« Ugh | Main | Who Ya Gonna Call? »
April 11, 2006
Pictures From the Immigration Rally
Outside the AFL-CIO. The Green denotes AFCSME marchers. Union presence at the march was rather extraordinar,y particularly considering the AFL-CIO's virulently anti-immigrant stance from a decade ago. As Harold Meyerson explained it to me (and, later, Byron York, who took notes), SEIU and UNITE, who were finding the majority of their growth in immigrant organizing, went to the AFL-CIO conference and demanded that they change their position. Sweeney, a former SEIU chief, appointed a panel to do reassess. The panel recommended reversal, and at the 1999 convention, it was codified:
The marchers cometh:
And cometh closer:
And we slip into the march:
I'll agree with this:
More after the jump:
Seems like a smart point:
Your flags, sir:
Can't argue with her:
The White House looks out on some color:
Take that, Orange Revolution:
Yo quiero citizenship?
Boop-boop-a-doop:
Lou Dobbs' worst nightmare:
There were a lot of people:
No, a lot of people:
April 11, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834b73d7469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pictures From the Immigration Rally:
Comments
The excitement for all of the fine young liberals is that they missed the sixties and all the demonstrations, sit-ins, etc. (peace bebe)
It's like a retread of 1968 all over for them again only this time it's people that have sneaked into our country, continued to defy our laws by setting up shop here and now are demanding "rights".
Heh. Can you imagine us doing this in Mexico? Can you say machinegun spray?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 11, 2006 11:18:00 AM
It usually bothers me when I see a crowd of American-flag-wavers -- patriotism being the last refuge of the scoundrel and all that. These pictures really made me happy.
Posted by: Allen K. | Apr 11, 2006 2:42:33 PM
this time it's people that have sneaked into our country, continued to defy our laws by setting up shop here and now are demanding "rights".
And the first Americans who established colonies here, in what ways did they differ? What gives us a "right" to be here more than anyone else? Because we were here first? What is that logic based on, finders keepers losers weepers?
Frankly I think the whole current immigration debate is especially interesting because it centers so much on Latinos. In past immigration panics it was the Italians, the Irish, etc. They were poor, uneducated and unassimilated.
But Latinos, especially Mexicans, are only second to Native Americans as far as having a "right" to be here, after all, their ancestors were actually here first. Everyone else-- the vast majority of American citizens-- are pretty much latecomers.
As for tossing around the "illegal" word, as though that is what makes them inherently bad people, do you have all the papers for every one of your ancestors who came to this country? Can you prove that no one in your family ever came over here via unofficial channels?
Posted by: zoe kentucky | Apr 11, 2006 3:04:17 PM
Nice pictures, Ezra. I was downtown yesterday too, it was a truly great sight.
Posted by: zoe kentucky | Apr 11, 2006 3:06:10 PM
Fred, Fred, Fred. I know you want to stand on "principle" (since xenophobia is a long-standing conservative principle) and round these people up at gunpoint for violating the law, but reality intervenes: these folks have been here for decades. Many have children who are American citizens. They are a significant factor in many of our industries.
And they're "illegal" because Americans have decided to reap the benefits of a disposable, literally disenfranchised workforce without acknowledging them. The President decided to broach the topic, and didn't realize how bad it would backfire on him. Turns out people who've lived here for years on end kinda feel like they belong here.
And you want to know what would happen if we tried this in Mexico? Well...we're far richer than Mexico, so the only emigrants they'd see would be bringing in money by the bucketful. Mexico would probably respond the same way Canada did when the Vietnam draft sent a large number of politically aware, educated young men to the Great White North: "Please send more!"
Now, let's make a valid comparison: Europe. Huge numbers of immigrants, no plan to actually make them citizens. Remember those French riots? That's what happens when you create a permanent set of second-class citizens. Americans tend, in the long run, to oppose that kind of apartheid (see Civil Rights Movement). GW, possibly influenced by Jeb, was looking to settle this issue; turns out huge chunks of his party don't want the issue settled any way but with maximum Latino persecution.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 11, 2006 3:10:35 PM
...xenophobia is a long-standing conservative principle.
