A Little Xenophobic Nastiness from Sen. Conrad Burns

Posted on by

Conrad Burns, Republican Senator from Montana, recently said the following:

Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, whose recent comments have stirred controversy, says the United States is up against a faceless enemy of terrorists who “drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night.”(link)

Looks like a garden variety anti-immigrant slur — they seem to be coming hot and heavy this year (the theme this campaign season seems to be brown-baiting: Latinos and Middle Easterners/South Asians). I suppose it would be possible to say, “well, he’s just talking about terrorism, he never said ‘immigrants’ or ‘South Asian immigrants.'” First, as far as I know no taxi driver is currently being accused of a connection to terrorism, so he’s not literally talking about taxi drivers, but the types of jobs working class immigrants usually start off with when they reach the U.S. Second, this is in fact a slur because it attempts to demonize those same immigrants by lumping them (us) in with genuine threats to American democracy. According to Conrad Burns’ thinking, immigration is terrorism. Wonkette says it with admirable succinctness: “Racist and Insane!”

By the way, it’s not the only WTF caliber comment Senator Burns has made recently:

He has drawn criticism in recent weeks for calling his house painter a “nice little Guatemalan man” during a June speech. Burns, whose re-election campaign is pressing for tighter immigration controls, also suggested that the man might be an illegal immigrant. The campaign later said the worker is legal.(link)

Hm, I think I might go give my $25 to Jon Tester for Senate. Apparently it’s a close race; I vote we Macacatinate** him.

**Macacatinate: (v.) to inflict a mutinous, internet-based critique than can cause poll numbers to shift once the mainstream media grabs hold of it.

114 thoughts on “A Little Xenophobic Nastiness from Sen. Conrad Burns”

  2. I don’t see anyone calling for the revoking of the First Amendment even though it is used by Neo-nazis and other hate groups to spread their propaganda. And legal organizations bend over backwards to offer such groups legal assistance to allow their unrestricted access to that right against any government/public opposition. So why should the Second Amendment be revoked if it is misused by a criminal group ?

    Vikram: I dont believe that the 2nd amendment ever intended to give rights to private citizens to own guns. That has nothing to do with the fact that criminals now use guns and so they need to be controlled. I never made that argument.

    P.S.: As far as the first amendment goes, the congress itself repeatedly passed laws curtailing freedom of speech till that liberal activist Judge Holmes ruled on it for the first time in 1919.

  3. Parroting ACLU’s position on 2nd amendment is not enough.

    I agree. When they do it, it’s parroting. When we do it, it’s original thought. If I love one thing, it is original thought. And guns. Two. Two things. I love two things. Original thought and guns. And balls.

  4. Parroting ACLU’s position on 2nd amendment is not enough.

    I am not regurgitating the ACLU position on guns. I have advocated for private ownership of guns here before on SM. I am however questioning the constitutional basis of this right.

  5. Vikram: I dont believe that the 2nd amendment ever intended to give rights to private citizens to own guns. That has nothing to do with the fact that criminals now use guns and so they need to be controlled. I never made that argument

    Considering that the rest of the U.S. Constitution is geared towards protecting the individual citizen, where do you draw your interpretation that this amendment is not an individual/private citizen’s right ? It would seem odd that people interpret the rest of the Constitution in terms of protecting an individuals right to free speech, vote, practice religion etc, but yet somehow the Second Amendment is not interpreted in that fashion. Seems logically inconsistent.

  6. Considering that the rest of the U.S. Constitution is geared towards protecting the individual citizen, where do you draw your interpretation that this amendment is not an individual/private citizen’s right ? It would seem odd that people interpret the rest of the Constitution in terms of protecting an individuals right to free speech, vote, practice religion etc, but yet somehow the Second Amendment is not interpreted in that fashion. Seems logically inconsistent.

    Vikram: Thats not entirely true. A lot in the constitution is also about protecting the rights of the state vis-a-vis the federal government. I believe the second amendment akin to the tenth amendment was a check on the powers of the federal government. We have regulated militias today and they are called National Guard. Though I would suggest that the right of the states to take on the US with a well regulated militia were kind of taken care of in the Civil War 😉 In a nutshell, the second amendment IMO was intended as a tool for federalism and a check on federal power in the hands of the states. I dont believe that it was ever intended as an individual right in the hands of private citizens. Reasonable minds can of course disagree and thats fine 🙂

  7. if you see something say something – you is too funny, man. reeelly phunee. p.s. i do not have anything original to say on the 2nd amendment, because i am a federalist.

  8. Al Mujahid, you are right about the original intentions of the 2nd amendment, but the idea that the government would prevent people from owning guns was probably seen as ridiculous in then highly rural America. This wouldn’t be the first time a law is used to defend a liberty it originally wasn’t written to protect.

  11. This wouldn’t be the first time a law is used to defend a liberty it originally wasn’t written to protect

    I doubt Constitution writers intended the First Amendment to be the legal defense of the thriving multi-billion dollar US porn industry either… 😉

  12. I doubt Constitution writers intended the First Amendment to be the legal defense of the thriving multi-billion dollar US porn industry either… 😉

    Some historians have made the case that the first amendment was more of a slogan than anything else.

  13. AMfD:

    I am wondering about whats common between the above three people? I would imagine that Schultz could be characterized as a realist in foreign policy while Elliot Abrams is a neo-con and a criminal. Mankiw is an economist. I am not sure what wing would that be?

    I guess my claim here was to show the viable and intelligible nexus that desi Republicans (probably) admire which forms a frame of orientation sans the Bible-thumping, immigration-bashing camp: the statesman (Shultz), neoclassical economist and libertarian but not completely off the deep end like Milton Friedman (Mankiw), and the hawkishness of Abrams and his judicial philosophy.

    Point being, I rarely see desi Republicans identify with the Bible Belt wingnuts and more with the leftover Reaganites.