Logan Jenkins "Trashes" CALTRANS' Minutemen decision
Posted by: Barry Jantz | 01/31/2008 8:38 AM
The U-T's Logan Jenkins opines on both sides in this passionate play, but defends the Minutemen on the relocation issue. Good for him...
Minutemen relocation by Caltrans is garbage
"You are a traitor to the United States. Get Out."
As complete e-mails go, this one deserves a prize for punchy precision.
Sent by Liz DeMarco, Hayward-based founder of Americans for Mass Deportation, the two sentences neatly sum up what a squad of readers thought of my Jan. 20 column.
Boiled down, here's what I wrote: Caltrans drove off the road when it granted to the San Diego Minutemen a permit to clean trash near the San Clemente checkpoint.
Displaying a stunning lack of political foresight, Caltrans created its own roadside lightning rod, setting itself up for politicized bolts from extremists on both sides of a national debate that often borders on lunacy.
In arguing this point, I emphasized that any self-respecting civil libertarian would have to endorse the Minutemen's legal right to clean up a stretch of highway.
For support, I cited the infamous Missouri legal case in which, thanks in part to the backing of the American Civil Liberties Union, the Ku Klux Klan's Adopt-A-Highway permit was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The local Minutemen appear to be well within their rights to participate in the anti-litter program and bask in positive PR.
Though the Minutemen's communications about - and actions against - undocumented immigrants (or "aliens," as they prefer to say) can be creepy, they don't compare to the KKK's storied past.
The moral of the first chapter of this cautionary tale?
Caltrans' error was in granting the volatile checkpoint location to the Minutemen, not the permit itself.
Now comes the next chapter in what could be a long and loopy saga.
Caltrans has taken down the Minutemen sign near the checkpoint and offered the self-appointed border rangers a less controversial location: a stretch of state Route 52, near Santee.
Jeff Schwilk of Vista, the San Diego Minutemen's spokesman, professed to be "frankly dumbfounded" by Caltrans' switcheroo. The hard-line group is reportedly planning a lawsuit to regain the coveted checkpoint site.
No surprise there. In the running border war, no side seems to miss an opportunity to exploit an opportunity to cry foul.
Last week, three members of the Latino Caucus - Assemblyman Joe Coto, D-San Jose; Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles; and Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña, D-San Diego - met with Caltrans Director Will Kempton, according to a spokesman in Saldaña's office.
The Latino lawmakers reportedly stressed that public safety would be threatened if the Minutemen picked up litter near the Border Patrol checkpoint.
Presumably, Latino and civil-rights champions might be roused to challenge the Minutemen - and hell could break loose.
In free-speech terms, the Minutemen sign in that sensitive location is akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. It's an incitement to violence.
Kempton assured the Latino politicians that the sign would be removed, according to Saldaña's spokesman.
On Monday, local Caltrans District Director Pedro Orso-Delgado notified Schwilk that his clean-up location had been changed to Santee. Orso-Delgado concluded with an ominous paragraph:
"Please be advised that the Department is currently examining allegations of violent behavior and/or advocacy of violence by your group. Under the AAH Program eligibility criteria, entities that advocate violence, violation of the law, or discrimination based upon race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital status, age, sex or sexual orientation may not participate in the Program. These allegations warrant careful examination and the Department will conduct this review in an expeditious fashion."
The subtext is pretty clear: Minutemen, you're on notice. If our investigation shows that you're as awful as Latino and civil-rights groups allege, you may be judged to be unworthy of picking up trash on California's highways.
In other words, according to our rules, you may be worse candidates than the KKK was in Missouri!
Now that's where I, American traitor or not, saddle up the high horse and gallop to the defense of the Minutemen.
I take it as a given that the various (and confusing) factions of the Minutemen have their share of live-wire associates, many of them whipped into a frenzy daily by fire-breathing talk-radio hosts.
Nevertheless, the stated ambitions of the Minutemen are nothing if not law-abiding.
Their oft-repeated mantra sounds like a patriotic country-western song: "What part of illegal don't you understand?"
The demonization of the Minutemen is red meat for those sympathetic to the plight of undocumented workers, but it's a fool's errand for Caltrans.
It's a dicey enough argument that the Minutemen pose a real and present danger if they hang around the checkpoint with Glad Bags.
But if Caltrans concludes that the border defenders are too despicable to pick up litter anywhere, they'll be courting a much-deserved legal defeat - and handing a coup to the publicity-hungry Minutemen.
As I say, Caltrans should have seen this wreck coming and turned to avoid it. The symbolically loaded checkpoint site should never have been offered to the Minutemen in the first place.
Well, too late to turn back the clock. The Santee gambit, awkward as it is, makes sense.
In trying to shake free of a self-created mess, Caltrans must understand that there's a ton of trash talk on both sides of the border debate.
Keep driving straight ahead - and this too shall pass.
###


I cannot believe the total waste of public resources that went into challenging the San Diego Minutemen (SDMM) for a clear issue of viewpoint discrimination, e.g. removing their sign due to the message they promoted.
The SDMM seems to be a bit uncouth about their objectives and seems to focus strictly on 'illegals'; we should not forget what SDMM stand for: securing our border. Is it so wrong to want to have a secure border? This is not an issue merely about 'undocumented' workers, but about 'undocumented' criminal aliens from other nations, as well as terrorists, and people who smuggle drugs through the border to pay their smuggling fee.
Now, if the 9/11 hijackers came into this country thru an open fence in Arizona, then we would not have as horrific of a border issue. However, many of the hijackers overstayed their student visas and were overlooked by the overworked INS, thus the INS was overhauled as were our airport security.
There is nothing wrong with the most powerful nation in the world having a secure border. It appears this country can take over other hostile nations, however when it comes to taking over our own border---we are inept to do so.
It's merely politicians not wanting to upset the Mexican-American voter base. I believe it's laughable to think it's wrong to secure our border. I merely think SDMM needs to expand their PR objective to not only keep out 'undocumented' workers, but the true objective should be to keep out not only people who leach off our tax payer based public assistance programs, but to also keep drug runners, and terrorists out of the U.S.
Needless to say, the tremendous resources undocumented aliens bare down on our judicial system, and take up beds in our prisons. ("Today, criminal aliens account for over 29 percent of prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities.." http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0b9c )cannot be tolerated. Now, if 29% bedspace was available in our prison system--there would fewer early releases due to the fact overcrowding would be lessened.
Simply put, would the state oppose a sign from Nancy Regan's 'Say no to Drugs' organization, or other signage from an organization who opposes law breaking? Since SDMM opposes people infiltrating this country (which is a felony) I believe SDMM should be commended rather than condemned for their objectives, especially when the tax payers of this state are paying for useless litigation.