This ain't fear factor. Only those who are unlawfully here are at issue.
And they're "illegal" because Americans have decided to reap the benefits of a disposable, literally disenfranchised workforce without acknowledging them.
Wrong-O. They are illegal because they swam the river as selfish scofflaws instead of immigrating lawfully as many, many others have.
Mexico would probably respond the same way Canada did when the Vietnam draft sent a large number of politically aware, educated young men to the Great White North: "Please send more!"
You *are* naive. They put you in jail. It's done daily with illegals that come from Central America if they are caught. Mexico tells US, "Do as we say, not as we do".
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 11, 2006 3:49:05 PM
"They put you in jail. It's done daily with illegals that come from Central America if they are caught."
*Sigh* Fred, I have to confess ignorance here. Is 4% of Mexico made up of undocumented immigrants? Are they filling up to 20% of low-paying jobs? Have they been in Mexico for years on end, working hard and paying taxes? I wouldn't be surprised if the Mexican government still shot them after all that...but I, unlike you, aspire to have a government better than Mexico's.
"Wrong-O. They are illegal because they swam the river as selfish scofflaws instead of immigrating lawfully as many, many others have."
Man. "Selfish scofflaws." I'll have to remember that. That and the fact that they "selfishly" work extremely low-paying jobs, "selfishly" send money home to enrich their family, while "selfishly" paying Social Security and property taxes they can't reap the benefits of because they have to hide from the government.
My ancestors "selfishly" came here to build a new and better life in America, some legal and some not. I fail to see the difference between the 1850s Bohemian who uprooted his life to start over in Wisconsin, sending money and food back during troubled times, and the 1990s Mexican who works a backbreaking agricultural job so his family in Juarez can move ahead in the world.
"But it's not LEGAL!" you scream. "They're BREAKING the LAW!"
Yes. And so are the businesses that hire them. And more to the point, this has been going on for DECADES. Illegal immigrant labor is PART OF OUR ECONOMY. If you wanna take a machete to a significant portion of our economy, go ahead, but know what you're doing.
As to enforcement...I've gone over the pros and cons of chasing a undocumented people versus profiteering businesses elsewhere. Quick recap: we can find the businesses, we can't find the immigrants, do what we CAN regardless of what we WANT.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 11, 2006 4:28:51 PM
Oh, and:
"Only those who are unlawfully here are at issue."
Riiight. I'm sure the Minutemen do DETAILED background checks on the brown people they detain at random.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 11, 2006 4:30:06 PM
Yes. And so are the businesses that hire them.
Agreed.
I'm sure the Minutemen do DETAILED background checks on the brown people they detain at random.
You are 1) dishonest in trying to make this a racial issue and 2) just plain stupid since Minutemen don't detain anyone. They observe and communicate with Border patrol.
Dumb....dumb.....and dumb!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 11, 2006 6:30:13 PM
Hey Fred,
My chromosomes have been circulating around these parts for over 10,000 years.
Get off my land now.
Posted by: TrulyNative | Apr 11, 2006 11:07:48 PM
You know why so many people have taken to the streets the last few days? Why so many people come to this country legally and illegally - Chinese, Mexican, Bolivian, Korean, Ghanian, and so many more?
They do it because they still believe in the vision of America that we were taught in grade school. They do it because they believe that in America, anyone can be successful, anyone can make it if they just try. It's not about making a laundry list of what immigrants have brought to this country. It's about what immigrants have always believed about this country - all the way back to the first human beings to make the journey over here so many thousands of years ago: that here, in this land, one can start over, can be free of one's past, can make a life that is good.
The first casualty of Bush's misadventure in Iraq, as we all know by now, was born in Guatemala and came to the USA illegally. He didn't come to suck at the teat of the welfare state. He came here to work, to start over, to succeed in a way denied him in his homeland. And it apparently worked for him, leading him to choose to serve his illegally adopted land. That his death was brought about by cynical men seeking to enrich themselves makes his sacrifice no less noble, no less inspiring to all of us, "native" or not.
