Hundreds of people, if not, at least dozens of people turned out in several U.S. cities to protest the rule of law on immigration. Contrary to the media depiction, this was not a spontaneous backlash against the recent Arizona immigration reform law. The “may day” protests are an annual conglomerate of far-left causes, and “comprehensive immigration reform” is almost always on the list. The timing of the Arizona law merely gave a focal point to protests that would have happened anyway.
The protests also gave Washington Democrats a soapbox to once again declare the Arizona law came about because Congress had failed to pass “immigration reform.” This is only half true. The Arizona law was passed because Congress has shown an astounding reluctance to secure our borders and enforce federal law. But the “immigration reform” Democrats are talking about wouldn’t have solved the problem. Americans don’t want amnesty. 70% of Arizonians favor their new law, and it has garnered 60% approval nationwide. As Al Gore might say, “the debate is over.” And we didn’t even need Mike’s “nature trick.”
I wouldn’t surprised if we see more “spontaneous protests,” this week culminating on May 5. “Cinco de Mayo” has become another major date to protest American law, and demand citizens’ rights for non-citizens. The day marks the annual celebration of a Mexican victory over a superior French army which invaded Mexico after President Benito Juarez decided to stop making payments on Mexico’s foreign debt. The victory merely delayed the French capture of Mexico. Four years later, the United States pressured France to withdraw. The first of many bailouts.
On the other hand, at least the Tea Partiers can witness proper demonstrations as they prepare for future events. I’m sure there were zero racist signs or bigoted remarks as the “may day” protesters exercised their first amendment rights. And I’m certain no one would make unfounded comparisons to Hitler while running around with “nazi signs.” As for the race card, it has no place here. “May day” is for serious policy discussion unmarred by vitriolic rhetoric.
Perhaps I spoke too soon, but at least we can take comfort knowing Keith Olbermann will highlight this grave injustice to civil discourse during his next “special comment.” Then again, I wouldn’t hold my breath.