Can somebody please help me understand what the Militiamen vote was about?

[bravenak]

I am not quite understanding the background from the article.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-was-right-about-bernie-sanders-minuteman-militia-vote-but-sanders-now-denies-intent/O69kcEQSuHpueuVCsxXO4L/story.html

[JonLeibowitz]

1. Hi bravenak, the best article on the subject that I have read is by (groan) buzzfeed

Here it is: http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/in-2006-bernie-sanders-voted-in-support-of-an-immigration-co#.waewn357q

I found the discussion to be very even handed. It is not, in my view, such a scandalous vote and is not a significant issue in immigration policy (actually it has nothing to do with immigration policy).

[bravenak]

6. Thank you.

I think he should just review it and see if it was a mistake an move on. I knew it was coming as soon as I saw who was hosting the debate. I do not see it going away now that the Latino heavy states are coming up. He should have had a plan to deal with it ready.

[JonLeibowitz]

8. But in truth his vote has nothing to do with immigration policy or with Latinos.

Should the US govt be sharing information with foreign governments about its citizens when not required by treaty? I would say no. That I disagree with the minutemen vociferously does not enter the picture.

It won't "go away" because Clinton will keep bringing it up; nevertheless it is a disingenuous attack because there was no harm caused by the vote (indeed the vote had no effect on policy)

Perhaps you can explain why it is a bad vote?

[bravenak]

9. It is because of the Militias

If you know about their dealings with immigrants then you know how horrifying the militias are to their community. Linking up with them even symbolically can be devestating when it becomes big news on spanish speaking news. And it is becoming a big deal whether it was about immigration or not. Border Militias terrorize them.

It always comes back to this case:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores

[JonLeibowitz]

14. Sorry, bravenak, it really has nothing to do with immigration **policy**

But you didn't answer my question: Should the US govt be sharing information with foreign governments about its citizens when not required by treaty?

Curious to hear your take on that question. Note also that the text of the bill had nothing about the Minutemen.

[bravenak]

17. If it is a danger to their citizens, yes

And we should NEVER grant legitimacy to the militias. I do not think hispanic and latino voters care if it is connected to immigration policy or not. It is a danger to give militias any cover or any legitimacy. I say disavow that vote because it is really playing badly in spanish speaking news. Whether his supporters think it matters or not, it seems that many voters who could have been harmed by militias DO think it matters.

[JonLeibowitz]

32. If it never caused any issues, the only reason it is an issue isbecause Clinton is using it

as a political wedge.

I wouldn't disavow anything just because Clinton is trying to make your life difficult. It shows weakness, and for a vote that meant nothing.

Anyway, glad you understand the vote now. If you choose to still be upset about it, that is your choice. I trust that Latino voters are smart enough to realize that it is a manufactured issue.

[bravenak]

38. I think it's a bad vote because of the connections people are already making

[JonLeibowitz]

40. Sorry, but a vote doesn't "become bad" because of others' mischaracterizations and

subsequent misunderstanding of the vote.

How can one vote on anything if they have to worry about how people in the future will 'make connections of it'? This idea simply has no merit.

[bravenak]

41. Yes it does

It can be bad in retrospect like the crime bill. We ASKED FOR THOSE SOLUTIONS TO CRIME. Now, we hate the results of what we then supported. Because it was a bad vote in retrospect because of what we now THINK about the results of the vote.

Any vote granting even a smidgeon of ligitimacy to any border militia is not a good vote even if done for what appears to be good reasons. Who wrote and sponsored it? If it was the repubs? Vote no and write your own better bill. They are not to be trusted and will try to lure people into doing things that will hurt them in the future. Never ever ever trust them to be doing it for hinest purposed. My take is he was a new senator and did not know how those repubs rolled yet in the senate.

[JonLeibowitz]

44. I disagree.

It is bad in retrospect because the effects were disastrous and we now understand that longer sentences do not deter crime. If there were no bad things to have come of it, people would simply forget about the crime bill. We THINK about the bill because of the effect, so we analyze the cause.

[bravenak]

49. And we think about the effect of granting ligitimacy because of the subsequent horrors

caused by those militias. Not because the vote gave them free reign to do it, but because it granted them ligitimacy, with unintended consequences for the latino community. Whether you agree or not matter not at all to those affected by those dangerous militias. It affects how those voters, many of whom vote in our primary, sees the candidate.