It is the conservatives like Tancredo and the so-called "Minutemen" who show by their rhetoric and actions that they have no understanding of the ideals and dreams upon which this nation was founded, and with which we have nourished ourselves for over 200 years.
The soaring conservative rhetoric about this nation's greatness and wealth being created by hard work and innovation is belied by the truer rhetoric of hoarding what we already have, keeping it from those who just may be, if given the opportunity, the great innovators of this decade, perhaps this century.
They have turned their backs on the one truly great thing about this nation, the one thing that has set it apart from all others, and they seek create instead a nation in their own image: fearful, selfish, suspicious, a land where "law" is valued more than liberty, where freedom only has meaning as an echo of an earlier time, a nobler people.
Posted by: Stephen | Apr 12, 2006 12:15:03 AM
Hm. Looks like the slick operators got to work, and scrubbed the ugly off the "protesters." Now all of a sudden they're so patriotic. America the Beautiful. And if they mean Central America, well, such is their right. So, not as ugly as the first. Here's my reaction to that one:
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2006/03/not-against-pro-illegal-immigration.html
Oh, and here:
http://forgottenprophets.blogspot.com/2006/03/bad-tactics.html
I do go on. But they seem to have smartened up. No, it's merely their presence with is an offence to the law, rather than their behavior, which was an offence to common sense. What hope. Whither, America?
J
Posted by: Jack H | Apr 12, 2006 1:56:25 AM
I never did understand what happened. We had all these "beautiful people" smokin' dope and sayin' down with the government and their wars. Decades later they have to be in charge. You'd think.
So where the fuck are free Americans ? Who, by the way, are not a bunch of nervous Nellies who don't know how to enjoy life and enjoy the party ; without worrying much about who people were or where they're from.
Posted by: opit | Apr 12, 2006 4:05:51 AM
"You are 1) dishonest in trying to make this a racial issue"
"Trying to make this a racial issue"? No, I think when Lou Dobbs is frothing at the mouth about people DARING to wave a Mexican flag, and not speaking English well enough, it's already a racial issue.
"and 2) just plain stupid since Minutemen don't detain anyone. They observe and communicate with Border patrol."
Yeah, when anyone's watching.
from http://www.gnn.tv/articles/1360/Arizona_Dream :
"There have been some documented abuses besides the one the mainstream media decided to pick up about the immigrant detained by a couple of MMP and who was forced to wear a demeaning t-shirt. Ybarra himself has filed assault charges against the MMP."
Fred, I thought you'd be smart enough to disavow the Minutemen and their vigilante approach. Since you won't, you get to carry the anchor of their racism and xenophobia with you. Have fun.
Oh, and Stephen? Spot on. What these immigrants are doing used to be called the American Dream...and the people who denounce them are no different than the ones who shooed my ancestors out with "Irish need not apply" signs. Except they've got a few more politicians on their side.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 12, 2006 10:09:06 AM
I see no reason for citizens not to attempt to embarrass the government into doing their job of patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, and that is what it is all about.
Spot on
How gay is *that*!!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 10:24:16 AM
What these immigrants are doing used to be called the American Dream.
You mean those who love America enough to go through channels or those who love themselves and fuck channels?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 10:25:40 AM
"I see no reason for citizens not to attempt to embarrass the government into doing their job of patrolling borders and enforcing immigration laws, and that is what it is all about."
I see no reason for citizens to not embarass their government into acknowledging the 4% of their population that does it's least desirable jobs and props up whole sectors of the economy, and that's what these rallies are about.
"You mean those who love America enough to go through channels or those who love themselves and fuck channels?"
