http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3700209
Conor Friedersdorf, Columnist

(Editor's note: This is a twice weekly column written Conor Friedersdorf, who is managing the Daily Bulletin's blog, or special Web site, on immigration issues. The blog is designed to provide a forum for opinions and information on immigration. The blog is at www.beyondbordersblog.com)

As Latino immigrants take to the streets for massive protests, I can't fault their core tactic: Shows of popular support sometimes influence lawmakers.

As a political strategist, I can't say I'd have recommended ubiquitous Mexican flag waving for a group of people trying to convince American voters that they're not a threat to the nation. Nevertheless, subsequent protests have looked more red, white and blue, and peaceful political rallies fit into our national narrative rather well.

The Latino students fleeing school for impromptu mini-marches are a bit harder to understand. Since school gets out around 3 p.m. and doesn't meet on weekends, cutting class hardly seems necessary to protest for immigration reform. Then there is the irony of undocumented students, having long ago secured the right to a taxpayer-funded education, fleeing the classroom in numbers that the organizers of Proposition 187 would've considered a victory.

When I heard that more school walkouts are planned, I began to suspect that an anti-illegal immigration mole had infiltrated the pro-illegal immigrant ranks, slyly suggesting political actions to sabotage any sympathy not to mention educational prospects that might have been afforded young illegal immigrant students.

Now I'm hearing more and more rumblings about an economic boycott planned illegal-immigrant Latinos, and I can only conclude that the mole is even smarter than I originally imagined. In a struggle between undocumented Latinos who want to work here, and a substantial percentage of American citizens who want to prevent them from working illegally, the mole has convinced the undocumented Latinos to stop working illegally for a day.

Perhaps the illegal-immigrant advocacy groups will next call for a boycott on coming to the United States illegally in the first place.

The great hypocrisy of the current immigration system is that America takes advantage of cheap illegal-immigrant labor, willfully failing to enforce even immigration laws already on the books, while refusing to actually legalize those undocumented workers. Illegal immigrants grasp that hypocrisy. They also think, quite rightly, that illegal immigrants make many important contributions to the United States. Unfortunately, they've drawn the inaccurate conclusion that the United States needs illegal immigrants to do jobs Americans won't do. They call for an economic boycott because they truly believe that those who want to stop illegal immigration simply don't appreciate the catastrophes America would face without illegal immigrants.

How can I be so sure? Aren't I even a little bit worried that if a tough new immigration enforcement regime is passed, successfully stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, the people who made "A Day Without a Mexican" will be proved prescient?

I'm unworried for a couple reasons.

First, if we eliminate illegal immigration and suffer from a lack of workers as a result, it isn't as if we're obligated to keep our borders sealed. At any point, the United States can decide that we need more legal immigrants, or even more illegal immigrants. If sealed borders prove a mistake, it is quickly reversible. In contrast, the consequences of open borders take decades to reverse.

Second, the world's poor, willing immigrant workers extend far beyond our southern neighbor, a fact that seems lost on Latino leaders like Mexican President Vicente Fox, who insists that America needs Mexican nationals to prosper. It's ethnic supremacy veiled in self-congratulation. Mexicans are a fine people whose culture has many aspects that ought to be celebrated, and I think we ought to accept a whole lot of legal Mexican immigrants.

As far as willing workers go, however, even someone who assumes the United States needs a large contingent of low-skill foreigners can see that Guatemala, Thailand, Vietnam, Brazil, China, Poland and Somalia could together provide enough willing immigrants that we'd never need a Mexican guest worker.

If Mexican nationals continue fomenting protests centered on nationalist pride and the myth of Mexican ethnic supremacy, they'll find themselves thwarted an American electorate wary of identity-based determinism. An immigrant movement that instead draws on American ideals of individualism and civic assimilation will prove far more successful.