There are hundreds of private militia organizations in the United States, some are much better organized than others. A fellow Eastern Orthodox believer is a member of one of the militias, and he comments that there are two types of militia, those which are there to protect the Constitutional rights of all citizens in their areas and those which have a racist purpose. He says that the news media and certain organizations love to portray all members of the various militias as though they were cut from the same cloth, and of course that cloth is the racist cloth. But, he says that as an Orthodox believer he cannot be racist and be a good Orthodox. Given that there are so many militia organizations, I am willing to buy at least the premise that the militia to which he belongs is not one of the groups which a Christian should not join. He and I have disagreed more than once, but I have never known him to be dishonest or duplicitous, so his personal character counts for a lot in my book. Let me quote you from one of the militia manuals:
The oath you will have to take embodies your main duties to the Militia and is worded as follows:
“I, __________________, promise to defend and observe the Constitutional liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights for all American citizens by example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary. To that end, I intend to arm myself, I voluntarily join the Free Militia, and I agree to obey its commanders — to the extent that my conscience allows — for the duration of my service in the Militia and I pledge never to willfully betray the Militia’s principles, members, or tactics.”
It is important that you know explicitly what this means so let me comment on each clause.
* “I, ____________________, promise to defend and observe.” You are not only committing to militarily defend the Constitution, but to observe it as well. Thus you are pledging not to violate the personal liberties of other citizens (whether civilians or enemies) in order to defend the Constitution. The ends do not justify the means. We must conduct ourselves by the same principles we seek to uphold.
* “The Constitutional liberties embodied in the Bill of Rights.” While we are interested in the entirety of the Constitution, it is the Bill of Rights and the liberties therein that you are pledging to defend. You will not be expected to fight for peripheral issues or causes.
* “For all American citizens.” Again, you are not motivated by personal gain or selfishness. You are committing to defend an idea, not to defend your own rights, per sé. Hence you must be willing to recognize the rights of all American citizens. This means that you will not ignore violations of others’ rights and will be willing to defend them as well as your own. It also means you will not violate their rights by acting as a vigilante (contrary to their legal rights) or by looting (contrary to their property rights). The only “looting” that will be permitted is the confiscation of weapons and munitions from prisoners and casualties in actual combat.
* “By example, persuasion, and force of arms if necessary.” You must be an example by observing the rights of others and leading an upright life as a law-abiding citizen. You must be persuasive by recruiting people to our cause (if not the Militia itself) within the guidelines of our recruiting procedures. And, of course, you may someday be called upon to stand up and fight for what you believe in. . . .
This gives you an idea of their principles and their oath. Now, look closely at what this free militia is sworn to defend. After reading it, I am mightily surprised that the militia, or at least this particular one, is not publicly supporting those Latinos who are USA citizens, against violations of their civil rights by various police forces. You see, the militia has traditionally argued that police forces do not have the right to stop a citizen of the USA without good reason. The militia has traditionally argued very strongly against unreasonable search and seizure. The militia has consistently argued that police forces ought to be limited in their power. And the militia has consistently argued that a citizen of the USA should not be required to carry identification and identify himself/herself without reason.
But, let me go on. Many Tea Party members would actually agree with the wording of the previous paragraph, as would many Libertarians. Now, let me quickly say that there are many things that are NOT shared between the Militia, the Tea Party, and Libertarians. For instance, socially active Libertarians would have a very different conception of the government’s role in the area of society than some in the Tea Party movement, and so on. But, in the area of Constitutional rights, there is much overlap between the Militia, the Tea Party, Libertarians, and yes, the many Latinos who are USA citizens. All of us would agree with the principles of protection against government unreasonable search and seizure, of protection against government searches without a legitimate warrant based on probably cause, of protection against police stops based only on suspicion, of protection against being required to identify ourselves without reasonable cause.
