July/August 2006

Featured Story

Moving to the Fore: Countering Walls, Troops, Free Trade, and Xenophobia

by Amanda Jack

Photo: Virginia Wilber

On May 1, 2006, signs across the nation declared, “Today we march, tomorrow we vote.” Hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their supporters filled the streets of U.S. cities to demand sound and humane immigration reform. They marched to protest pending legislation that would criminalize those who enter the country without proper documentation. Since the buildup to war in Iraq, marches and demonstrations had been a steady, if waning, element of U.S. activism. However, the massive demonstrations in April and May showed the nation that a new cross-section of the population had awakened to political consciousness. From where, people wondered, did this dramatic new movement emerge?

In late December 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives passed HR-4437 by a vote of 239-182. This legislation, sponsored by Republican Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, would turn undocumented immigrants – as well as persons assisting them with humanitarian aid – into felons. It would also require up to 700 miles of fencing to be erected along the Mexican border at the most common points of entry.

The strategy of sealing off points of entry was first enacted during the Clinton presidency, under suggestively named operations such as “Gatekeeper” and “Hold the Line.” While this attention to the southern border did manage to slow down immigration in major border cities, it effectively pushed the bulk of that immigration into the more dangerous mountains and deserts. That has resulted in the increased death of migrants, and, despite stringent enforcement efforts to control the steady flow, the number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States today has risen to between 11 and 12 million people.

When HR-4437 passed the House of Representatives, it was the first immigration reform legislation to do so in 20 years – and its draconian provisions did not go unnoticed in the large immigrant community.

The first demonstration took place in February in Philadelphia, when a couple of thousand people, organized locally, rallied at Independence Hall. Soon after, groups demonstrating against the congressional resolution and in favor of full amnesty and protections began to come together in cities across the United States, mostly in Latino communities. In Los Angeles, a group of local activists, clergy, lawyers, union leaders, and students formed the March 25th Coalition, They enlisted the help of Spanish-language radio and TV stations to promote a large mobilization on (you guessed it) March 25th to call for comprehensive immigration reform. The demonstration was overwhelming: an estimated 750,000 people gathered to demand humane reform.

Photo: Ethan Vesely-Flad

Momentum built when organizers in Washington, D.C. designated April 10th as a rallying date. Local organizers across the country, again supported by Spanish-language media, turned out hundreds of thousands of people in 102 cities. High school and middle school students staged walkouts, labor leaders joined faith community leaders, as speeches and rallying cries rang out throughout the nation. Local demonstrations continued throughout the month, while national activists called for the “Great American Boycott,” aptly scheduled for May Day. Organizers readied immigrants, legal residents, and their allies for what was hoped would be an effective show of solidarity forcing policymakers to reconsider the enforcement-driven HR-4437.

The backlash began as pundits wondered if the only real outcome would be further polarization of the immigration debate. The undercurrent of racism and xenophobia in the anti-immigrant camp became evident when a new Spanish version of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” “Nuestro Himno,” was released, drawing negative comments by President Bush and many cultural conservatives. Immigration had clearly claimed the national spotlight – although much of the debate seemed simplistic and divisive.

The global context … and the national reality

What was missing was a larger international analysis of the roots of migration.

It is preposterous to suppose that without developing a long-term strategy for improving the standards of living in the global South, we can legislate a quick fix to immigration. Free trade laws have opened up new international markets to U.S. exports while devastating other national economies and creating new stresses on our own workforce. For example, the inflow to Mexico of heavily subsidized U.S. corn, made possible by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), has destroyed Mexican farmers, while since the signing of NAFTA and the subsequent devaluation of the Mexico peso (events that caused a surge in northern migration) undocumented immigrants have fueled the U.S. economy by constituting 4.9% of our labor force.

The ready availability of a labor force so easily exploited has driven down the cost of building America’s future. Undocumented workers are not afforded the protections offered by legal status and, facing the threat of deportation, are unable to exercise their right to organize or to levy complaints of mistreatment on the job. These workers are seldom provided with adequate protective equipment or safe working conditions. Wages are well below minimum standards and are regularly not paid in full. Nonetheless, the pull to the United States remains strong as a low-paying, high-risk job here is a better choice than no job back home.

