The core problem with a national strike as a vehicle for change
Bookworm at Bookworm Room on May 02 2006 at 6:00 am | Filed under: Feature Article, Illegal Immigration, Politicians at Work
I’ve made no secret of my support for legal immigration and my profound distaste for illegal immigration. This whole “immigration day,” which is really a euphemism for law breaking behavior, really has me grinding my teeth. First, here’s Carol Platt Liebau:
In endorsing the proposed May Day strike by all illegal immigrants and their political allies, the Democrats in the California State Senate may have thought they were taking a principled stand “about the tremendous contribution [illegal] immigrants make on a daily basis to our society and economy.” Ironically, however, by supporting the boycott, its proponents have called for an action that will succeed only in producing a significant backlash against the cause they purport to advance.
For the proposed strike is un-American at its core. Some European countries, and some in South America, may agitate for social change through large-scale general strikes that seek to disrupt the country as a whole. That has never been the American way, in part because our democratic republic has been quite effective at giving a voice to those who are, in fact, eligible to participate in it. In the United States, strikes are narrowly targeted to the industry engaging in collective bargaining with the striking union — and, in fact, workers and management alike largely try to minimize inconvenience to unrelated third parties. In contrast, the point of Monday’s exercise is to maximize the inconvenience to American citizens as a whole.
Through seeking to establish a new practice of taking to the streets — not simply as a way to voice a point of view, but with an explicit goal of causing damage to the economy — illegal immigrants and their allies send precisely the wrong message. Rather than emphasizing their love for and loyalty to America, the strike stresses participants’ hostility to or alienation from mainstream American political practices and traditions. That’s hardly an effective tactic for engendering broad-based support for a path to American citizenship.
Coincidentally (at least I think it’s a coincidence), Mark Krikorian sounds almost the same note:
The question now is whether the government of the United States will give in to the mob.
France recently answered that question in the affirmative (for the umpteenth time), when Chirac backed down from his comically small employment reforms in the wake of mass protests. In Latin America, street protests have toppled two presidents in Bolivia since 2003 and one in Ecuador last year.
illegal immigration, euphemism for law breaking behavior, May Day, immigrants, boycott, American
