From one of my favorite bloggers comes word that the amnesty coalition in Congress is trying a new tack in its bid to enact “comprehensive immigration reform.”
The legislation appears to be part of an effort to strengthen support on the left, rather than the right, by targeting a constituency that has yet to be heard from in the immigration debate — the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered community.
While most of the public might not be aware of this, there has actually been a concerted campaign to link the issues of gay and lesbian rights and the wants of pro-immigration, pro-amnesty political activists. A vivid illustration of the at times perplexing attempt to ride on the coattails of the LGBT movement can be found in a speech delivered by the president of MALDEF to a prominent, national gay-rights organization.
A critical part of MALDEF’s heritage and history is collaboration and partnership with other communities. It has been one of my goals, as the new president, to deepen or collaboration and partnership with the LGBT community.
Bear in mind, it is not until his speech is nearly a third completed that he even acknowledges the ostensible purpose of his visit, i.e. to collaborate with a gay and lesbian rights organization on a joint project. Interestingly, the remainder of his speech is devoted entirely to lobbying this group to campaign for changes to immigration law that have nothing to do with the lives of gay men or lesbians. It’s the same method employed by Representative Luis Gutierrez. Namely, profess sympathy for what’s perceived as a beleaguered sexual minority, when in fact the sole purpose of your bill is to broaden the depth of support for your primary goal, i.e. complete amnesty for 10-25 million illegal aliens.
2) People assume that our communities are single issue–immigration reform and marriage equality.
Perhaps people assume that you represent a single issue constituency because that is the only issue you make speeches, issue press releases, or initiate lawsuits on behalf of-it’s possible that you are concerned with other issues, but strangely enough, you decided not to expatiate on any of them during the course of your speech.
This would be a clever strategy, if the goals of the people pursuing it were not so transparent and easy to identify by anyone with even a somewhat critical, skeptical mind. And it doesn’t take much critical analysis to see that someone who’s never voiced the slightest interest in gay-lesbian political progress has not become a gay rights crusader simply because he’s found a wedge to exploit in his ceaseless campaign for amnesty.