Unless you live under a rock, you’ve heard about the “Day Without Immigrants” boycotts/protests that went on yesterday all around the country. And if you haven’t, if you do live under a rock, what went on was that tens (or perhaps hundreds) of thousands of illegal (and legal, for Pete’s sake) immigrants staged a boycott of work, school and businesses, to demonstrate the economic might of “undocumented workers”.
As I’ve said before, it is this kind of idiocy that harms the cause instead of helps it. Just when immigration reform is getting some serious attention in Congress, when it is finally being given serious consideration by the people who can effect productive change, an economic boycott is the worst possible message you can send, and at just the wrong time. I’d continue, but Marc Cooper said it better (in an article written a few days before the planned boycott):
With the Senate back in session and struggling to agree on liberalized bipartisan reform, with President Bush finally (but still not forcefully enough) bringing some of his clout to bear, with public opinion polls showing new majorities in favor of much of what immigrant advocates have been lobbying for, I can’t think of a worse time to stage a confrontational boycott like that planned for May 1.There is a definite time and place for this sort of tactic, and it isn’t here or now. Boycotts are powerful and volatile weapons used as a last resort to bust open dams of dogged resistance. You don’t use them when the political tide is even vaguely flowing in your direction.
Within burgeoning social movements there are always differences of opinion as to what’s the best way to proceed at any given moment. The more successful leaders of the great civil rights movement, for example, could sense when to push, when to pull and when to gracefully glide with the momentum. As a result, they made history while some of their more untethered rivals only made a lot of noise. Likewise today.
It’s no accident that those pushing hardest for the May 1 boycott, many of them marginal protest groups such as ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), have never shown much concern for real-world results, preferring to act out their ideological impulses.
That’s why the larger institutional players in the pro-immigrant movement prefer an after-school (and after-work) rally over an intentionally punitive boycott and walkout. They argue that such an escalation could alienate lawmakers and the public just when political sentiment is shifting more toward immigrants. The positive message of demanding inclusion in the United States would be replaced by a more negative and divisive signal.
Living in the Bay Area, which like the rest of the state has a high concentration of illegal immigrants, I felt the effects of the boycott in my daily life. Restaurants and shops and car washes all over the area were closed voluntarily or were forced to reduce their hours. But my reaction was not what the protestors would probably have wished. A business that was closed as much as admitted that it employs illegal immigrants; while that is no big surprise in this area, and while I am not so impractical as to cut my nose off to spite my face, I will tell you that I will be reconsidering patronizing some of these local businesses in the future. (Via Instapundit)
Prachee said:
I find Marc Cooper’s argument quite silly.
It goes something like this: This is not the “time and place for this sort of tactic.” The “untethered rivals” of the successful civil rights leaders just ended up making noise instead of progress because they have a poorer “sense when to push, when to pull and when to gracefully glide with the momentum.” With respect to immigration, this tactic could “alienate lawmakers.”
What is with this soft language? Perhaps these people aren’t worried about the lawmakers’ feelings. I think it’s reasonable to expect congress not to turn against a tide “shifting more toward immigrants” just for spite. This touchy-feely argument pales in comparison to the concrete issue on the other side. Immigrants came out en masse to show that their numbers are substantial and they have an impact on our way of life. While the message remains fuzzy with the mixture of illegal and legal residents taking to the streets, it is clear that they are many and that the issue needs a real solution.
And the solution will not be simple. For the illegal immigrants that are already here, there must be some compromise. . .we can’t kick them out, and we can’t give them total amnesty. And while many immigrants have no sympathy for those illegally in our country because of the difficulties they faced in coming here themselves, I am willing to guess that many of those who went to the process by the book were privileged in some way. The severe corruption that taints the emigration procedures of many countries and makes it extremely DIFFICULT for those who succeed, makes it an IMMPOSIBILITY for others.
