Backlash begins against immigration protests?
From the Washington Post:
While a series of marches focused much of the nation’s attention on the plight of illegal immigrants, scores of other Americans quietly seethed. Now, with the same full-throated cry expressed by those in the country illegally, they are shouting back.
Congressional leaders in Washington have gotten bricks in the mail from a group that advocates building a border fence, states in the West and South have drawn up tough anti-immigrant laws, and ordinary citizens, such as Janis McDonald of Pennsylvania, who considers herself a liberal, are not mincing words in expressing their displeasure.
“Send them back,” McDonald said. “Build a damn wall and be done with it.”
The anger evoked a word that immigrant organizers who opposed Monday’s boycott feared: backlash. McDonald and other Americans were particularly disturbed by Monday’s boycott and civil action, attended in large part by people who entered the country illegally and are now demanding rights enjoyed by U.S.-born citizens and immigrants who entered the country legally.
“How dare they,” said McDonald, a research specialist for the University of Pittsburgh who said she voted for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the 2004 presidential election. “If they are so active, why aren’t they in Mexico City, why aren’t they forcing their leaders there to deal with the quality of life? If you don’t like it here, go home.” [...]
Although the calls for a guest-worker program I supported, the boycott and shenanigans in Mexico angered me as well. The former at least seems to have had “zero impact“. It appears that I’m not alone in my views on this as some of the recent nonsense has angered other supporters of a guest-worker program like Larry Kudlow. If even liberal Kerry supporters are seething over these protests this doesn’t bode well for this illegal immigration movement. Methinks their leaders overplayed their hand a bit especially if they are starting to alienate some liberals and others who support a guest-worker program. Sending bricks to members of Congress is an amusing expression of their anger, I might do so as well given that I do support the building of a wall on the border.
In a sign this issue may be one resonating with voters, the mayor and at least 2 town councilmen who supported a day-laborer center in Herndon, Virginia, were ousted in local elections yesterday and replaced with opponents. Meanwhile, many lawmakers in Arizona were unmoved by the “Day Without Immigrants”, or perhaps it’s best to say they would like to extend this day to year-round at least when it comes to those here illegally.
Finally, while I myself do not support these kinds of boycotts, it is somewhat amusing to note that there are now calls from some quarters to respond to these protests with a “Nothing Mexican on Cinco de Mayo“. The game is certainly afoot…
Hat tip: Gateway Pundit, Michelle Malkin & Pajamas Media
29 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
This Kerry supporter is now and will remain a strong backer of the mass pro-citizenship rallies that we’ve seen across America. In fact, I think that the WP stenographers, whose article you quote here, are, well, simply put, full of BS.
Comment by Vox Mia — May 3, 2006 @ 4:56 am - May 3, 2006
Here’s the bottom line on the rallies:
Under the inspiration of International A.N.S.W.E.R. – a Communist front group aiming to undermine the United States – a bunch of people who consciously and intentionally break our laws just by coming / remaining here, basically told us we suck and must give them even more than we do already.
Color me unimpressed.
Comment by Calarato — May 3, 2006 @ 8:02 am - May 3, 2006
As a gay man in a binational relationship, I can tell you that a good portion of those protesting on Monday were not just “illegal” immigrants. They were people who fell in love and have no options other than to break the law. Or move to Spain, Canada, Israel, England or the other countries that recognize permanent domestic partnerships for purposes of immigration. For some of us, though, who don’t have houses in the U.S. to sell or who are HIV+ moving to another country is not financially or legally feasible. So we stretch things along, applying for tourists visas, temporary work visas, or hide in the shadows. Just trying to stay together and putting our lives on financial hold, supporting our partners but not saving for retirement or buying property.
The current ‘system’ is no system. It’s a moving target, which would have driven my great grandparents crazy. They, like so many ‘illegals’ today, just came to America. They didn’t fill out paperwork first, they just came. And struggled, finding their Germanic-sounding last name was a hindrance to employment during WWI.
And since we know that ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ are ill-defined terms that change with the year and the weather, with changing quotas and depending on what country you are from and without the possibility of understanding it even for top immigration lawyers — we know that all immigrants are just immigrants. And that “illegal” is a construct of the xenophobes that seek to divide us.
I, a midwest raised Lutheran, don’t recognize my country today. It’s certainly not the welcoming community that I was taught in Civics classes that it was intended to be by our forefathers.
