Day Without Immigrants: Political Success Or Political Provocation? (UPDATED)

It was called “Day Without Immigrants” — and it took place from sea to shining sea, often involving a sea of people. But are there political storm waves on the horizon?

The old cliche is that “for each action there is a reaction” — and it’s a classic (another cliche) “what came first — the chicken or the egg” situation: has the trigger been immigrants slipping across the border illegally, or American business (and government) allowing them to do so for financial reasons? Has the trigger for the demonstrations been what some consider draconian immigration reform in the House or was it the illegal immigration that led to the House’s hard-line legislation?

Will this demonstration of sheer numbers, voices and transitory financial freeze pressure Congress to recognize the importance of illegal immigration or will it create a backlash and actually harden positions? How will the demonstrations and — most importantly — the analysis of them in the days to come impact the 2006 mid-term Congressional elections and politicos in both parties who look longingly at the White House as they prepare their runs to occupy it?

There were massive demonstrations in many cities such as New York and Los Angeles — where demonstrators made a point of holding a huge American flag, perhaps to counter backlash to earlier demonstration at which Mexican flags were proudly waved. Will this impress the bulk of politicos and many Americans — or will they look at demonstrations many consider among the largest in recent history and draw a line in the sand?

Blogger Citizen Smash, pointing to a post by another San Diego blogger, notes signs of a backlash: “However, there appear to be fewer people willing to employ day laborers than on previous Mondays…Has the Great Bi-National Boycott of 2006 completely backfired?”

The New York Times:

On what they dubbed “A Day Without Immigrants,” organizers had urged immigrants not to show up for work and not to make any purchases today. But while the demonstrations promised to be some of the biggest in a series of marches during the last two months, not everyone agreed that the show of unity should include walking off the job, forsaking purchases or staying out of school.

In Chicago, Joshua Hoyt, executive director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, one of groups that is organizing a rally there, said none of the leaders involved in planning today’s rally called for a boycott.

“It’s a powerful weapon which needs to be used in an aimed, focused and strategic way,” he said.

The impact of the call for a boycott was difficult to measure this afternoon. Some businesses in New York and Los Angeles that are run by immigrants or that cater largely to immigrants were closed, but many others remained open. Casino industry representatives in Las Vegas said few workers stayed out, and most of them had asked for the time off earlier. Chamber of Commerce officials in Washington and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs said they knew of no disruptions.

But while it was still too early to gauge the economic effect, it was clear that the marches were attracting huge numbers of workers and students. The police in Chicago said the crowd at the rally had exceeded 400,000 by late afternoon.

In Los Angeles, the impact was acutely felt, according to the LA Times:

The normally bustling downtown Los Angeles produce and garment districts were virtually shut down today, and truck traffic at the ports was down sharply after many employees protesting the nation’s immigration policy’s did not show up for work.

The dearth of activity in the produce and garment districts, both heavily dependent on immigrant labor, was so far the most dramatic sign of the impact of today’s organized immigration protests on local commerce. Only sporadic business closures and staffing shortages reported across the remainder of Southern California.

The Los Angeles Wholesale Produce Market — which provides fresh food to restaurants, grocery store chains and countless mom and pop outlets — was unusually quiet at 2:30 am when the sprawling complex is normally a din of shouting workers and rumbling trucks The nearby 7th Street Market, the region’s second-largest wholesale food market, never even bothered to open.

Glenn Reynolds, aka Instapundit, offers this tidbit about the impact in Los Angeles:

Meanwhile, Los Angeles reader Matthew Holzman emails: “I hope they have more protests. The freeways were flowing smoothly at 5:00pm, and we probably saved as much in gasoline as the cost of the lost man hours!”

If a day without an immigrant means a day without traffic, Angelenos will build a fence on their own.

The AP pointed to how widespread the demonstrations were:

Huge crowds of immigrants have swarmed into the streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, New Orleans, Houston and other cities.

One woman in Denver calls immigrants “the backbone” of America. Chicago’s pro-immigrant demonstration has drawn an estimated 300,000 people.

In California, crowds today have been walking down Oakland’s International Boulevard and surging down Broadway in downtown Los Angeles.

Many are waving the red, white and blue, rather than face more criticism for showing flags from other countries. Some of the banners read “Immigrants are workers, not terrorists” and “I love this country, I just want to stay.”

