On Sunday, Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), one of the key leaders behind the "Gang of Eight" immigration bill that passed the Senate last week, declared that the push to pass comprehensive immigration reform would be "one of the greatest civil rights movements we've ever seen."
It was only the latest attempt by Democrats to use the civil rights movement--largely a movement against Democratic governments--to push a partisan cause.
In 2009-10, Democrats used the civil rights movement as a template for the Obamacare push. Nancy Pelosi, oversized gavel in hand, and several other lawmakers staged a march through the crowd of thousands of Tea Party protestors that was meant to imitate the marches of the civil rights era. When their gesture failed to elicit the hoped-for racist response, they pretended that it had, launching the "Tea Party N-word" smear.
More recently, the movement for gay marriage has appropriated the language of the civil rights movement . There, at least, there is some relation between the two, in the push for an end to discrimination.
However, when applied to the institution of marriage itself, the analogy begins to unravel--and the supporters of traditional marriage, do not fall neatly into the villains' role; in fact, there ismuch bigotry on the other side.
Calling something a "civil right" is a way of giving additional moral weight to a cause, and disarming political opposition. But there is no "right" to immigrate into the United States, much less to break its laws in doing so.
When illegality becomes a "right," the only result can be more lawlessness--and though Schumer promised an end to illegal immigration, his bill will do nothing of the sort.
If everything is a civil right, then nothing is.
Some good comments from Link
No comments:
Post a Comment