In recent days, some here on DU have likened illegals to civil rights activists. But can this comparison really be made? Consider the following comparisons made by fellow DU'ers:
- Illegals are self-serving to improve conditions not for U.S. society at large but for their own group. Civil disobedience is selfless for a greater cause to improve our society at large for generations to come.
- Illegals are trying not to get arrested because they don't want our government to discover their illegal status. Those engaged in civil disobedience make it their goal to get arrested to call attention to their cause.
- llegals crossed our borders not to protest immoral laws but to ostensibly to make a better life for themselves (not to mention that a certain percentage of illegals crossing the border are potential terrorists, drug dealers, gang members, and hardened criminals). Civil disobedience calls U.S. citizens to protest immoral laws and political policy for the greater good of society.
- Illegals are illegal all the time in a constant state of illegality, and that is their permanent status. Those engaging in civil disobedience are U.S. citizens who do ocassionally break the law for moral reasons to change that which is immoral in our society.
- Illegals disappear into society and never call attention to their illegal status. Those engaged in civil disobedience openly and publically display their disobedience in order to make a point that certain laws are immoral.
- Illegals have no "human right" to cross our borders. Because they are in our country illegally and are not U.S. citizens, they have no rights under our Constitution. Those engaged in civil disobedience have every right under our Constitution to freely assemble to protest immoral laws and policies.
Based on the evidence presented, one has no choice but to conclude that illegal immigration and civil disobedience are mutually exclusive.
What do you think?