So we march, because non-violent civil disobedience is a planned part of our national heritage.
Comment by DC1974 — May 3, 2006 @ 8:26 am - May 3, 2006
#3 – “They were people who fell in love and have no options other than to break the law.”
There are ALWAYS other options. As you say: Spain, Canada, Israel, England – and others besides.
“For some of us, though, who don’t have houses in the U.S. to sell…moving to another country is not financially or legally feasible.”
Errrrrrr… Do the illegal immigrants of Mexico / Latin America have houses to sell, when they come here?
Generally not. So why would you claim that it’s only possible to immigrate / emigrate to a place if you “have a house to sell” (i.e., plenty of money)?
General comment: I understand what a strong motivation love is, but the choice to live in a place illegally IS a choice. You weaken the integrity of your case, if you try to pretend otherwise.
“[Earlier immigrants] didn’t fill out paperwork first, they just came.”
We’d have to do some historical research, but I’m pretty sure that’s incorrect. There were fixed quotas for who / how many could come from different countries. Very many were turned back, and/or denied passage on the boats in the first place.
“And since we know that ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ are ill-defined terms that change with the year and the weather…”
What a strange and interesting mentality you have! No they aren’t.
“And that “illegal” is a construct of the xenophobes that seek to divide us.”
Then call me a “xenophobe that seeks to divide us”, EVEN THOUGH I’M NOT. This is where I get off. You don’t deserve further comment.
Comment by Calarato — May 3, 2006 @ 9:21 am - May 3, 2006
I suspect the GOP thinks it has found a cure all for it’s election year problems. It’s the illegals fault -low pay jobs, escalating health care costs, schools not up to par, housing too expensive, energy costs,
Iraq warnot yet but giv’em time. They need something to rally the people round abortion,gay marriage, Islamofacists cutting your head off, and 9/11 24/7 are all sooooo 2004. So they a new enemy something close something different ah ha MEXICANS that’s the ticket. And don’t forget the added bonus of being able to appear to distance from the increasingly unpopular George 2. All I can say is Good LuckComment by delen — May 3, 2006 @ 9:34 am - May 3, 2006
#4 – P.S. – For the record, I do agree that it is unjust that gays can’t marry (or “civilly unify”) their partner and get them through U.S. immigration legally, that way.
The nature of the injustice is that gays / gay couples are denied the ability to do something that straights / straight couples can do. I support fixing that injustice.
The nature of the injustice is NOT, in principle, that some individuals are going to be excluded from America, or that America would have immigration laws. The injustice may cause illegal immigration, but still does not justify it. (Two wrongs don’t make a right.)
Comment by Calarato — May 3, 2006 @ 10:04 am - May 3, 2006
#5 – Nice paranoid theory, delen, but please give us some quotes where the GOP is trying to blame things on illegals right now.
If anything, their problem (I’m not part of them) is the exact opposite: President Bush is bending over backwards to accommodate illegals with amnesty and guest worker programs, without also securing our borders as so many Americans demand.
And many Democrats oppose the proposals to accommodate illegals, which is a big part of why those proposals keep stalling / dying in Congress. In general, labor unions (big Democratic constituency) would be the natural enemies of illegal aliens. Look for more anti-illegal (which you would call anti-immigrant) comments to come from labor-oriented Democrats, in the next few weeks.
Comment by Calarato — May 3, 2006 @ 10:28 am - May 3, 2006
Where are all the moonbats suddenly coming from??
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — May 3, 2006 @ 10:45 am - May 3, 2006
Like Gryph in this thread?
Oh yeah, you would just mean the NEW ones.
Comment by Calarato — May 3, 2006 @ 11:14 am - May 3, 2006
It’s a popular myth that marrying somebody gets them citizenship, but a myth nonetheless. Your spouse doesn’t even get special consideration, much less citizenship. I know far too many people who, after years of paying immigration atty fees, still have spouses who are not citizens, and most likely, never will be.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 3, 2006 @ 11:20 am - May 3, 2006
Are the spouses here entirely illegally then, or would they at least have a visa of some kind?
My comment was in reference to the issue of illegal immigration; “illegal” meaning no Green Card, no permit/visa, etc.
