I tend to look at our history and see eerie parallels to what is happening today - especially the economic crisis.  There is another issue that rings similar bells to me as a student of history - illegal immigration and those that support it.

You see, slavery was abolished in the just about all of the northern states before the Constitution was ratified.  The abolition of slavery in the north happened for many reasons.  Probably most important reason slavery was outlawed in the north was because the north's economy was becoming a more industrial based economy and the crops they grew - corn and wheat - did not require massive amounts of slaves to tend the fields and harvest the crop.  In the south, particularly the deep south, the economy was agricultural based - tobacco and indigo before the Revolution, and cotton especially after 1800.  These crops required manual labor and where could farmers find cheap labor?  Slaves.  In some places in the south, slaves made up at least a third of the workforce and in other places, slaves made up half the work force.  Religion played a role in slavery as well.  Evangelical Christians and churches, who once opposed slavery, slowly started to embrace and defend slavery - mainly in the Upper, Middle, and Lower South (131).  When faced with abolition of slavery, southern farmers and lawmakers cried foul about how slavery was essential to their economy.   In fact, these same lawmakers made sure that slavery was kept in the south and "racial subordination" preserved through "contingent manumission" or "term slavery" (290 ).   +++All excerpts were used from a great book I read called Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery In America.   I would have put page numbers behind all citations, but I didn't have the book physically in front of me when I wrote this.  Thanks Google Books.+++

Just to add, a Republican President freed the slaves, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act would not have passed had it not been for MORE Republicans voting for the law than Democrats (more Democrats opposed the bill than Republicans by a 3 to 1 margin.  Somebody remind Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson of this historical nugget please.)

Now, let's fast forward to 2010.  Arizona passes a law - which is a mirror of federal law - that enables state and local law enforcement to check citizenship status of suspects.  The way the mainstream media and the liberals are howling, you'd think the sky is falling.  Here we find many of the same arguments I listed above.  Speaking in favor of amnesty for illegals, former Governor Jim Edgar stated "Immigrants are an important part of our economy, and if we didn't have them, we'd be in trouble".  There are businesses that believe they cannot stay in business if they did not hire illegals or if illegals were arrested.  One such California company was highlighted in a New York Times article a few years ago.  The HR manager even went so far as to say if their illegal workforce gets arrested, they wouldn't be able to fulfill their contracts and American workers would be unemployed as a result.  So illegals keep American's employed?  Sounds eerily similar to those that defended slavery as being essential to the southern economy. 

Lawmakers are also trying to "term slavery" illegal immigrants.  The Dream Act III would allow an illegal to stay, but then go home to wait in line to become an legal immigrant and the illegal would also have to pay a fine.  Pay a fine?  Sounds like "contingent manumission" to me.

What about the clergy?  Religious organizations are for the most part silent on illegal immigration due to the risk of persecution they have under the Federal Hate Crimes Act, or they also risk losing their tax-exempt status by getting involved in politics.  That doesn't stop everyone though.  In fact, 3 Catholic Bishops in Arizona have denounced the Arizona law.  Even Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony wrote , "I can't imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation...".  I know their stance isn't indicative of the Catholic Church as a whole, but you can see my point regarding historical similarities.  There were southern evangelicals preaching in favor of slavery and the inferiority of the black race, and here you have religious leaders in the Southwest (arguably the hotbed of illegal activity) speaking out against Arizona cracking down on illegal immigration. 

Someone might say, "Ok, so if we are going to play the historical similarities game, then why not grant amnesty like Lincoln freed the slaves?".  I'll answer that one.  First, amnesty would cost the US taxpayer over $2 trillion in benefits.  That's not to mention how much we spend right now granting illegals benefits.  Here in Illinois, it is estimated 75% of the people using the Illinois taxpayer funded All Kids health program are illegal immigrants.  That's not to mention how much we spend educating the children of illegals.  What's the difference between now and when the slaves were Emancipated?  There were no government entitlements back in 1863.  The second reason is that slaves were brought here by force.  Illegals come here by choice.  That's a huge difference in itself.  Slaves were rounded up and brought here, many dying on the way to the US, and were forced to work.  Illegals come here by choice "for a better life".  It is my opinion that we need to secure the borders so that those coming here illegally can stay home and change their countries so they can have "a better life" instead of the US being a safety valve for other countries' problems.  What if our Founders decided to emigrate from the 13 Colonies because they didn't want to live under the oppressive government of King George III?  Where would we be now? 

The echos of history ring in my ears.  Once again, arguments made to support and maintain that "Peculiar Institution" are being used, probably unknowingly, to support economic slavery of illegal immigrants.  The sad part is that whereas Southern Democrats intimidated former slaves after the Reconstruction to vote Democrat, the Democrats are seeking to lock up a voting demographic so they can continue their "change" to the United States.  Likewise, the Democrat's allies are also looking to capitalize on amnesty because 20 million newly minted low wage earning citizens would be prime picking for unionization.  I can see the SEIU drooling now.  Why is it that we cannot learn from history?  We've heard it all before, but yet we continue down the same path.  The same party, the same arguments, and the same exploiters.  Instead of 1850, it's 2010.