The Real Civil Rights Activists Aren't Happy

Captain Ed points us to an op-ed in today's Los Angeles Times from Joe Hicks, a former West Coast head of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference - Martin Luther King's organization. Hicks isn't too happy with those who would try and disguise the pro-illegal immigration protests as a "civil rights" movement:

THE DEBATE over illegal immigration has reached a vigorous boil, with contrasting bills in the House and Senate and hundreds of thousands of protesters demonstrating nationwide. The complexities of this debate seem lost on many of the protesters. Many claim that what lies beneath reform efforts is raw racism, leading to the view that the recent protests signal a new civil rights movement.

It's simply not true. This nation's civil rights movement of the 1960s broke the back of white supremacy that prevented black Americans (who were citizens) from enjoying the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. Undeniably, the freedoms codified by civil rights-era legislation have made life better for all Americans — regardless of skin color, gender or national origin.

Now, many Latino immigrant-rights organizers and their sympathizers seem to be saying that there is some inherent right being expressed when people sneak into the country, thumb their noses at the law and make fools out of those who wait patiently in foreign lands for visas to come to the United States.

It is quite clear that many of those participating in the demonstrations have adopted the stance of the beleaguered victim, perceiving frustration about illegal immigration as racism. Some comments have been painfully ignorant. One protester said: "I'm here to make sure that Mexicans get their freedom, their rights."

During the student protests, the American flag was only occasionally on display, while the Mexican flag was omnipresent. A student said he was waving the latter in support of La Raza (the race), while another asked why illegal immigrants were "treated like criminals." Perhaps he wasn't aware that crossing the U.S. border without the required visa is now, and always has been, against the law.

Hicks clearly still has a chip on his shoulder, what with the "white supremecy" comment, but he does make a good point about the basic difference between legal U.S. citizens who were being denied the full fruits of their citizenship, and people who have basically broken into the country and have no legal right to be here. There is a difference, though the young skulls full of frijoles who have been skipping school to protest have no clue.

I think if these protests continue, there will be an increasing backlash from all quarters of the legal American population, and Congress had better take note. If they cave in to a bunch of noisy, Mexican flag waving illegals, the people will decide that we have the wrong leadership in place and will remove them.