The NAACP is currently holding its convention in the city of St. Louis, Missouri. While there’s been much public discussion of the absence of President Obama from the proceedings-he’s sent the First Lady in his stead-and the convention’s condemnation of the Tea Party movement, what has escaped notice is the organization’s pronounced and consistent support for congressional legislation promising amnesty. Or, as its proponents euphemistically describe it, “a path to citizenship” for the millions of illegal aliens currently dwelling within our borders. Conversely, the group pretty consistently opposes any piece of legislation that would impede the flow of illegal entry, or erect obstacles to the continued presence, of illegal aliens.
The NAACP is one of the parties that has signed onto a class-action lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of SB 1070 because-according to the organization-it “encourages racial profiling.” This assertion is demonstrably false-the law was specifically amended in order to ensure that no racial profiling resulted from its implementation-but what’s even more remarkable is another tack the NAACP is taking in its lawsuit. Namely, that SB 1070 “infringes on the free speech rights of day laborers in violation of the First Amendment.”
You see, this law is not only an insidious attempt to promulgate racism, it’s akin to the Alien and Sedition Acts. We are squelching the First Amendment freedoms of budding Thomas Paines, John Peter Zengers, or at the more sordid end of the free speech spectrum, Larry Flynts. The expressive content the NAACP seeks to protect in this case amounts to pleading for work while loitering on someone else’s private property. But then again, you could say the same holds true for prostitutes-at least, those that ply their wares on the street. Why then don’t we see the same organization rushing to the defense of streetwalkers-day laborers-and the men who solicit their services, i.e. contractors and homeowners who utilize illegal workers?
Is it perhaps because defending prostitutes does not reflect as well on the NAACP’s well-heeled donors? Or because following this political stance to its logical conclusion will expose how patently absurd the position is? Or is it simply because most of the sex workers who would benefit from the NAACP’s support did not break the law in order to come here?
I smell discrimination!