Some argue that immigrant workers increase unemployment among native workers. Economic studies have disproven this and even found that states with relatively high immigration actually experience low unemployment.

Labor unions have traditionally held conservative viewpoints on immigration as a means of guaranteeing job security for their members. However, unions as diverse as the Teamsters, Service Employees, Hotel Employees, Garment and Textile Workers, and the Laborers have adopted a new stance that includes full legalization of the undocumented workforce. Unions recognize the heavy hand of globalization in the fall of labor wages, and many agree that full protection for undocumented workers is vital to protection for all workers.

While labor unions agree that sensible reform means comprehensive reform, Washington continues to expand the reach of free trade. Last year, Congress misguidedly passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and now, despite evidence of the deleterious effects of such accords on weaker neighboring economies, free trade advocates are rounding up votes for the Andean Free Trade Agreement.

Latin American countries also bear the burden of some of the world’s largest foreign aid debts. Forgiving these debts would be a good start to stabilizing neighboring economies, thereby slowing immigration northward.

Any discussion in Congress must take into account our foreign policy alongside our domestic concerns. Ironically, it has taken an unusual partnership between some business leaders – the community that has long advocated free trade – and labor unions – groups that have traditionally sought to control labor supply – together with the mass demonstrations of immigrants and their progressive allies to have an effect on the political dialogue.

A rational middle ground?

Flavia Jimenez of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the U.S.’s largest Latino civil rights organization, said, “[We are] encouraged by the shift in the language and the rhetoric that many senators used during and after the demonstrations. Folks were listening to the millions of people marching. We know there are negative reactions, particularly from the restrictionist camp of the Republican Party, creating a backlash, but this is a normal reaction from the anti-immigrant lobby.”

Indeed, the national attention to immigration reform served to focus the energy of the Senate. Throughout the month of May, senators struggled to reach a bipartisan legislative compromise amidst vigorous and emotional debate. President Bush weighed in on May 15th in a nationally televised speech. His most notable comments were a proposal for the deployment of 6,000 National Guard troops to assist the border patrol in immigration enforcement and an appeal to Congress to find a “rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation.”

Jimenez agrees that “…as a country we need to control our border, no one will debate that. The question is how to do it. Certainly sending the National Guard to the border is not the answer. We’ve quintupled the money spent on border enforcement in the past 10 years and illegal immigration continues to increase. Controlling the border is one part of it, but it must be part of the large pie of immigration reform. We had over 400 deaths on the border last year, and more border enforcement …  will only increase deaths, will only increase the dangers that immigrants put themselves in, in order to cross.”

However, as the Senate compromise began to morph into legislation, it became clear that politicians – against the backdrop of election-year politicking – are still pandering to conservative enforcement-only ideologies. The Senate bill S-2611, while less stringent than that of the House, still proposes construction of more border walls, places a laughably low cap on guest worker permits, and greatly increases the number of border patrol agents on the southern border.

The most telling provision to be passed during Senate discussions was an amendment declaring English to be the national language of the United States. Its passage did much to prove that the immigration debate is less about undocumented immigrants and more about a gripping xenophobia that is coloring every aspect of the debate.

And so the nation finds itself waiting to see if the two bills in the House and Senate can be reconciled. It may well turn out that no compromise is reached before mid-term elections. That could mean more opportunities for the millions of demonstrators to influence the final outcome.

The NCLR and other immigrant rights groups plan to make good on the “tomorrow we vote” promises of this spring’s demonstrations. With elections rapidly approaching, the grassroots focus is turning to voter registration drives. Of course, a large part of these efforts is geared toward encouraging the eight million legal permanent residents in the U.S. to complete the naturalization process and gain full civil rights. The recently formed We Are America Alliance will focus on staging a “Democracy Summer”; organizers hope to register voters and have legal permanent residents fill out citizenship applications. Their goal is to register a million people this summer – people who, Jimenez hopes, “should be ultimately voting for the candidates who will work to promote comprehensive reform.”

Amanda Jack served as a 2005-06 Freeman Intern in the Fellowship of Reconciliation’sTask Force on Latin America and the Caribbean. Her previous experience includes two years of work in a Texas-based shelter for immigrants and refugees, and a year working on criminal justice reform initiatives.

©2006 Fellowship of Reconciliation