It Couldn't Happen To A Nicer Bunch

Pictured are disgruntled future members of the Democratic Party expressing their sincere and intellectual disdain for the snail's pace at which Congress and the Obama administration are negotiating the return of the American Southwest to Mexico. The DREAM Act is headed for failure, and it didn't grant instant citizenship to all illegal aliens anyway.

The DREAM Act won't speed up the surrender of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas sufficiently since it is paperwork amnesty only for a small class of illegals. They must have entered the US illegally before the age of 16, lived off the fat of the land for at least 5 years, graduated from a US high school or gotten a GED or been accepted at a school of "higher learning," and be between the ages of 12 and 35 at the time of filing the application. Then there's that final requirement--"good moral character." That phrase has been interpreted as including "not having broken any state of federal laws." For many, their conscious entrance into the US fouls up the requirement.

If the Act is passed, and even loosely implemented, even the "family reunification" portions can't turn a minority into a voting majority fast enough for our friends in the picture. And even if they accomplish that, there's that pesky secession problem that was settled in the Civil War. This all makes the future Democrats of Northern Mexico muy furioso.

But wait! What's that sound I hear? It's the sound of their champion riding to the rescue! Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) says he's going to break with the Democratic Party if Obama, Reid and Pelosi don't move a total immediate amnesty program into place--now. Gutierrez is upset that a new Congress has been elected and that the Obamists didn't pass even simple amnesty when they had control of the White House and both Houses of Congress. War, the economy, health care, unemployment--what are those compared to the need to create an instantly borderless America?

Gutierrez admits he hasn't thought this out carefully. But at a gathering at a local Catholic Church, he nevertheless tossed out some of his ideas. Says Gutierrez: "We need to decouple the movement for comprehensive immigration reform and justice for immigrants from the legislative process and from the Democratic Party process. They are too linked." Where he plans to go with that, I'm not sure. I assume he isn't expecting the support of newly-elected Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

Gutierrez babbles on: "When black people in this country decided they were going to fight for civil rights and for voting rights, they didn't ask if the majority leader was with them and when they were going to tee up the bill." Now I know I'm picking at nits, but isn't there a bit of a difference? Almost all American blacks originally came here very unwillingly, were sold into slavery, and were treated like cattle and other property. The generations following the Civil War were born here as free American citizens (the real purpose of the 14th Amendment language regarding "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"). That doesn't sound at all like "snuck across the border or born in the US to a mother who snuck across the border."

Furthermore, there was no provision in the enabling legislation following the adoption of the 14th Amendment allowing former slaves to bring all their relatives to the United States on a fast-track to citizenship. Nevertheless, gays have adopted the civil rights language of the 60s revolution, so Gutierrez figures he might as well try the same thing for illegals. I know of more than a few black intellectuals and legislators who are not too pleased about having their genuine struggle to gain their Constitutional rights compared to sodomy and border trespass rights.

While the Democrats are smacking their lips at the "internal war" between the Tea Party and the traditional Republicans (a "war" that doesn't seem very likely or very serious), the Democrats now have the problem of facing another disenchanted "victim group" whose loyalty is in question. Unlike the Republican Party, which to a greater or lesser degree bases its common ground on the Constitution, the Democratic Party relies entirely on herding the cats of angry factions (neatly described by James Madison in Federalist 10) and special ethnic/racial/poverty classes without regard for either the Constitution or a common American purpose. Rep. Gutierrez has just served notice that one of those special groups is very unhappy with the Democrats.