Selective Outrage, Convenient Silence
The Hill recently lamented the absence of 'Don't Tread on Me' Americans in the discourse surrounding constitutional rights for immigrants, particularly those at the border. This framing suggests a generalized apathy from a group supposedly dedicated to individual liberty, overlooking a well-established pattern of selective outrage. For decades, the historical record shows precisely when these
movements mobilize and when they remain conspicuously quiet. In 2020, protests against mask mandates and vaccine requirements frequently invoked constitutional freedoms, yet the same energy seldom materializes for the estimated 2.2 million immigrants deported since 2008, many of whom have undeniable due process rights. The parallel is striking: 1776's cry for liberty morphs into 2024's quiet
assent when those liberties are stripped from the 'unfavored poor and racialized,' as Martin Luther King Jr. observed. This isn't about inconsistency; it's about hierarchy. The outcry over alleged infringements on personal choice regarding public health measures starkly contrasts with the silence on documented human rights abuses at the border, including family separations under the Trump
administration in 2018. This double standard exposes a foundational truth: 'constitutional rights' are often invoked not universally, but as a shield for a specific, often privileged, segment of society, while others are deemed expendable. So, when you hear fervent defenses of liberty, assess whose liberty is being championed and whose is being ignored. This selective application reveals the true