http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProcessor ... on=Opinion

No Unifying Impact -- Day Without Immigrants fails to hit hard
May 04,2006
The Monitor View



The “day without immigrants” passed rather uneventfully, all in all, except in the parks and on the streets where an estimated 1 million marchers gathered nationwide, to protest what, we’re not sure. Some seemed to be asserting their right to stay in the country illegally. Others were speaking out for a holistic and humanitarian approach to immigration reform. Still others seemed intent on reminding Americans of the large contributions they make to the country.

These are all points worth considering. But whether participants succeeded in winning hearts and minds to their cause is questionable. Judging from the letters,
e-mails and phone calls we’ve been getting, our sense is that the ongoing protests may be polarizing the debate, hardening positions and playing into the hands of immigration hard-liners. That’s due in part to the demanding and militant tone some participants have taken, in part due to the bold assertion of various “rights” to social welfare programs from people who aren’t citizens and who disregard our nation’s laws.

If Monday’s rally was meant to bring the U.S. economy to its knees, it failed. Some companies and stores shut down, pre-emptively or perhaps even enthusiastically, since these businesses also have an interest in maintaining a reliable flow of cheap foreign labor. But major disruptions were lacking. The Los Angeles Economic Development Corp. estimated the impact at $200 million in Los Angeles County. But that’s not significant in a county that generates $1.2 billion in economic activity daily.

That’s not to diminish the economic impact of immigrant labor — just an acknowledgment that our economy is bigger and more resilient than some appreciate. An Associated Press story out of San Francisco reported that “Chinese food, bagels or a hamburger were easy to come by in the Mission District. But you would have been hard-pressed to find a burrito.” But it is doubtful that a burrito shortage will bring the U.S. economy to its knees or force most Americans to surrender the nation’s sovereign right to control its borders.

That the boycott caused nary a hiccup may convince Americans of the opposite — that our economy can survive without cheap, illegal labor. Perhaps some Americans will even use the closures as an invitation to organize a boycott of their own — against the companies that signaled their interest in maintaining the dysfunctional status quo.

Holding these events on May Day — a day of special significance to socialists, communists and labor unionists — also carried political connotations that weren’t lost on many Americans. This fuels suspicions that the protests are being ginned up by people whose motives are more political than altruistic. In this context, the chant of “Today we march, tomorrow we vote” is sure to set off alarms among some. It could harden their position against putting illegals on the fast track toward citizenship ... and voting rights.

Also upsetting to many Americans is the bold assertion of various rights — few of which can be found in the Constitution — by those who aren’t citizens. Likewise the assertions of citizenship by people who have circumvented the law. Of course illegal immigrants are entitled to be treated humanely. It’s legitimate to talk about how they can eventually become citizens. But bold claims to rights parity with Americans or legal immigrants is bound to offend and alienate even ertswhile sympathizers.

We were also troubled by reports that a few protests were less than peaceful, and fear what might result if such events evolve into rioting. Event organizers and participants should redouble their efforts to keep things calm, civil and reasonable. There’s nothing wrong with vigourous debate. Free expression is what America is all about. But those who cross over into needlessly inflammatory rhetoric aren’t doing their cause any favors and should be shunned.

We think many of the points made by protesters have merit. We do need a guest worker program. The U.S. economy does benefit from these workers. Most foreigners come here for the opportunity and the freedom, not to sponge off social welfare programs. But this nation also has a right to secure borders and to expect residents to pay for services and obey the laws. But we worry that all these points are often being overshadowed by inflammatory images and rhetoric.

In the U.S. especially, images and perceptions count for a great deal. And on that level, we fear these protests are having a polarizing rather than unifying impact and could be inflaming passions in a way that works against a balanced and sensible solution. Freedom of expression is a right worth defending, even for illegal immigrants. But care is needed, lest reckless rhetoric or actions harden hearts against their cause.