Authorities asked students to stay in school. But in Santa Ana, for instance, officials say at least 3,000 ditched school.

And the rhetoric? It was stirring and defiant. CLICK HERE. But some, like CNN‘s Lou Dobbs, who has been calling for a clampdown on illegal immigration and stronger border controls, argued that the demonstration were being taken over by radical groups.

And then there was this story that was certain to anger some of the immigrants’ critics — and perhaps Americans who are still “on the fence” in this highly polarizing issue:

Hundreds of union members rallied Monday to support Mexican migrants working in the United States and call for a boycott of U.S. goods in what was dubbed “A Day Without Gringos.”

The boycott call by unions came as Mexico celebrated May Day, a holiday dedicated to workers and when business is a fraction of the normal….

….At least a half-dozen state governors in Mexico endorsed the boycott of McDonald’s, Wal-Mart and hundreds of other U.S. companies here. Measuring the impact of the actions was likely to prove difficult.

Marina Serna, deputy manager for Burger King in downtown Mexico City, said she believed it had an effect. The restaurant had only one client during the first 90 minutes it was open, even though it is owned by Mexicans.

“I’d say that this is bad because even if we work in a company with an international brand, the owners are not from the United States, they are Mexicans,” Serna said.

Mexico’s restive union movement _ which traditionally holds rallies on May 1 _ dedicated this year’s march to the legalization of undocumented workers in the United States.

Federal officials have tried to distance themselves from protests in both nations. President Vicente Fox on Sunday urged Mexican protesters to be prudent.

“They shouldn’t be an element of provocation or one that promotes xenophobia or opposition” to immigration reform, Fox said.

And, indeed, just as the House of Representatives tough-line law stirred up nationalistic resentments in Mexico, a report that American-linked businesses were being singled out and subject to boycott in Mexico was likely to stir up nationalistic resentments among some in the United States.

Regional reports on the demonstrations can be found HERE at MSNBC.

What to make of all this?

Like much in 21st Century America, what happens on a given day often
may mean less than how it is interpreted later.

Some immediately argued that the demonstrations meant little financially since once the day was over services would resume, delayed deliveries would be made in time to catch up, and businesses that had shut down will make up for their lost business in no time. Employees wouldn’t actually be leaving and any customers who stayed home would return soon enough.

Fair enough — but it’s the imagery that will be interpreted. Will most Americans view the hordes of people as individuals who are already here and want to be good citizens — who could be good citizens if simply given some form of amnesty (REALITY: most “guest worker” plans are to “amnesty” what “pre-owned cars” are to “used cars”)? Or will many Americans view the crowds, and service and financial disruptions of May 1 as a form of attempted intimidation — and dig in their heels? (Polls show most Americans favor some kind of program that adjusts the status of people who have been here for a while).

Were the demonstrations the beginning of the flexing of a powerful political muscle — or a massive miscalculation that will end up playing into the hands of those who are calling for tougher border controls and stricter enforcement of existing regulations against those who are here illegally and those who knowingly hire them?

In the end, the true meaning of the demonstration will be determined by not just the “spin” but how the images and words of the day are intellectually digested by political lawmakers and voters — particularly those voters who aren’t adamantly pressing for a soft or hard line on the issue.

Will May 1 go down as the beginning of a new political day? Or will it one day be noted as beginning of a political “No way, Jose!”

BUT THAT’S JUST OUR VIEW. THERE ARE MANY VIEWS ON THE DEMONSTRATION AND THE LARGER ISSUE OF IMMGRATION. HERE’S A CROSS-SECTION:

–Wild Thing In Theodore’s World: “If we could go back in time and just let the Mexicans have what they now call Aztlan, it would be no better off than the rest of Mexico and we would still have millions of illegals coming accross our southern Nebraska border.”

–James Joyner:

The obvious question is Why doesn’t the Border Patrol go round these people up and deport them? It’s their job and it’s certainly easier than trying to catch them as they slink across a gigantic border in the middle of the night.

If the answer is that we don’t have the national stomach to do that, then the protestors’ message is already self-evident but unacknowledged. Indeed, if they manage to do this in a dignified manner–i.e., marching quietly and not under inflammatory banners and foreign flags–this strikes me as the perfect way to get their point across. Rather than “This land is rightfully ours, anyway� the message should be “You want us here as much as we want to be here.�

–VivirLatino from San Francisco: “African-Americans were there in droves, as well as the gay community. Nice to know that in the midst of attacks people of all colors and walks of life — immigrant or not — come together. Well, at least in San Francisco they do.”

