As a leading advocate for same-sex marriage, blogger Jasmyne Cannick is used to controversy. But the dissension stirred up by her blog post arguing against the participation of gay rights activists in the immigrants' right movement was something special. This time, Cannick's critics were her own allies in the glbt rights movement, including some fellow board members of the National Black Justice Coalition, an organization working to legalize same-sex marriage.

In a blog post that also appeared as an article in The Advocate, Cannick argued that gay rights leaders should be pushing marriage equality laws instead of spending energy on immigration reform. Her article appeared about the time of the massive immigration protests across the nation on April 10. She said:

Immigration reform needs to get in line behind the LGBT civil rights movement, which has not yet realized all of its goals.

Which is not to say that I don't recognize the plight of illegal immigrants. I do. But I didn't break the law to come into this country. This country broke the law by not recognizing and bestowing upon me my full rights as a citizen. As a black lesbian I find it hard to jump on the immigration reform bandwagon when my own bandwagon hasn't even left the barn.

The Nation's Richard Kim fired one of the first salvos, saying Cannick's piece,"spews the kind of xenophobic rhetoric now rarely heard outside of right-wing radio and white nativist circles...." Within days, 55 lgbt activists of color fired off an open letter rejecting Cannick's views. In part, they said,

"We reject any attempts to pit the struggle of multiple communities against each other and firmly believe that "Rights" are not in limited supply....

A few days later, Cannick responded to her critics by saying,

"Immigration reform is a difficult issue, I realize that. But I also realize and respect the fact that we all see this issue differently whether due to race, socio-economic background, or just geographic location.

"My reality in South Los Angeles may not be your reality."

The debate raged on. Columnist Earl Ofari Hutchinson defended Cannick against charges of bigotry, noting that she is one of many African Americans who worry about the impact of immigration on black employment. But,Blac(k)ademic likened Cannick's argument to the arguments made by civil rights advocates who reject gay rights. J. Bernard Jones took issue with both Cannick and her critics.

Andres Duque was among the blogger-activists who worried about the vitriolic tone of the debate. Similarly, Angela Odom disagreed with Cannick, but cited her youth and challenged older glbt activists to do a better job of mentoring.

The dustup reflects the complexity of the immigration debate itself, which is creating strange bedfellows among groups that traditionally have little in common.

However, it also mirrors the kind of dissension that has marked past civil rights efforts, going all the way back to such conflicts between the abolitionists and the suffragettes in the 19th century, or the conflicts over affirmative action that splintered the civil rights coalition of the 1960s. In each instance, the conflict reflected not only differences in political perspectives, but differences in worldviews.

This dispute is just one of many debates over immigration taking place within activist communities of all political stripes, from Buchanan conservatives, to Chomsky leftists. As political activists and analysts look to the forthcoming Congressional midterm elections, as well as the race for the White House in 2008, such struggles within activist circles, played out in the blogosphere, may be part of the backstory in efforts to get out the vote, write party platforms and build coalitions that might resonate with voters at the ballot box.

Photo taken at the April 10, 2006 immigration rights protest in Washington, DC by Robert Burnett. Used with permission.