We as Democrats cannot ever seem to be siding with militiamen on any issues (even if they happen to be right on something) because to many near the border who are immigrants, the millitias are as scary as what us blacks dealt with during segregation. Those militia groups are xenophobic, they ride around at night hunting for undocumented immigrants, scaring families, scaring children, and worse things. Disavow them an move on. Even if they are right it is for the wrong reasons.

[Perogie]

70. Defending the rights of groups we disagree with protects the rights of all

http://www.acluohio.org/assets/issues/FreeSpeech/SpeechBrochure.pdf

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech

Defending someone's constitutional right no matter how distasteful their cause doesn't legitimize them it protects all our rights.

[bravenak]

74. Yes it does.

Others can defend their rights, not I.

[Perogie]

80. So Bernie was correct in voting yes

Bernie voted to protect the rights of people and not be surveilled by the Government.

The fact that the Minutemen did horrible things had nothing to do with Bernie's vote.

Bernie was protecting the rights of all Americans by voting yes.

The same way the ACLU is right in defending the KKK no matter how horrible they are because by doing so protects the rights of all Americans

https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-em-defends-kkks-right-free-speech

[bravenak]

94. The law was already settled before that vote.

[Perogie]

101. ha ha

so your exercise in attempting to be confused comes to the conclusion that his vote was fine.

Thanks for proving Hillary's scare tactic was just a big lie.

[bravenak]

103. The vote was a mistake

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

2. It's just more shit stirring by camp wheathervane.

[bravenak]

3. I am sure it was an actual vote

Perhaps even a misguided vote. Nobody is perfect, best to admit it was a bad vote and move on.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

5. And there you go...

[Joe the Revelator]

35. Ha!

Always just a matter of time.

[H2O Man]

4. It's about desperation ....

and not much else.

[bravenak]

7. Or, it could be just one bad vote...

Really. I knew this was going to come up since it was univision. Border militias are a big problem for hispanic and latino immigrants, it really is a bad idea to side with republicans on border militias at any time. It will come up. Best learn a better way to deal with bad votes than to pretend there was nothing up with it.

[H2O Man]

10. No.

Votes in congress are by design a mixture of "good" and "bad." This is the reality, since republicans purposely broke Congress in the 1990s.

But the issue has nothing to do with the issues involved in that vote. Rather, it is 100% desperation. Nothing more than an empty attempt to spin.

[bravenak]

11. No

It is because militias do stuff like this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores

Those border militias are not to be trusted. They are not to be given any ligitimacy. They are not our armed forces. They are not to be catered to in any way.

[whatchamacallit]

12. Yes, it exists to give you another thing (you don't understand) to make noise about

[bravenak]

13. I am sure you are the arbiter of what I understand

[basselope]

15. It was about nothing.

Which is why Clinton is trying to make something out of it, because she has run out of other lies.

[bravenak]

19. It was a real vote

[basselope]

20. It was a "real vote" with no actual potential impact.

Since it was restating what was already the law and standard practice.

The minute men weren't mentioned in the bill. The actual language of the amendment was as follows:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.”

This was ALREADY the law, so a vote for or against this amendment while "real" was meaningless.

In short.. the last gasp of a desperate candidate who got destroyed in a debate.

[bravenak]

23. So why even vote yes?

[basselope]

24. Why vote no?

[lunamagica]

33. Vote no as a symbolic repudiation of the racist militia

[Electric Monk]

47. LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

REG: But... you can't have babies.

LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.

REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!

LORETTA: crying

JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.

REG: What's the point?

FRANCIS: What?

REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!

FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.

REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

http://montypython.50webs.com/scripts/Life_of_Brian/8.htm

[basselope]

53. And a vote against the ACTUAL law.

[Hoyt]

34. Sounds like it was written by the Border Klan and NRA. Talk about crud stirring,

how about threads criticizing Clinton for walking down a service hallway ahead of some staff people at last night's debate, or winning coin tosses at caucuses, or Bill Clinton showing up at a polling place, and worse.

[basselope]

58. havent really bothered with them...

but... Bill's bullhorn stunt was classless and created a mess at a polling location... he should be smart enough to not pull that type of cheap stunt.

Hillary wasnt supposed to meet with staff during breaks... so that picture is either photoshopped or just further proof of her lack of ethics.

