la lucha continúa ... (portions x-posted)

[saavedra77]

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators turned out in support of immigrant rights in over 140 U.S. cities, Monday--perhaps as many as 500,000 in Washington, D.C. and 200,000 in Phoenix, AZ.  The demonstrators included undocumented immigrants and their supporters, with Latinos everywhere the overwhelming majority.  

Monday's marches and rallies have reportedly increased the pressure on Congress to rethink the "get-tough" immigration bill the House passed in December.  Some Republicans are already regretting how the House bill may be shaping the party's image with Latinos (now the nation's largest minority), and with immigrants in general.  (Pointedly, demonstrators on the National Mall on Monday chanted "Today we march; tomorrow, we vote.")  Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) commented on Monday: "I think everybody sees the immigrant community as an emerging force. I think everybody is quite sensitive that they don't want to be on the wrong side, politically, of this group."  

But it may not be just Monday's marchers who are driving politicians to reconsider: A Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 63% of Americans support letting immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for a certain number of years apply for legal status and eventual citizenship; only 20% backed the House plan to declare undocumented immigrants felons.  

Despite President Bush's own plummeting poll numbers, this is an issue on which he is closer to U.S. public opinion than many of his fellow Republicans, since Bush's proposed guest-worker program would legalize many undocumented immigrants.  Some Republican Senators--notably including Brownback, John McCain, and Arlen Specter--also seem to be more in tune with popular opinion.  

Then again, the Democratic Party is publicly perceived as more trustworthy on the immigration issue: in the Post-ABC poll cited above, 50% of respondents said that they trust the Democrats more than Republicans on the immigration issue; 38% felt more trust for Republicans.  What's particularly interesting is that the Democrats haven't had to do anything lately to win this trust, beyond just opposing the House bill (although the Dems have a long history as "the party of immigrants," going back to the early nineteenth century ...).

Here in Seattle, about 15,000 people marched through downtown and rallied in front of the courthouse. I walked down after work to check it out, and kind of got sucked in: It was enthralling to be in the midst of thousands of people chanting "¡Sí, se puede!" I had no idea there so many Latinos in Seattle ...

Comments

[verbicide.livejournal.com]

I had no idea there so many Latinos in Seattle ...

That is exactly what my friend said, who also was there at the march. I'm so bummed I missed it. This country-wide demonstration has given me the first glimpse of hope I've felt for this country in ages.

Also: I love your icon. So perfect for this post!

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

Yeah, isn't it? The way that the image is lit, he even looks sort of Latino. I've been using it all day, whenever I write about this. :)

[aztecson23.livejournal.com]

Wow, man. Thanks for this. Y si, "Si se puede." Este . . . Have you checked out www.Bluelatinos.org?

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

No, but I'll have to check that out, when I have some more time for Web browsing, later.

By the way, did you attend any of the marches?

[schmallturm.livejournal.com]

I watched a good portion of the march. Many of them were carrying union banners and some had signs saying the names of towns eg "Monroe". So I think a lot of them were bused in by the organizers, it wasn't like these people spontaneously appeared. There were also a fair number of droolers tucked at the back of the procession representing various communist and racialist organizations. There were a lot of mexican flags, it was pretty clearly a case of people heroically sticking up for more stuff for their tribe. There were some thugs with mullets and facial tatoos in evidence, but mostly it seemed like families. Every man above the age of 25 had a distinct gut. Their clothes were neat and clean.

I think we should build a fence on the border, ship them all back to mexico, and then figure out if we need a guestworker program in addition to our massive legal immigration. Nothing bad will happen to these people in Mexico, they just won't make as much money as they can here. I think immigration is good thing, but there is such a thing as too much of a good thing and we are in that state now.

On another note, I don't know why anyone cares about Bush's poll numbers any more. He's not running for president again.

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

I saw some Mexican flags, but the overwhelming majority were U.S. ones. But I didn't find the Mexican flags or the display of "tribal" unity any more disturbing than I do similar displays on St. Patrick's Day, etc.

