Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants, their supporters and counter-protesters skipped work and school to rally Monday in “A Day Without Immigrants,” a loosely organized boycott designed to demonstrate the economic contributions of illegal immigrants. Protests, including one that drew several thousand people to downtown Eugene, occurred nationwide, shutting down some businesses, farms and factories.
The activities were but the latest in a string of ongoing protests against proposed federal legislation that would criminalize illegal immigration and toughen border security between the U.S. and Mexico, the native country of many of the nation’s estimated 11-13 million illegal immigrants.
Choosing May 1 as a day to recognize the work of illegal immigrants was not a random choice. Since the late 19th century, May Day has been considered an International Workers’ Day, commemorating an 1886 strike and ensuing riot in Chicago at which workers demanded an eight-hour workday.
It’s too soon to accurately measure whether the boycott was a success. Although many workers risked losing jobs, others were undoubtedly too preoccupied with possible retribution to participate. Thus it is hard to gauge the true extent of the effect illegal immigrants have on U.S. society.
It is certainly commendable that illegal immigrants and their supporters would attempt to literally show Americans what life would be like without the economic assistance of immigrants who unlawfully enter this country. Such a perspective is necessary to counter the hard-liner viewpoint of anyone who believes the U.S. can simply give illegal immigrants the boot and call the situation good.
Yet unlike the 19th century international labor strikes, during which workers broke the law to demand more protections, Monday’s protesters demanded validation of their blatant disregard for U.S. law. The early labor strikes elicited public support because many people could empathize with strikers. The contemporary strikes will not receive wide-scale support from everyday citizens who pay taxes and who do not send large portions of their earnings out of the country.
Further, this boycott probably had little effect on the average American. Large agribusiness will absorb the brunt of its economic consequences. Although many businesses run by immigrants for immigrants shut down, it appears that fewer businesses catering to citizens were hindered. One day of losing a percentage of workers is also hardly akin to what the economic state of this nation might look like with a long-term loss of illegal immigrant workers.
Anti-illegal immigrant supporters have also engaged in symbolic and inflammatory activities recently. Partly in response to “A Day Without Immigrants,” members of the Minuteman Project in California began constructing a fence along a portion of the U.S.-Mexico border this Saturday. Six feet high, a quarter mile long and made of barbed wire, the fence is intended to send another distinct message to U.S. citizens: Illegal immigrants deserve neither entry to, nor amnesty from, the U.S.
Neither “A Day Without Immigrants” nor a 6-foot-tall fence will likely have much effect on the status of illegal immigration within this nation. Rather, as we’ve stated before, a political compromise is needed to provide some work permits and eventual citizenship to aliens while increasing border security; such legislation is currently being considered in the U.S. Senate, and we hope it succeeds. Unquantifiable boycotts and barbed wire fences are not the best mechanisms to bridge the immigration divide.