So, here is my question, and particularly to my militia fellow Orthodox. Why are not members of the militia, of the Tea Party, and of the Libertarians aggressively defending those Latinos who are USA citizens against the type of events that I documented in my post Why Latinos (and African-Americans) have concerns about their fellow Evangelicals? Why are they not speaking out in their publications and defending their fellow citizens (particularly the natural-born ones), given that the militia oath above states that, “You are committing to defend an idea . . . . Hence you must be willing to recognize the rights of all American citizens. This means that you will not ignore violations of others’ rights and will be willing to defend them as well as your own.”
Can those of you who are militia, Tea Party, and conservative Libertarians understand why Latinos (and African-Americans) frequently consider those movements to simply be another expression of racism? Please understand that I am not really trying to cause conflict or to set off a violent argument. But, it seems to me, if those three groups are not willing to overtly defend the Bill of Rights rights of all citizens in the USA, regardless of their subgroup, then it is all too easy to draw the conclusion that those groups believe that only certain USA citizens have the full set of rights. You see, if you think that the current immigration situation justifies the stop of any person whom the police “thinks” might be an illegal immigrant, if you think that the current war on terrorism justifies the stop of people of a certain heritage, then I am going to argue that the police in Idaho or Montana have the right to stop any person whom the police “thinks” might be a member of a dangerous militia group. I will also argue that the police have the right to search any conservative Christian near an abortion clinic on the ground that they “may” be armed and dangerous. Here is the problem. If those of you in those groups do not fully defend the civil rights of those Latinos and Arabs who are USA citizens, then who will defend you when they come for you? Do not let what disagreements we may have on immigration policy blind you to our agreements on civil rights for citizens of the USA.
Father Bless!
I continue to enjoy your writing. Considering the subject of some of your recent posts concerning immigration, ethnic minorities, etc, may I humbly pose the following question:
If the greater majority of people illegally crossing our borders were white skinned of Celtic/Anglo-Saxon heritage would you be just as incensed at the thought of requiring everyone else that fits that same description to produce proof of citizenship/legal status?
If those that perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 had been white skinned of Celtic/Anglo-Saxon heritage would you still claim that scrutiny of all those who fit such a description is un-justified?
I fit such a description and were that the case, I would expect to be scrutinized and perhaps even detained when I try to board an airplane. I would expect to be questioned and asked to produce proof of legal status.
I would expect such things because I understand that the needs of security often compromise personal freedoms. I don’t like that it does but it is inevitable.
The disturbing tendency nowadays, it seems, is to make every thing an issue of racism, to divide people into ethnic camps and the oppressing camp is always associated with ‘white-ness’. Reverse racism is just as bad as any other kind of racism, it is all the spirit of anti-christ.
“The disturbing tendency nowadays, it seems, is to make every thing an issue of racism, to divide people into ethnic camps and the oppressing camp is always associated with ‘white-ness’.
Of course, since you are white, you have never been harrassed by law enforcement (or, for that matter, store clerks) simply because you were driving/walking/shopping existing while black or brown, something with which anyone who is black or brown and above a certain young age is intimately familiar.
Actually, I agree with Fr. Greg’s answer. Because whites do not experience driving while Latino, jogging while black, etc., they assume that all our perceptions are tall tales and exaggerations. It is precisely the lack of that experience that makes the typical middle (and up) white person seem so personally willing to “give up” some freedoms for security. [That is, until it actually happens. At that point, they accuse the Transportation Security Administration of being PC (Politically Correct) for daring to do more in depth screening on obviously innocent white people when they should be screening people of color, or with heavy tattoos, or who fit the white mental profile of a dangerous person. Meanwhile the poor TSA person may be screening that innocent looking white person because something else in their information triggered the search, or because a certain number of completely random screens helps to supposedly build up the database of information that helps the TSA more successfully combat terrorism. But, look at the number of angry editorials and blog posts because the TSA supposedly screens too many “innocent” people. As I said, it sounds good to argue security until it happens to you. Then suddenly angry letters to the editor get written that says that only “those” people should be screened, not the “innocent” ones. Of course, we are “those” people.]