Which channels, Fred? The die-before-you-get-in diversity lottery? A work visa? Oh, wait, we don't issue those for the millions of agricultural and service jobs these people fill. I can only assume that you're a pureblood Native American, Fred, because otherwise you're just a raging hypocrite. My ancestors were desperate to improve their lives here. They would have come whether or not the government extended it's blessing, because the market for new labor was there; they were just lucky enough that the Know-Nothings and KKK were kept from shutting our borders. Now we've got a gigantic unofficial underclass, and we will continue to have these people as long as the labor market is here.
Unless you want to recreate the Berlin Wall on a massive scale, blow billions on jailing desperate Mexicans trying to improve their lives, and turn our 2nd biggest trading partner into our biggest enemy.
Oh, and the gay crack, Fred? Please. "Spot on" is far more British than anything else. And if I happen to be a gay man, or British...am I supposed to be ashamed of that?
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 12, 2006 2:15:41 PM
Anyone has the right to rally. So what?
The die-before-you-get-in diversity lottery? A work visa?
That's like explaining that you stole the Jaguar coupe because you didn't think you could get one any other way. Hey, every country has a right to decide who comes in and who doesn't. Who stays and who goes. Our country, our rules.
Now, if you don't like the rules, why haven't you and all of these people whining been trying to get Congress to make a way for them? Why now are you all excited when we finally decide to enforce laws?
...if I happen to be a gay man, or British...am I supposed to be ashamed of that?
Perhaps you're an English queer
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 2:30:33 PM
"That's like explaining that you stole the Jaguar coupe because you didn't think you could get one any other way. Hey, every country has a right to decide who comes in and who doesn't."
Finally, we get to the meat of the matter. This isn't about legality; it's about keeping Mexicans out. That's what you want, just say it: don't wave that "legal channels" canard about when we both know there aren't any legal channels.
"Now, if you don't like the rules, why haven't you and all of these people whining been trying to get Congress to make a way for them?"
That's kind of the purpose of these rallies...
"Why now are you all excited when we finally decide to enforce laws?"
Because you're proposing deporting 1/25th of the country. Because you want to break up families. Because you want to cause immense upheaval to American society because of a series of laws that have never been enforced because they're unenforceable (barring a continous stream of multibilliondollar spending and a complete repudiation of America's immigrant history).
Jaywalking is illegal, but tacitly accepted in most cases; if you attempted to put in place a system that would meaningfully reduce jaywalking (cameras on every street, rewards for turning people in, denial of health care to those with unpaid jaywalking tickets) you would have a huge revolt on your hands. You're proposing the same thing here, and the stakes are MUCH higher...funny how people react when you threaten to actively destroy their lives.
"Perhaps you're an English queer."
And perhaps you're RuPaul. The glory of the internet is...we'll never know.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 12, 2006 3:15:44 PM
Finally, we get to the meat of the matter. This isn't about legality; it's about keeping Mexicans out.
Wrong again. We have already made these decisions via a democratic process through duly elected representatives. Bills were discussed, amended and passed. These decisions have been codified in our laws.
Each country has an inalienable right to make these decisions and we have done so. Now, you say they are not legitimat or something. Hell, I don't know what you are really saying. Your arguments kinda sound like "It's for the Children" which is suppposed to trump all reason.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 12, 2006 3:28:49 PM
"Wrong again. We have already made these decisions via a democratic process through duly elected representatives. Bills were discussed, amended and passed. These decisions have been codified in our laws."
Which were then largely ignored by our business community, and lax enforcement created a gigantic shadow economy devoted to employing these people. Just because the law decided not to acknowledge these people for the past few decades does not mean they weren't here, and doesn't mean they can be eliminated with a wave of the hand.
"Each country has an inalienable right to make these decisions and we have done so. Now, you say they are not legitimate or something."
Yes we made this decision...and we didn't enforce it. We had our disposable workforce that we didn't have to accord citizenship to, because economic incentives combined with lax enforcement drew millions of Mexicans to better their lives in America. No, I don't think it's legitimate to profit off the labor of millions of people for decades on end and decide that, because of this law we didn't pay any (meaningful) attention to, you've all got to go away now.