And demonstrations like this rarely ever happen "spontaneously" (particular demonstrations in multiple cities!)--they have to be organized. I pretty much take that as a given.

Obviously, we disagree about the solution. Frankly, I don't even think that the one you propose is practicable: I mean, if you really mean "ship them all back to Mexico." We're talking about in excess 7 million people (http://www.cis.org/topics/illegalimmigration.html) (this figure is from 2000)--and not all of them Mexican, either. Just imagine the logistics of deporting that many people, against their will: the manpower needed to find, detain, and process them, where to house the detainees, transportation, etc. Given the numbers involved, there would no doubt be mistakes made. In fact, if that happened, I think I'd recommend that all my friends and relatives with Spanish surnames (and especially the ones with darker skin than mine) start carrying their birth certificates with them, because you never know when someone might demand your "papers."

The economic implications would also be serious: either a lot of U.S. citizens are going to have to work for less pay, or we're going to have to pay a lot more for some things--like, say, produce.

As for President Bush: he may not be running for re-election any more, but a lot of Republicans are this fall. The question is whether it's advantageous or disadvantageous for those candidates to associate themselves with the party's current leader: a lot of them have ridden on the coattails of his popularity, before, and are now afraid of being tarnished by his current lack of same.

[schmallturm.livejournal.com]

The number is 12 million last I saw it. Do you plan on amnesty for the next 12 million too? Is there a point at which there are too many immigrants? Or is any number ok as long as they speak spanish? And why am I supposed to be happy about hack politicians, subsidized farmers, and labor organizers turning my country into Northern Mexico for their own benefit? I don't want to live in a Latin American country. These guys are marching around waving the Mexican flag and shouting in spanish that I don't have a choice. I say they're wrong.

(And how many Latinos in America actually want to live in a Latin country? It's a lot better to be a Mexican in America than a Mexican in Mexico.)

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

If it's "a lot better to be a Mexican in America than a Mexican in Mexico," if you're right that Latinos don't necessarily want to live in countries with Mexico's problems, then you don't have to worry about Latinos "turning" the U.S. into "Northern Mexico."

But let's be serious: if current U.S. immigration laws are meant to prevent or discourage illegal immigration, 12 million undocumented immigrants means that these laws have been a crashing failure.

To what can we attribute this failure?

We certainly can't attribute it to the migrants, alone. If elected officials really wanted to keep illegals out, surely they would have done a better job of enforcing these laws over the decades that this problem has grown?

Since Latinos have historically had low voter turnout, I certainly don't think that it's been the Latino vote that has caused elected officials to neglect this issue.

Rather, I suspect that the underlying explanation for their inaction has had something to do with economics: with the employers who depend on these workers, and with consumers' dependence on the cheap goods they produce.

Meanwhile, there are people who want these jobs so badly that they'll risk death in the desert or in shipping containers to get here.

If we seriously mean to address this issue, then we have to stop kidding ourselves: Any solution has to take into account the fact that there are 12 million undocumented immigrants in the country, that many of these immigrants now have children who are (per the Fourteenth Amendment) U.S. citizens, that some of these migrants risk death in remote desert crossings and cargo containers just to work in menial jobs here, and--last, but far from least--that there are politically influential industries that rely on the presence of these low-wage workers.

So how, seriously, how do you propose to a) reduce or eliminate the political influence of the industries that rely on these workers; b) deal with the economic consequences of losing this low-wage workforce (presumably either higher prices for the goods they produce, lower wages for some Americans, or lower profits for those politically influential industries, or some combination of the former); c) deport 12 million people (I spoke about the logistical nightmare that this would likely involve, above); and d) keep yet more desperate people from slipping in? Sounds like kind of a tall order.

The advantage of a guest worker program, as I believe that the President has pointed out, is that it provides a legal avenue for these people to participate in our economy. And I strongly suspect that migrants will prefer having a legal avenue for coming to this country to risking their lives trying to get here as freight or at desert border crossings. It also avoids having to overcome the considerable obstacles outlined, above.