Governed by more fools

I've not weighed in on the immigration debate that is currently going on. I've had nothing to say really about the protests over the last month, though I do have my thoughts on the subject. This, however, struck me as worthy of comment.

The California State Senate passed a resolution on Thursday in support of proposed boycotts and demonstrations planned for Monday, May 1st:

Approved on a 23-14 vote by the 40-member Senate, the resolution has no force of law. It merely cites the contributions immigrants have made to California and its economy, and declares May 1 to be the "Great American Boycott 2006."

Supporters of the national boycott urge people not to go to work or to school and not shop. The genesis came from opposition to the House-passed immigration bill seeking to make it a felony to be in the United States illegally.

The resolution is careful not to advocate skipping school or work and does not mention the bills pending in Congress.

"This is a national call to action to peacefully demonstrate the contributions immigrants have made to this nation," said Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, in urging her fellow senators to support her resolution.

Latino lawmakers likened the boycott to civil rights marches and protests of the 1960s saying sometimes civil disobedience is necessary to end an injustice.

"We are a nation of ever-changing laws. Slavery. It was legal. It was wrong. We changed that law," said Sen. Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles. "Let's acknowledge our history and tradition of social change."

There is a push on the part of "immigration" activists to ignore US law and equate illegal immigration to it's legal counterpart. Congress faces pressure to incorporate amnesty outright or what you might call "amnesty light" into immigration bills currently sitting on the Hill.

The rhetoric from Sen. Cedillo runs along those same rails. What exactly is he saying as to why laws on immigration need to be changed? Is he saying that a nation with laws governing the way people enter the country is somehow immoral for wanting to enforce them?

And Senator Romero's statement is wonderfully platitudinous and makes for a fine touchy-feely sound bite but completely misses the point. My question for these so-called lawmakers is a simple one: What part of illegal don't you understand?