Comment by Calarato — May 3, 2006 @ 11:30 am - May 3, 2006
Hey gay patriot, I’ll bet you’re glad that this year illegal aliens are the wedge issue and not gays. Actually gays are a better wedge issue, because the vast majority of Republicans can agree that they hate your kind. There just doesn’t seem to be any concensus on the immigrant issue though. Too many Republicans are enjoying the benefits of having a source of labor that will work for near slave wages.
Comment by Randy — May 3, 2006 @ 11:36 am - May 3, 2006
Anyone who thinks building a wall along the southern boarder is a good idea has never been to the southern boarder. Texas can’t staff it’s prisons much less man thousands of miles of Chilean desert.
Republican’s are using the immigration issue to divide the electorate the same way they used gay marriage in 2004.
Comment by John Gillnitz — May 3, 2006 @ 11:41 am - May 3, 2006
“I know far too many people who, after years of paying immigration atty fees, still have spouses who are not citizens, and most likely, never will be. ”
Comment by rightwingprof — May 3, 2006 @ 11:20 am – May 3, 2006
Not only that, but the person can not go visit their family in their native country without losing the right to come back. Our rules and the organizations that regulate them are intentionally bad.
Comment by John Gillnitz — May 3, 2006 @ 11:44 am - May 3, 2006
#13 – John, see #7 – Already answered there.
#12 – Randy, sorry but that’s yet another crazy comment – apparently you have forgotten the Clinton era’s Nannygate scandal.
And, as I pointed out in #7, it is actually the GOP who are slightly more in favor of the proposals for amnesty at this point. (Their grassroots rebellion saying “But not without border security!” is just that, a grassroots rebellion.)
Comment by Calarato — May 3, 2006 @ 11:49 am - May 3, 2006
What started as an issue of national security and national sovereignty is slowly morphing into an ugly campaign of xenophobia. To boycott Mexican goods and culture on Cinco de Mayo is xenophobia. What’s the next stage? A Kulturkampf against TexMex…”use Ketchup, not Salsa”?
There are 12-million to twenty-million people with families undocumented or with false papers in the United States. Ten-percent of the citizens of Republic Mexico are here in the United States legally or illegally. The tens of millions of Mexican-heritage live here legally as immigrants or citizens have relatives south of the Border. Hundreds of thousands of the illegally-resident Mexicans have US citizen-children or spouses. You can’t just “build a wall” right through the heart of this trans-border society. Nor can you “just” deport them. The last Western society that attempted to round-up 12-million “outsiders” from within it’s own borders and culture ended-badly. Are we to become yet another enlightened-yet-doomed culture with dreaded “knocks on the door in the middle of the night” and “ihre Ausweis, bitte”?
And it’s not just the Mexicans and the Salvadorans. There are 500,000 Chinese here illegally, including tens of thousands that have been found but China refuses to repatriate. Here in New Jersey, the Mexicans account for approx. 75,000 of the 355,000 undocumented or “irregular” residents. Shall we round-up the Canadians, the Irish next?
If the issue is natinal security, then we shoud concentrate on regularizing their status, not deportations and crushing fines. The greatest danger to our lives and way-of-life are the Islamofascists, not the stoop-laborers and the office-cleaners. If the way to enter the Unitesd States as a guest-worker or potential immigrant were easy and efficient; then they would not have to cross the borders in the middle of the Arizona desert. Or risk death by suffication in trans-Pacific shipping containers.
We must find the way to get them registered, biometrically-ID’d, on the tax-rolls, and licensed and insured. If they have legal status, it eliminates the means by which they are exploited…and eliminates the means by which their employers unfairly compete economically. And once the system is in-place, we shoud have a strict, vigorous campaign against the employers who contine to use “illegal workers” outside of the system.
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — May 3, 2006 @ 12:38 pm - May 3, 2006
They aren’t here at all — at least not the ones I know.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 3, 2006 @ 1:46 pm - May 3, 2006
If anything, their problem (I’m not part of them) is the exact opposite: President Bush is bending over backwards to accommodate illegals with amnesty and guest worker programs,
Comment by Calarato — May 3, 2006 @ 10:28 am – May 3, 2006
Err. no. Bush wants a semi-permanent underclass. The bill that would making helping illegal aliens a felony (which is what started the protests) was submitted by House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., Wisconsin Republican.
Comment by John Gillnitz — May 3, 2006 @ 4:10 pm - May 3, 2006
The only real solution to the illegal immigration problem is a stronger, more robust Mexican economy. As long as Mexicans are significantly poorer than Americans, they will continue to try to get into the United States. It is the same as the ‘War On Drugs’. As long as the demand is there, so will the supply. After all, you don’t see Canadians trying to sneak in at the northern border, basically because Canadian cities are as prosperous as American cities.