Coin tosses are pretty dumb in a democracy... ties should go to no one.

but none of these are REAL ISSUES like her nafta support.. Iraq war vote.. actions in Lybia.. basic foreign policy stmbling as secretary of state and long history of supporting bad legislation and flip flopping on major issues based solely on public opinoon.

those matter... her breaking the rules at a debate is just a symptom of the problem of why i would NEVER vote for her

[Hoyt]

64. Then, so does Sanders' failing to denounce Border Klan. His Nationalism is not becomming.

[basselope]

72. He did denounce them.

[Hoyt]

82. While voting to improve their chances of intimidating or shooting poor immigrants.

[basselope]

102. Simply false

[AzDar]

16. As per USUAL... Senator Sanders vote was spot-on. The U.S. Government should NOT track and reveal

the whereabouts of U.S. Citizens ( even scummy groups like the MM) and share that info with Foreign Governments.


It's another cheap attack from a desperate campaign...

[bravenak]

18. Those militias are very dangerous

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores

[AzDar]

26. Undoubtedly. But they weren't even mentioned in the text of the Legislation...Either you believe

the U.S. Government should be tracking and reporting the whereabouts of its Citizens to Foreign Governments, or you DON'T.
Its another scummy attack by someone who lacks integrity... hoping to distort and confuse.

[bravenak]

31. It doesn't matter if it seems like a scummy attack

He needs to disavow the vote and move on. Then any more attacks will seem superfluous.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

45. It sure does. And those using this scummy attack

aren't fooling anybody.

[bravenak]

50. I am not so sure people need to be fooled.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

60. And those attempting to fool

fool nobody.

[bravenak]

65. Yeah. I just read the minutes from the amendment

It is not nothing. The words used to describe HUMANS were appallling. No way I could vote yea.

[840high]

68. Yep. So stupidly transparent. Thank you.

[SunSeeker]

104. Yes, the militias were explicitly described.

Last edited Sat Mar 12, 2016, 04:35 PM - Edit history (2)

They are the only ones covered by the law. That law was not about protecting U.S. citizens. It sure as hell did not protect the Brisenia family from being slaughtered by Minutemen.


The 2006 amendment Bernie voted for to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill reads:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.”

(I bolded for emphasis) The Congressional Record shows the Dems were livid. Dem rep. Loretta Sanchez from California demanded a recorded vote, not a mere anonymous voice vote. Here's the Congressional Record link to Sanchez' comments and that Amendment language
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971

The language prohibited notifications of activity only in the states of California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona - all states on the Mexican border. No such prohibition applied, of course, to groups operating in the border states of Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, Maine or Sen. Sanders' home state, Vermont. But then again, these militias are not trying to keep out white Canadians. They are only concerned with our brown southern neighbor, Mexico.

Republicans in Congress were protecting their base: the anti-immigrant racists and gun nuts, both of which were personified in the "Minuteman" groups, the members of which arm themselves and play illegitimate border patrol. But why did Bernie vote YES?
Thanks to Loretta Sanchez, here's the link to the recorded vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml

The amendment passed with 293 votes, including those of 69 Democrats. Some of those Democrats were too afraid to vote otherwise given Bush's victory in 2004, and others were too conservative. But none of them claims to be progressive. Except Bernie Sanders.

Thanks to this amendment that Sanders voted for, these vigilante border militia groups were legitimized and enabled. It allowed them go around openly talking about putting bullets between the eyes of Mexicans and Latin Americans along the border. Of course, this presented a threat to Latino Americans as well. One Minuteman militia group murdered two Latino American citizens, a father and his 9 year old daughter, in 2009 in their home. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores

[basselope]

22. The funny thing is they already can't do it. The amendment was restating what is already law.

A yes or no vote meant nothing.

[SunSeeker]

107. Except that it legitimized racist border militias. nt

[basselope]

109. Which it didn't.

[SunSeeker]

110. How could it not, when it actually described them--and only them--in the legislation? nt

[basselope]

111. False.

[Hoyt]

36. Wouldn't want to warn poor immigrants of Border Klan waiting to shoot them. Hell,

if they make it here, they might take some bigot's job.

[Bread and Circus]

88. That's how I feel. I like that Sanders errs on the side of liberty and privacy.

[Bjorn Against]

21. It was a stupid and paranoid bill, but "yes" was still the correct vote

What the bill did was prohibited providing the Mexican government with information on members of the Minutemen militia. The fact is however that it is long standing US policy to not provide information on US citizens to foreign governments so the bill did not actually do anything new.

