Ed Morrissey thinks so. He quotes a news article about backlash then writes:
The real irony of this situation is that prior to the series of protests, with their demands and rejection of American sovereignty, the immigration hardliners did not have the momentum to get their program passed. President Bush had enough juice left to get a moderate reform program passed, one which granted earned citizenship and only superficially addressed border security. Now that the protesters have rammed their strident demands down the throats of Americans, the hardliners have won new support from a broadening group of voters. When they remained “in the shadows”, they had a cachet of victimhood that lent sympathy to their plight. With them teaming up with the last and largest group of communist apologists and demanding that America stop enforcing its borders altogether, they no longer have the patina of waifs but as ungrateful and separatist activists.
In truth, the only solution to this problem has to blend approaches from both sides. Border security has to come first, if for no other reason than any reform program has to rely on enforcement to attract people to register rather than opt out. After the border gets secured, then we can negotiate the status of those still left.
Some will disagree some of what Morrissey says here (or in his complete post) but he is probably correct on a key point.
The demonstrations proved to be an affirmation of political and social power by those who participated and by those who supported the demonstrations. Polls have shown great support for offering some kind of way for those already here to regulate their status, versus being deported (something Morrissey notes isn’t feasible anyway, given the huge numbers).
But the danger with big, flashy demonstrations is: if they are not handled and staged properly they can cause either counter demonstrations or a more profound political backlash.
So the key question remains: did the demonstrations advance the cause of the demonstrators or did the demonstrations give impetus to those who oppose any effort to eventually adjust the legal status of illegal aliens who are already here? He further writes:
Guest worker programs promise only to create a French solution where a permanent underclass exists with no hope of assimilation or equality. The only real option is normalization for those who have conducted themselves lawfully except for their entry, and a long path to citizenship marked by the payment of back taxes, fluency in English, and a fine for crossing our borders illegally.
Unfortunately, these demonstrations have made that almost impossible to achieve. We will get the border security of the House legislation, but will have to wait for passions to cool and immigration-activist leadership to get smarter before we can rationally discuss the remainder.
Still, the key piece that has not yet emerged in this puzzle is how all of this played with the American public in general. Polls and constituent feedback will be all-important to politicos in Congress because they want to remain politicos in Congress.
The polls will give an indication as to whether the demonstrations advanced the demonstrators’ cause or represented a classic case of winning the battle but losing the war.
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.