Perhaps you shouldn’t take such a hard line on boycotting the local business that were affected by rallies yesterday. I think many legal residents were willing to support those less fortunate than themselves. The closed business are certainly not outright admitting they employ illegal immigrants as you suggest. . .and even if they are, perhaps a little compassion is in order.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Richa said:
First, as I said in my post, I’m not going to boycott local businesses that employ illegal immigrants. That’d be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Besides, if I boycotted every business that hired illegal immigrants, I’d never leave my apartment.
Secondly, I think Cooper makes a valid point—maybe not so much about alienating the lawmakers, but about the pointlessness of the boycott. The protest in LA a few weeks ago about the immigration reform bill was an inspiring example of democracy at work; people assembling peaceably to speak out against a proposed law. It made lawmakers sit up and take notice. The one yesterday, by contrast, was a meaningless gesture. I think you can reasonably give Congress credit for realising the problem. We all know what the problem is. That’s why they’re working on an immigration reform package in the first place.
The boycott yesterday was restating the obvious. The presence and economic impact of illegal immigrant labor is not an issue we are unaware of; what we need is a workable solution. They (that is, the organizers of the boycott) would have been better served to spend all that effort in holding a day of talks between the immigrant community and, well, everyone else. And maybe they wouldn’t alienate lawmakers, per se, but I happen to know that the protest did stir up some discontent in the general community; I talked to several local residents who were all, like me, sympathetic to the cause but felt that the boycott was a meaningless gesture. In fact, that’s why the majority of serious immigration-rights advocates (as opposed to, er, idealists like ANSWER) did not take part in and in some cases denounced the boycott.
It was poorly timed and, frankly, unnecessary. I realize that it’s hypocritical of us to be unwelcoming to these immigrants, and then turn around and employ them to do the jobs nobody else wants to do. I realize that we can’t send them back or provide a full amnesty either. I realize the desperate need for realistic immigration reform, for laws that make it easier for immigrants to come to the US legitimately and simultaneously make it more difficult to do so illegally. I don’t see how you can live in the US and not be aware of that. What I don’t see is how a boycott of businesses and schools would do anything to further the cause. Pointing out the elephant in the room is not doing us a service. Proposing common-sense answers to get it out would be.
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Prachee said:
The problem is that you’re giving everyone else too much credit. Just because YOU get it and think this is pointless, doesn’t mean everyone does. I’ve been reading message boards all over the place full of responses of people who DON’T get it. People who don’t see why we can’t kick them all out. People who aren’t looking for a compromise. You may argue that those kinds of people are too far gone for this kind of tactic to make a difference, but neither you nor I know that.
And it’s not a permanent boycott. They were not actually hurting the economy by dedicating one day to make their point. How many rediculous federal holidays does the entire government take a day off where many more businesses are closed?
It doesn’t make any sense to say that this is “poorly timed.” When is the right time to fight for your rights when they are being considered by lawmakers? After the decisions have already been made? And the only reason lawmakers are working on an immigration reform package “already” is because even in this more or less homogenous population of Utah, protesters have been turning out in their largest numbers since Vietnam. It is not safe to assume that lawmakers will do enough just because the issue has been brought up. It’s too easy to settle for a poor solution if there is not consistent pressure.
Just because many people are already thinking about the issue is not sufficient argument that a unified protest is “pointless.”
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:08 am
CyberCelt said:
I am not commenting on the illegal alien post. I just wanted to say that your designs are excellent. I feel guilty because I have been using them on 2 of my blogs.
I downloaded one tonight to use on my travel blog. I am going to put a link to your website as well.
Let me know which website or blog you would like me to link.
Eileen
May 8th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
Ila said:
There is movie about something like that. A Day Withour A Mexican 2004 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0377744/) is very similar to what is going on. I wonder what came first the movie or the day?
ila
July 12th, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Prachee’s blog » Probably The Only Thing I’ll Say About Immigration said:
[...] Here’s what she said. And my response: [...]
July 26th, 2006 at 5:13 pm