Juan Williams' "civil rights" strategy is novel. But it sounds like the total nonsense he might spout on Special Report or Fox News Sunday, only for the camera to turn to Brit Hume, whose jaw is hanging open in disbelief. Then, one by one, each commentator tells Juan his opinions don't reflect the the reality on the ground whatsoever.
Similarly, likening the illegal immigration movement to the civil rights movement might fly in a sophomore political science class, but not in a serious political discussion. It's absurd both in theory and in reality. First, theory: the civil rights movement was rectifying the law to comport with rights guaranteed in the Constitution. That is, all citizens should enjoy equal protection under the law. The movement against enforcement of current laws and gaining control of our borders is fundamentally opposed to the rule of law. They're demanding rights for illegal immigrants that, as both non-citizens and illegals, they just don't have. Whereas the civil rights movement looked to the Constitution to make its case, the illegal immigration movement (again, non-enforcement, open borders) cannot do so.