Personally, I have loathed Chuck Schumer since the day I saw his role in the hearing on the Branch Davidian massacre in Waco, Texas.
Naturally, as a man who loves to utilize the bully pulpit over the bodies of police state victims, Chuck Schumer would be greatly aided by a large influx of voters who are unfamiliar with the constitution and cannot distinguish the right to not be murdered by police from the right to get food stamps. (People pretend to believe that “positive rights” are as important as “negative liberties,” but that is just a ruse. They know quite well that “positive rights” are a lot harder to manage since mistakes are made through various snafus (as we see in Obamacare). They never expect to really enforce “positive rights” with the kind of criminal penalties that were traditionally inflicted on people who violate “negative liberties.” So, by claiming one is as important as the other, rather than “positive rights” to health care, “food security,” etc being exalted to the level of “negative liberties,” the violation of the rights to life, liberty, and property, get treated not as crimes as aggressions, but mere mistakes in administration.) So he is a big believer in the Democrat new voter creation strategy called “amnesty” or “comprehensive immigration reform.”
Perhaps Chuck Schumer would disagree with my appraisal of his motives. He certainly isn’t shy about attributing motives to those who oppose him. Talking Points Memo:
“Yes, things have changed. White Anglo-Saxon men are not exclusively running the country anymore,” said the New York Democrat. “President Obama lost the white male vote 35 to 62 percent yet he recaptured the presidency – by 5 million votes and a resounding electoral college margin.”
“It also explains why so many on the right vehemently opposed the Senate immigration bill, a bill that actually embodies many conservative, non-governmental principals: reducing our deficit by billions, growing our economy, creating jobs and spurring new entrepreneurial activity,” he said. “In a pre-tea party world, the Senate immigration bill would have been welcomed by House Republicans. However, the tea party rank and file know it’s a different America. It looks different; it prays different; it works different. This is unsettling and angering to some.”
Besides, Schumer has it backwards. The fact that America is changing is not at issue. The question is whether it is changing fast enough to suit Schumer and others like him. The whole point is that he wants to massively change the population with more Democrat voters.
Schumer poses as if the tea party is doing something wrong to Americans. But that only works if illegal immigrants have a “civil right” to citizenship. They actually believe this but it is obviously untrue. We know this by the way they treat other countries. Liberals are notorious for imposing their own values on other nations in the name of civil rights. Yet, when it comes to granting citizenship to foreigners, I never hear Schumer or anyone else condemning Mexico or any other country for draconian citizenship requirements. In fact, Liberals actually show sympathy for other countries that don’t grant automatic citizenship to foreign visitors.