Since immigration has once again reared its ugly head as an imminent issue, complete with a “comprehensive” bill designed to keep the pesky details hidden from the great unwashed, I’ve been discussing it online in political web forums. It’s an interesting issue since its almost invisible until some legislation brings it from the back to front burner, and I have to wonder how an issue that causes such explosive passion and interest can then shut itself off and go dark until… well until the next time. I’m guilty of it myself. Unless there is some legislation, like the current bill, the Arizona legislation, or the 2007 immigration reform attempt, I don’t think about it much either.
But back to the online political forums. One thing I’ve noticed that’s different now from previous occasions when immigration has been a hot issue is that the proponents are now so cagey about their amnesty support. They’re not demure about supporting amnesty, but they have become much shyer about the why.
Now of course partisan Democrats want the new voters and new customers for social services and some Republicans want a steady flow of cheap labor, but the philosophical underpinnings seem to be a bit hazier. Generally I’ve discovered on forums, at the least from the left, is that when you chase them down, eventually you find out that many believe that immigration to the United States is a civil right.
That’s an idea that’s even crazier than it sounds once you break down what that actually means. Does anyone in the world have a right to come to the US to live and work? Yes. Even if 2 or 3 billion people want to come here? Yes.
That’s a political position which seems insane, but our Attorney General, Eric Holder, just subscribed to that very position. Last week, during a speech to the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, he gave a speech, in which he made that very point, stating, that he believed a path to citizenship was a matter of civil and human rights. Since that is such an off the wall position for the Attorney General to have, since it has no basis in US law, you would think that would have been a well reported on speech, consuming newspaper headlines and hours of cable news gabbing.
You would be wrong.
Oh it’s been well covered in the conservative blogosphere. I’ve seen articles in the National Review Online and the Powerline blog, as well as many others, but as far as news goes, I’ve searched and I’ve not seen the speech reported in an actual news site except as an opinion piece. So if you’re the average person who only catches the news from a network news show or the occasional newspaper headline, you’ll never know that the chief law enforcement officer in the United States thinks that a brand new, just made up civil right, is the reward for breaking actual US law. The left really seems to believe this. I recall reading decades ago an article in a leftist magazine that recommended a wet foot-dry foot immigration policy. Actually we’ve more or less had that for decades. But I doubt that’s what the American people would want, nor would they agree with Holder if they knew his immigration views.
But they’re not going to know. It won’t be reported, and reporters are not going to question Holder on it.