However, I would like to see the government secure both the northern and southern borders with sensors that can detect whether nuclear material is attempting to cross, more so than whether actual humans are. It may be that illegal immigration can not be stopped due to the current Mexican economic climate, but the smuggling of nuclear materials must be prevented.
That said, illegal immigration is not a debate that fires me up. After all, I like Taco Bell and Shakira. LOL
Comment by Erik — May 3, 2006 @ 4:19 pm - May 3, 2006
And it was always my understanding that marriage of an American and foreign citizen gave the foreigner a permenant green card, not citizenship.
Comment by Erik — May 3, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - May 3, 2006
I’ve kept clear of the immigration discussion here largely because it is fairly complicated because of the number of variables involved, but I’ll must point
#19 Erik — May 3, 2006 @ 4:19 pm – May 3, 2006
However, I would like to see the government secure both the northern and southern borders with sensors that can detect whether nuclear material is attempting to cross, more so than whether actual humans are
Just to point out, fertilizer and fuel oil can do a lot of damage, as Timothy McVeigh showed in OKC.
Comment by raj — May 3, 2006 @ 4:37 pm - May 3, 2006
This is true, but nuclear weapons are a much more grave threat. It’s the difference between hundreds of dead and millions. That’s a difference worthy of varying priorities.
Comment by Erik — May 3, 2006 @ 5:57 pm - May 3, 2006
I don’t understand the thinking of some of those posting comments on this topic. Why is it xenophobic for some Americans to boycott Mexican products when advocates of illegal immigration have urged Mexicans still living in Mexico (are there any) to boycott American products.
It may be time to lighten up and to do so I’m passing on a little humor that came in my e-mail the other day:
A major earthquake hit the Mexico City area, leveling much of the city and its suburbs and killing 4,000,000 Mexicans.
Several countries are dispatching search crews to the scene. Canada and the European Union are sending money and food supplies. Japan is sending thousands of tents and cots.
The United States is sending 4,000,000 Mexicans to replace those lost.
Comment by Trace Phelps — May 3, 2006 @ 9:05 pm - May 3, 2006
#22 Erik — May 3, 2006 @ 5:57 pm – May 3, 2006
If a terrorist organization really wanted to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the US, or anywhere else for that matter, they probably could have obtained one from one of the former Soviet republics–or even NKorea–and done it by now. Recall that the USSR dissolved some 15 years ago.
What Timothy McVeigh showed us was that it is relatively simple to develop a truly powerful bomb out of rather mundane components–in his case ammonium nitrate (basically fertilizer) and fuel oil, both of which are already available in the US.
Comment by raj — May 4, 2006 @ 6:49 am - May 4, 2006
#23 Trace Phelps — May 3, 2006 @ 9:05 pm – May 3, 2006
Why is it xenophobic for some Americans to boycott Mexican products when advocates of illegal immigration have urged Mexicans still living in Mexico (are there any) to boycott American products.
I may not be, but one thing you may want to consider that it has been reported that dumping of agricultural products by the US into Mexico under NAFTA has wreaked havoc on the indigenous Mexican agricultural industry, and that is one reason why we have seen significant increases in illegal immigration from Mexico into the US in recent years. Mexicans boycotting of American agricultural products would seem to be a not-unreasonable defensive measure.
Comment by raj — May 4, 2006 @ 6:49 am - May 4, 2006
You are mistaken.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 4, 2006 @ 11:23 am - May 4, 2006
I look at it like this, no man woman or child should be denied the opportunity to improve their life simply because they were born on the wrong side of an invisible line. If some one wants a better life and contribute to our society, I say “come on in”.
Comment by Chris — May 4, 2006 @ 3:13 pm - May 4, 2006
” ..like Larry Kudlow.”
Larry Kudlow?
Oh there’s a top shelf intellect if ever there was one … last I heard, Kudlow was advocating a return to the feudal system.
Oh weight, you’re part of Pajamas Media … never mind, facts don’t matter to you.
Comment by Aran — May 4, 2006 @ 3:24 pm - May 4, 2006
Legally, only.
Comment by rightwingprof — May 4, 2006 @ 3:35 pm - May 4, 2006