The bill was a stupid and paranoid bill and Bernie would have never written it, but there was also no reason to vote against it because it did nothing to change longstanding policy. Bernie certainly would agree that the government should not be handing information on US citizens to a foreign nation no matter who those citizens are, there was no threat of that actually happening but he was given a stupid bill to vote on and he had to vote on it. It made sense for him to take the position that was consistent with longstanding policy.

[bravenak]

27. It was a useless symbolic vote that he should disavow now.

Just in case he is the nominee, I'd like him to change his position and say it was a bad choice and he would not sign any bills like that as president

[JonLeibowitz]

46. It is amusing that you have never stated the bill was a bad idea, legally speaking.

You don't even disagree with it.

Only in post-hoc perception is there any issue.

[bravenak]

55. I disagree with it.

Because of who was behind the bill.

[Bjorn Against]

51. It was a useless symbolic bill, but Bernie did nothing wrong in voting for it

I despise the Minutemen militia, but that does not mean I think the government should start passing information on any citizens operating within US borders to a foreign government.

The way to deal with groups operating within the US is with US laws, you don't have a foreign government handle people operating within our borders.

It was a stupid bill that did nothing, but sometimes members of Congress have to vote "yes" on stupid bills because of the implications of what a "no" vote would mean.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. yeah right.

[bravenak]

28. Yeah, no.

[cleopotrick]

29. so you posted this asking for help **underestanding** the article..

seems to me that you understood it...but perhaps more importantly...your position as to what devilry it may impute to Bernie...very well

[bravenak]

39. I want to know why he voted yes. That is where my confusion lies.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

48. But that's not what you wrote.

"Can somebody please help me understand what the Militiamen vote was about?

I am not quite understanding the background from the article."

[bravenak]

52. Understand his reasoning behind his vote

What was that about? Why did he vote that way? I did not see his reasons for going along with that in the article, regardless of your flawed interpretation of my queries.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

76. I showed you what you wrote.

The flaw is not in my interpretation.

The flaw is in your delivery.

[bravenak]

78. The flaw was in your interpretation of my meaning

I wanna know why not discuss what I really mean when I say words

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

87. Sorry. Again, they are your words.

And the accusation of poor interpretation, after your intial OP, is just disappointing.
coming from you.

Neither one of us is stupid.

[bravenak]

89. My words mean what I say I meant. Not what you decide I meant. Period.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

95. Your OP differs from your later explanation.

I will say no more.

[bravenak]

96. It does not matter. It means what I say it means because I said it.

I clarified my meaning. Because it still means exactly the same thing to me since I wrote it and know what I was saying way better that any stranger ever could.

[fun n serious]

99. Amen! nt

[Chitown Kev]

30. This discussion gets tiring...Anyone who has been in Congress for over 25 years

will have good votes, bad votes, votes which intend to do one thing but wind up opening the door for quite another

But Bernie ALWAYS votes in the right ways for the right reasons. Always

And even then, some bills have unintended consequences.

For example...look up some of the background behind the origin of the "religious freedom" bill; the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act...a bill which Bernie co-sponsored, BTW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act

We go through the same argument with the crime bill here.

[bravenak]

37. Absolutely true.

I really would like to see this not become a way bigger deal than necessary. It really was pointless to even vote on the bill anyway. But it will not matter just like the superpredators is the only thing some remember about the crime bill. They forget everything else.

They way some have of not dealing with these issues head on really irritates me.

[Chitown Kev]

42. That's what chaps my hide

A LOT of legislation has a mixture of good and bad (relatively speaking, depending on what your views are) and unintended consequences.

But people just see what they want to see a lot of times, and excise other vital details from the picture.

Sanders ALWAYS votes the right way for the right reasons and his bills help us ALL, bravenak. Everyone else is bought.

And don't you forget it.

[bravenak]

43. I will remember it forever

He is always doing the right thing rightly at the right time for me.

[Chitown Kev]

57. I can copy text from a PDF...sweet

Here is what Jack Kingston said when he introduced the amendment.

Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, what this amendment does is it clarifies Congress’ position on a Border Patrol practice or a practice of the U.S. Government that tips off illegal immigrants as to where citizen patrols may be located. As we know, we had lots of testimony and lots of visits from people along the border, and we have seen lots of cameras and lots of videos about just the total lawlessness of people coming illegally over the border at night. As a response in that area, a group has sprung up called the Minutemen Project, and the Minutemen Project is definitely not politically correct in Washington, D.C. However, they filled a void which the government was unable to fill. There are over 7,000 volunteers in the Minutemen organization, and I am sure, like any other group of 7,000 people, you could find a bad apple or two. Yet, at the same time overall, their help has been productive and good. In fact, the Border Patrol itself in a CRS study indicates how helpful they have been, and their involvement has reduced the number of apprehensions of people coming over. That is because their folks are watching the border. What my amendment does is simply says that the U.S. Government cannot tip off the Mexican officials as to where these folks are located. Plain and simple, nothing fancy about it. I am sure the Border Patrol will say, oh, no, we are not doing that, and yet one of the Web pages of the Secretary of Mexico had the information very explicit, and we just do not believe that is a good practice. So what we wanted to do is confirm Congress’ position in an amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[bravenak]

62. Helpful...

Filled a void...
People coming over the border... This is hurtful.
I always get the hispanic treatment along with the black treatment. I have been asked if I was a citizen a bajillion times. And if I speak english...

[fun n serious]

90. I do not see a production reason for a yes vote.

I also do not know why MR.Sanders did not offer a valid explanation of his vote. IIRC he just denied it. I hope to see him discuss this topic in the near future.

[bravenak]

92. I do not see any explanation either.

[fun n serious]

93. Right! nt

[Number23]

66. "Sanders ALWAYS votes the right way for the right reasons and his bills help us ALL, bravenak."

And let the church say, Amen.

[bravenak]

71. AMEN!!

[Number23]

81. ...

Second time I've used this today.

[bravenak]

84. That's how I act when He does his speeches!

Makes me feel all spiritual. In theory.

[Chitown Kev]

54. here you go

https://www.congress.gov/crec/2006/06/06/CREC-2006-06-06-pt1-PgH3367-2.pdf

P6 in the Congressional Record at the pdf I linked here

Discussion of the Minutemen was quite explicit when the amendment was debated.

[bravenak]

56. He says why he was a yea? Let me go see..

[Chitown Kev]

61. No, he doesn't

I don't see that sanders says anything.

What is clear from the context, though, is that the discussion was quite explicitly about the Minutemen. There is no way that Sanders did NOT know that.

[bravenak]

69. That was a nasty discussion in my view. It just bothered me.

I cannot stand congress.

[JonLeibowitz]

63. Senator Sabo (D-MN)

Mr. SABO: Mr. Chairman, we are told by Customs and Border Patrol that this amendment has no effect on its operation because it only shares information when it is required by international treaty, the same as what this amendment says. So to the best of my knowledge this amendment simply restates what is policy. If people want to put it in the bill, I guess that is okay because it apparently does nothing. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

He is quite eloquent.

[bravenak]

67. Yeah. I read the whole thing.

That is a sanitized little snip.

[JonLeibowitz]

73. So did I. I see another snip out of context by Kingston pasted above.

[bravenak]

75. Which was also sanitized

[Chitown Kev]

77. Yes, it was restating what was already law

Much like the EO that Obama signed to get Stupak's vote on ACA, maybe...

There is no way if one reads that discussion in context, that Sanders did NOT know what that amendment was about and why it was brought up.

[JonLeibowitz]

79. If the it had no effect on policy, there is really no problem with it.

I do see what is going on here, though.

[Chitown Kev]

100. The Stupak-Pitts amendment to the PPACA

had no effect on policy either.

I'm willing to bet that I could find several threads here at DU condemning Bart Stupak, though...

[bravenak]

59. SMH

It is actually worse reading the minutes.

[fun n serious]

83. It sure is.

Let the church say Amen.

[bravenak]

85. For real...

[Arazi]

86. Protecting the rights of groups we may find disagreeable is still correct

even the ACLU defends the KKK

The vote protected the rights of Americans and was a correct defense unless you really are advocating that if find a group hateful then they are not afforded their constitutional rights?

Even the ACLU and SPLC doesn't go that far. Why would you want any congress person to do that, let alone Sanders?