Here's a fine example of reality trumping legality:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_127.html
Somebody forgot to dot an "i" when Ohio was admitted to the Union. To this day, it has not been corrected.
So, do we go back and change everything? Do we rescind the presidency of those Presidents born in Ohio? Try to reimagine 150 (now 200+) years of dealings between the U.S. and the independent state of Ohio?
Or do we acknowledge the reality of the situation (everybody's been acting like Ohio was a state for 150 years), and proceed forward? To bring it back home, do we acknowledge that decades of immmigration and labor have made these people part of our country, or do we cling to the strictly legal notion that these people are somehow "wrong" and must be dealt with?
"Hell, I don't know what you are really saying."
See above. They're here, they're taxpayers, get used to it. Also that years of failed/non-existent enforcement amounts to tacit approval of the immigration; you don't get to reap the economic benefits of a porous border and pretend you're blameless whern somebody points out all the illegal aliens.
"Your arguments kinda sound like "It's for the Children" which is suppposed to trump all reason."
Is it reasonable to deport 4% of the population? Is it reasonable to militarize one of the largest borders in the world to stop a flow of labor that supports some of our major industries? Is it reasonable to separate thousands of families at gunpoint? (And believe me, there will be thousands of people who will have to be restrained before you take their children away.) Yes, I admit, the callous inhumanity of attempting to compensate for decades of lax enforcement with a wave of invasive, snitching brutality concerns me. But I'm not arguing that point alone. I'm arguing the reality of the situation. Which is: they're here, they're taxpayers, get used to it.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 12, 2006 5:57:12 PM
Or do we acknowledge the reality of the situation (everybody's been acting like Ohio was a state for 150 years), and proceed forward? To bring it back home, do we acknowledge that decades of immmigration and labor have made these people part of our country, or do we cling to the strictly legal notion that these people are somehow "wrong" and must be dealt with?
Seems pretty easy to argue when you sympathize with these people on a personal level. If everyone bought into your arguement, we would do nothing and leave everything the way it is. Why? Because of your tradition argument.
well, that ain't gonna happen. Something will be done and anything that passes will be better than what we have now.
Here's another issue: What makes anyone belive that whatever rules we come up with, that these people will obey them? In the future, will you whine and moan when a large percentage of illegals are not able to obtain citizenship because they didn't meet a requirement such as learning the language or paying back taxes, etc.? What excuse will you use then?
botoom line: It's all for crap if we don't secure the borders first. *THEN* we can talk about what to do.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 13, 2006 12:29:11 PM
Arggghhhh......
Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 13, 2006 12:30:13 PM
"Well, that ain't gonna happen. Something will be done and anything that passes will be better than what we have now."
Which was GW's reasoning when he brought it up. He just didn't realize the reason it's been left to sit for so long - it's an incredibly complex issue.
"Here's another issue: What makes anyone belive that whatever rules we come up with, that these people will obey them?"
Because we'll make rules that won't require incredibly draconian enforcement to work. Offer people a reasonable work visa that WON'T involve hiding from the government and living in fear of being deported, and they'll take it over being illegal. These people came here because the jobs were here and there were NO LEGAL OPTIONS for them. Give them one, one where they won't have to live in fear of exposure and they can actually participate in society, and they'll take it. Based on your previous writings, the one thing I think you can agree with me on these immigrants is that they will act in their own best interest.
"botoom line: It's all for crap if we don't secure the borders first. *THEN* we can talk about what to do."
Or...we could "drain the swamp," as it were, and eliminate the job pool that draws them here. We can blow billions annually militarizing a 2,000 mile border (and then try to secure thousands of miles of coastline...), or we can spend a couple million policing our businesses and eliminate the reason the illegal immigrants come in the first place. Just arguing for what's cost-effective, that's all.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 13, 2006 4:59:04 PM
oh yeah. Close tag.
Posted by: Kylroy | Apr 13, 2006 5:15:06 PM