It is precisely because the experience of vast numbers of Latinos, Arab-Americans, and African-Americans citizens is the reverse of the white experience that we are so unwilling to give up our Constitutional rights for ephemeral arguments about security. In that, we actually better agree with our Founding Fathers, who having faced what an King could do when there were few controls, ensured that no future American President could repeat those same evil deeds. And, to this day, the courts have overwhelmingly ruled in favor of Constitutional rights against security. The few exceptions have been just that, very few and very limited, although there is one glaring exception.
The internment of natural-born USA citizens of Japanese descent during World War II is an excellent example of what happens when security triumphs over Constitutional rights.
“On February 19, 1942, soon after the beginning of World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. The evacuation order commenced the round-up of 120,000 Americans of Japanese heritage to one of 10 internment camps—officially called “relocation centers”—in California, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and Arkansas.” More than 2/3 of those interned were natural born USA citizens. Many were children. Eventually the Congress of the United States voted reparations to the survivors of those camps, though it was too late for too many of them.
This is the world that we fear that those who favor security over Constitutional rights will bring back, even if they say they do not mean to.
Of course, I never said I favoured security over Constitutional rights, I simply said I understood it. I also note that the essential question was not answered. So be it.
The reason I did not answer your two questions in the way in which you worded them was because it struck me that the same type of question as asking someone when they stopped beating their wife. There is no right answer to that question because the purpose of that question is to cast someone in a negative light as a wife beater. In the same way, the implication of your question was that were the racial identities reversed, then I would be willing to change my mind. If I answered in the negative, then it becomes simply a claim that you don’t know that I would not change my mind, and that you would have to wait until I were in the same situation to see whether I would hold on to my principles. Regardless of the answer, I would be wrong and it is implied that I am a racist. It is a set-up question.
What I did do was point out again that the issue is the Constitutional rights of citizens of the USA, regardless of race, ethnicity, color, religion, etc. I also pointed out that there is an experiential factor that minorities have that whites do not, in this country. And, then, I pointed to a real historical event of massive magnitude to confirm that our country has gone down this road before and that it resulted in the horrendous violation of the civil rights of an entire ethnic subgroup based on fear, prejudice, and racism which were hiding under security concerns just like they are today.
I realize that this is an old post, but as a libertarian (borderline anarchist), I don’t know too many other libertarians that are completely anti-immigration. Ron Paul, as probably the most visible Libertarian, wants to secure the borders, but certainly wants to protect the rights of all Americans, regardless of their color, within the scope of the constitution. The only part he won’t really be for would be in attempting to have the government force racists to not be racist; I, nor any true libertarian would advocate such a thing, despite the fact that the vast majority of us would like racists to not be racist. As for the law itself, I think it’s pointless, redundant and should never have been passed. This is because the there was no need to write the law so specifically, as such searches were already legal under the fourth amendment. Even the Arizona law requires reasonable suspicion that an individual is illegal (I doubt profiling would stand in even an Arizonan court as a reasonably suspicion). If Police find probable cause and/or have reasonable suspicion that an individual has committed a crime, they already have it within their authority to require the individual to provide proper identification. Being in the country illegally is a crime. Personally, I think the law is just grandstanding to make it look like Arizona is doing something more to appease some of the racists in their state, and I think that’s wrong. However, I also don’t really see any new powers given in the overly-specific law. If any officer takes this law as an excuse to be racist and fails to provide reasonable suspicion (i.e. clearly profiling), then I fully support them being reprimanded, if not fired. I will not provide identification to an officer without them first providing a valid, legal reason for me to present it, and by supporting my right not to (most whites are simply tricked into thinking they always have to provide ID, and therefore do, so while it might not be profiling, we are still similarly effected; cops simply expect us to forfeit our rights–and often trick us into doing so–without having to violate them). I hope all immigrant Americans will do the same to help protect all of our rights, be they Mexican, Cuban, African, Chinese, Russian or British.
Also, here’s a link to a Hispanic Libertarian group on facebook: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Libertarios-of-America/162229260472226
I’m a big fan of the group, and they do very well in reminding other libertarians about minority-specific plights as well.
Thank you, I have now “liked” them on Facebook.