Yesterday, on this very blog, Mr. Eric Moskowitz wrote “I wasn’t able to attend the House Edit meeting the night before the 4.11 piece was written, but had I been there, this piece would have been different.”
I personally don’t think this is the case. I was at the editorial board meeting that discussed this staff editorial, and I felt that the board’s opinion was coherent. The resulting piece, in my opinion, accurately reflects our discussion, and I don’t think any one additional board member would have changed the opinion of the board itself.
To transition to my personal response to Eric’s blog post (I do not reflect the views of the editorial board):
How is hosting a panel composed of an NYU academic (Gillermina Jasso), a Temple Law professor (Jan Ting), and leaders from two civil society groups (Chris Simcox and Enrique Morones) crass or provocative?
The Minutemen (and Simcox’s current group, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps) may technically be “civil society groups,” but they are hardly civil. It’s hard to get to the bottom of what the various Minuteman groups actually represent. Let’s try.
I’m sure Eric is legitimately asking:
Is the editorial board OK with just asssuming that Simcox is a bigot based based on the claims of the protesters? Is he not entitled to any believability when he defends himself?
But would he ask this question if he knew Simcox had said, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, about Mexican and Central American immigrants, “They have no problem slitting your throat and taking your money or selling drugs to your kids or raping your daughter and they are evil people.”
That’s kind of racist, if you ask me. And the Southern Poverty Law Center has documented instances of white supremacists operating with Minutemen (although not with the Minutemen’s knowledge). That same article details an incident where Minutemen got their panties in a bunch over a “credible threat” that “armed MS-13 gang members were about to lead a charge of hundreds of Mexicans “over the wire” and against the Minuteman posts along Border Road.”
These people are Boy Scouts. They play make-believe. Although Mr. Simcox himself is a smooth speaker who presents a palatable public persona, he has a dark background. Same SPL article, different Minuteman speaking: “Just shoot ‘em on sight. That’s my immigration policy recommendation. You break into my country, you die.”
My own column about the protest ran in WSN on Wednesday. One commenter, Jay, suggested, “Illegal aliens are criminals who need to be ferreted out, rounded up, and promptly deported without costly hearings or trials. Enough is enough. Land mine the border and end the invasion.”
These are the kind of people the Minutemen and their supporters are. Regardless of what you think of Mr. Simcox himself, this is his contribution to the immigration debate in the U.S. Even if he’s not a racist, he has spawned racists and has offered them a platform to do violence against vulnerable human beings. Morally and ethically, he should be held accountable. And he should not be considered a valuable asset in an academic discussion of illegal immigration.
Eric says:
If anyone would realize, just for a second, that there were, in fact, other people on the panel beside Simcox who deserved to be recognized, they’d understand that there was actually a serious presentation of policy going on that evening.
You’re right, Ting and Jasso were seriously presenting policy. But if the goal of the discussion was a serious presentation of policy, Simcox wouldn’t have been invited. Outside of his border activities, is there any reason to consider Simcox an expert on immigration policy? If not, consider the fact that David Duke organized a similar border watch in the late 70s. Would he be a legitimate guest? Of course not — but he’s got the same “expertise” as Simcox.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
So now the criterion for being booted out of the discussion is if your statements get latched onto by white-power crazies?
Thats convenient, because that is white supremacists’ best (and pretty much only) strategy for making themselves seem mainstream: latching on to respectable people with whom they happen to agree.
if the goal of the discussion was a serious presentation of policy, Simcox wouldn’t have been invited. Outside of his border activities, is there any reason to consider Simcox an expert on immigration policy?
By this logic, Enrique Morones shouldn’t have been invited either. Morones did a lot more at the panel to derail the discussion than Simcox, and was a lot more disrespectful. I think the CRs actually did open-borders supporters a disservice by inviting such a demagogue.
Almost all the objections to the Minutemen rely on guilt-by-association. Despite all the hearsay and huffing and puffing by anonymous people claiming association with the group, where are the documented instances of violence?
I do think the editorial would have been different had Eric been there. And that’s all I’m going to say.
If you create a circumstance ripe for exploitation by white supremacists, you should take responsibility. Whether Simcox is a white supremacist or not - and one of those quotes was actually from Simcox, remember - he has given them a platform. By creating a vigilante organization, he invited trouble (and hatred). Did Batman gather a gang of hooligans to his side, Eric? Only in The Dark Knight Returns, and that was weird, I admit.
As for Morones, you’re right. He doesn’t present serious policy ideas. I agree entirely. I don’t object to his presence because I think he was needed to counter Simcox. However, there is an element to the debate that I would argue is more important than policy - the human element. Like on that commercial. And, at the very least, Morones is useful to report the dangers immigrants face on the border. If Simcox hadn’t been there, though, I don’t think Morones needed to be.
As for documented instances of violence, it’s very difficult to prove anything that happens in the open desert. It’s also very difficult to prove allegations of child molestation, which may or may not have benefited Mr. Simcox.
To be fair, it’s also difficult to tell the difference between a leg massage and molestation. So maybe Mr. Simcox just got a bad rap.
On a related topic, Mike, I really enjoy your leg massages. They’re totally great in a way I can’t write about on a family blog like this one.
My buddies died face-down in the mud so we could enjoy this family blog. We’re talking about basic freedoms here, man.
Mike,
I understand and respect your position, but it seems to me that the most productive way for the protesters to have responded to Simcox et al. would have been to treat him the way they would expect conservatives to treat one of their controversial guests on the opposite side of spectrum. Any time you conclude that “he should not be considered a valuable asset” to discussion, you’re opening up opportunities for your opponents to say the same about someone you support — and nothing gets done.
The obvious reason that Republicans are so upset is that this the vicious cycle above isn’t balanced at all; whenever a liberal says something controversial (see my forthcoming blog post), freedom of speech is all that is needed to justify it. But conservatives who want the same freedoms have to go through an obstacle course of hate, racism and academic validity tests. It’s uneventful when a liberal says a conservative doesn’t contribute to academic discussion.
Anthony,
I know that I’m opening up opportunities for opponents to say the same about someone I support — Eric said the same about Morones. And I agreed with him. If the panel was supposed to discuss immigration policy, neither had a real reason to attend.
And any NYU liberal protesting Mr. Simcox would have told you that he’s afforded the same free speech rights. The NYU contingent decided before the protest that they did not want Simcox banned from speaking. The activists outside who were saying no free speech for racists were not NYU students. Some of them were Stalinists, apparently. I didn’t know Stalinists still existed.
It’s not a question of liberalism or conservatism. How is Simcox qualified to contribute to an academic discussion? He’s a former kindergarten teacher who created a media frenzy because of vigilante activity.
Eric: I watched that movie last night, oddly enough, and kept thinking that Walter embodies the Minuteman ethos.
Stock Investment Information…
Stock Investment information…
Skokiesportsshow2326$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsboo…
Skokiesportsshow2326$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsbook,…
Learn facts about the life insurance industry…
Information on the life insurance industry…
$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsbook,ncaa,ncaa Betting,…
$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsbook,ncaa,ncaa Betting,nc…
$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsbook,ncaa,ncaa Betting,…
$anchor$basketball Betting,final Four,final Four Betting,final Four Gambling,final Four Sports Book,final Four Sportsbook,march Madness,march Madness Betting,march Madness Gambling,march Madness Sports Book,march Madness Sportsbook,ncaa,ncaa Betting,nc…
Missouri Malpractice…
found your site. great stuff….
RSS 2.0