–American Conservative Youth Union:

If you were listening to the vast majority of the mainstream media today, you would have thought that the world ground to a halt when Illegal immigration activists cut school and work today…Don’t get my wrong, I think the boycotts were certainly newsworthy. Perhaps even the top story. But they do not deserve to be covered as if they are the biggest story of the year. Today’s events provide a great example of two negative traits of the mainstream media: Liberal bias, and over blowing.

–The Republic of Biloxi:

We are not anti-immigration, we are pro-rule of law. We must secure our borders and allow legal immigration for those who want to work and who would be beneficial members of society. It starts with legal entry and includes assimilation into the American fabric. That does not mean one would forfeit their own native culture, as that adds to the richness of Ameirca’s immigrant society. Our country is a patchwork of cultures and traditions blending into a unique American culture that benefits all. Non-assimilation just assures polarization in the future… We are a nation of immigrants, but it needs to be legal.

–Publius Pundit did “live blogging” (we won’t quote it since it’ll be out of context so visit that link).

–Pajamas Media images.

–Facing South:

Those who count themselves as friends of immigrant rights, but who doubted the wisdom of today’s May Day boycott, predicted two things: 1) that the boycott would be meaninglessly small, and 2) that it would invite widespread reprisals againt workers and students.

At the moment, it seems that neither have come to pass. …Economically, the protests did exactly what they were intended to do economically across the South and country: bring key companies and industry to a halt to show the muscle of new immigrants. And as I noted earlier, what’s striking is how most of the employers have simply caved in and allowed the protests to happen.

–Donkey Stomp: “Yes, the process to get here is long and difficult and needs to be reformed. However, in the process of this reformation, we need to make sure not to award those who have broken our laws while ignoring those who continue to wait in a long line to get here legitimately. Calling this a day without immigrants is unfair to all of those who worked hard to get here through our legal system because they loved America and wanted to be a part of this country.”

–Brown Pride: “Immigrants made their point Monday: A lot of work wouldn’t get done without them. As nationwide demonstrations by immigrants thinned the work force in businesses from meat-packing plants to construction sites to behind the counter at McDonald’s, economists said there can be no dispute that immigrants — including those who came into the country illegally — wield significant clout in the U.S. economy.”

–Para Justicia y Libertad also did live blogging — a MUST READ comprehensive wrap up of many details you won’t find anywhere else.

–reversecampyr:

First off, let’s get something straight. This is NOT about immigrants. And it’s not about immigrants’ rights. It’s about ILLEGAL immigrants! And the fact that they want to circumvent U.S. law and be given special treatment and privileges. Nobody has issue with immigrants of all stripes coming here legally and applying for U.S. citizenship. But many Americans have problems with a large-scale invasion of foreigners flooding over our borders and demanding to dictate terms for their citizenship.

–Confederate Yankee:

I spoke to a homebuilder yesterday who told me that without illegal labor, his cost per square foot for framing a home would nearly double. In other words, that means that because of an artificial depression of labor costs, legal Americans in this trade are getting far less in wages than they should. Want to take a guess who hurts the most in this arrangement?

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were busy this past weekend protesting the War in Iraq, but where have they been for poor blacks and other minorities that are seeing their wages undercut by illegal labor? For that matter, how many poor blacks and other minorities, including legal immigrants, would stay poor if entry level and trade-skill labor rates were what they should be?

–Talk Left has photos from Denver’s demonstration.

–Bloggledygook:

The most interesting feature here is not what the numbers were or how this day will go down in history…) but the lack of thought inherent in the protests. For instance, boycotting a Mexican McDonald’s hurts the fast food giant not at all, while the Mexican franchisee is the one harmed. Make sense? Sure, if what you want to do is live a life of symbolism rather than action.

On the other side, I’ll go out on the limb and say that unless there are continued walkouts, yesterday will be seen as a failure in the long run. But if the walkouts continue, farms that rely on illegal labor are likely to make the economic decision to automate, which eventually would cut out a significant amount of jobs. Ironic, indeed.

–Mark Daniels looks at “How Christians Might Think About the Immigration Issue.”