going to pay for all this — the same American middle class that is getting screwed by both Bush and the Left? And how are they going to do this when the American government, as you just claimed, doesn't have a right to exist? Will you finally go away when we are all living like Third World peasants? Is that the glorious revolution of which you dream?

I think I’ve spoken to the issue of the Mexican government. Do not confuse the people living in a land with their government. It is not the immigrant’s fault what the Mexican government does when it schemes with the United States for agreements like NAFTA.

I could argue with you from a consumerist standpoint and show you statistics that show that immigrants of all types actually help the economy grow and therefore aren’t nearly as costly as they seem to you, but I believe that standpoint is flawed. If the disruption of borders ultimately leads to a reduction of living standard for everyone in the country, I still wonder what constitutes a good standard of living – is it the ability to consume what one wants to consume? Isn’t that what often amounts to the American definition of freedom? Or, perhaps, it’s what the upper middle class and rich want to consume? Or what they and the creditors give you choice to consume? So, forgive me if I fail to see what a reduction in what you call your standard of living actually amounts to. Much of the technological behemoth that we’ve created to harness the land and its resources is not making anyone happier, only more alienated and unhappy. People are happy to consume but not happy because they simply can consume. Certainly, those who don’t have the means to do that much are even less happy, but almost all seemed to have bought into the lie that this is what life amounts to. It’s not enough to feed people, we must feed them until they are fat on cheesecake. They have to drive around in vehicles which choke the air and destroy diversity. They have to make enough money at the expense of someone else. And, if you are in one of the many underclasses in American society, you are sold a dream as the only option, and if you dare question that dream, it must be because of your own privileged position. But, all of this points to a general lack of empowerment, and without tackling the systems of oppression, we cannot possibly understand what a “good standard of living” is supposed to look like.

In the short term, I’m not going to blame immigrants for wanting a slice of this very sick pie; what else is there? In the long term, acceptance of immigrants as the same as us will take us one short step toward dismantling many of the unjust oppressor relationships we have. And, while that will never end, dismantling at least a worldwide system that embraces this as an acceptable reality will, I believe, transform what we consider to be a good life.

By what right? By the sovereign right of the American people to defend our independence. We do not need to ask permission from our enemies to defend our right to exist as a nation and as a people.

If only it were the people you were talking about and not the mythical smokescreen we’ve all been taught to believe…all you are defending is an international system of injustice.

If Bush is for it, then I'm agin it.

It must be cuz of all the inbreeding that's going on, y'all, that white supremacists are goddamn uglified.