[bravenak]

91. And it is something that might make one look bad even if one feels 'correct'.

I would not vote for a person who was a laywer protecting the KKK even if they were justified in protecting the rights of freedom of speech of the KKK. That group would like my entire race wiped off the map, so rubbing elbows would cause me upset. Regardless of freedom of speech. We have freedom of choice too. Can choose to say no thank you, I am not interested.

The law was already in place. This had no reason to even be voted on again. If it was already the law, why vote yes on re legislating settled law? Makes no sense.

[Arazi]

97. Ok, so doing the right thing is now going to be spun as bad

Got it

My bad, I thought this was a discussion but obviously I was wrong. Carry on with your faux outrage and pursuit of "understanding"

[bravenak]

98. It was already settled law!

There was no need to vote again on that issue. Look who wrote the bill.

[cherokeeprogressive]

105. LOL okay.

[William769]

106. bravenak all I can say to you is.

[SunSeeker]

108. Sanders' vote served no other purpose than to legitimize anti-Latino border militias.

This 2006 amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations bill which Bernie voted for reads:

“None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.”

(I bolded for emphasis) The Congressional Record shows the Dems were livid. Dem rep. Loretta Sanchez from California demanded a recorded vote, not a mere anonymous voice vote. Here's the Congressional Record link to Sanchez' comments and that Amendment language
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971

The language prohibited notifications of activity only in the states of California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona - all states on the Mexican border. No such prohibition applied, of course, to groups operating in the border states of Alaska, Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, New York, New Hampshire, Maine or Sen. Sanders' home state, Vermont. But then again, these militias are not trying to keep out white Canadians. They are only concerned with our brown southern neighbor, Mexico.

Republicans in Congress were protecting their base: the anti-immigrant racists and gun nuts, both of which were personified in the "Minuteman" groups, the members of which arm themselves and play illegitimate border patrol. But why did Bernie vote YES?
Thanks to Loretta Sanchez, here's the link to the recorded vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml

The amendment passed with 293 votes, including those of 69 Democrats. Some of those Democrats were too afraid to vote otherwise given Bush's victory in 2004, and others were too conservative. But none of them claims to be progressive. Except Bernie Sanders.

Thanks to this amendment that Sanders voted for, these vigilante border militia groups were legitimized and enabled. It allowed them go around openly talking about putting bullets between the eyes of Mexicans and Latin Americans along the border. Of course, this presented a threat to Latino Americans as well. One Minuteman militia group murdered two Latino American citizens, a father and his 9 year old daughter, in 2009 in their home. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Raul_and_Brisenia_Flores

[still_one]

113. It sure is

[Gothmog]

112. Great article

[WorseBeforeBetter]

114. Deadly drug cartels and a passive Mexican government.

...

Drug cartels in Mexico control approximately 70% of the foreign narcotics flow into the US.

....

Although violence between drug cartels had been occurring long before the war began, the government held a generally passive stance regarding cartel violence in the 1990s and early 2000s. That changed on December 11, 2006, when newly selected President Felipe Calderón sent 6,500 federal troops to the state of Michoacán to end drug violence there (Operation Michoacán). This action is regarded as the first major operation against organized crime, and is generally viewed as the starting point of the war between the government and the drug cartels. As time progressed, Calderón continued to escalate his anti-drug campaign, in which there are now about 45,000 troops involved in addition to state and federal police forces. In 2010 Calderón said that the cartels seek "to replace the government" and "are trying to impose a monopoly by force of arms, and are even trying to impose their own laws."

....

The U.S. Justice Department considers the Mexican drug cartels to be the "greatest organized crime threat to the United States."

....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

H.Amdt.971 to H.R.5441

Description: H.Amdt. 971 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)

Page 62, after line 17, insert the following: ? SEC. 537. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to provide a foreign government information relating to the activities of an organized volunteer civilian action group, as defined by DHS OIG-06- 4, operating in the State of California, Texas, New Mexico, or Arizona, unless required by international treaty.

Purpose:

An amendment regarding funding limitation on volunteer surveillance on the border.

House Amendment Code:

(A036)

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/109th-congress/house-amendment/971

HR 5441 RECORDED VOTE 6-Jun-2006 7:09 PM
Roll call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll224.xml

Perhaps Bernie and the 76 Democrats who voted for the amendment didn't trust the Mexican government at that time with said information.

[bravenak]

115. It was already the law.

Look who pushed that bill.