LA's Two May Day Marches

On May Day, hundreds of thousands of people demanding rights for undocumented immigrants marched down Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles, the epicenter of this burgeoning national movement. The sky was clear and blue and the breeze was mercifully cool as it took more than two hours for all the marchers to make their way down the office-tower canyon of Wilshire Blvd. to the rally site, packing the six-lane street from curb to curb and making lots of cheerful noise. It was a thrilling afternoon; in many ways the most overwhelming demonstration I've ever seen.

The marchers, estimated by the police at 400,000 people, were almost all Mexican-American and mostly young. The advance guard consisted of a brigade of adolescent boys on short bicycles doing wheelies while they shouted the march slogan, "Si se puede!" ("Yes we can!"). Then came the seemingly endless throngs of kids, families, and groups, many carrying handmade signs: "We may be immigrants/But we are hard workers"; "You might hate us/But you need us"; "This land is your land/This land is my land"; a guy in a Dodger cap held a sign that said "Let our people stay!", and another young guy's sign said, "Deport Arnold/Not my homies."

The key organizing groups carried huge banners: "Hotel Workers Rising", UNITE-HERE, plus the Garment Workers Center, the Instituto de Educacion Popular, the Day Laborer Project, Pacific Islanders for Immigrants' Rights, Columbianos por una Reforma Migratoria Justa, the Organization of Hot Dog Vendors in Solidarity, and the LA Taxi Workers Alliance, who rode in three yellow cabs. People for the American Way had a big banner and six people behind it, three of them talking on cell phones.

This was one of two competing immigration May Day protests held in Los Angeles, with different organizers and different politics. The monumental Wilshire Boulevard march had been called by labor unions, immigrant rights groups, the pro-immigrant Cardinal Roger Mahony, and the new Latino mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, as an alternative to another march held at noon downtown, the "Boycott" march, which called on immigrant Angelinos to boycott school and work to show what would happen to LA on a "day without immigrants"--although more of the signs called it "Un Dia Sin Latinos," or the admirably bilingual "Primero de Mayo, A Day without a Mexican." The "boycott" march, which demanded "nothing less than full amnesty" and "full rights for all immigrants," had virtually no institutional support, except for small left-wing groups like ANSWER-LA.

The unions, the immigrant rights organizations, the cardinal and the mayor opposed the boycott out of a concern that it would alienate mainstream voters and members of Congress. As an alternative they organized an after-school, after work, afternoon march, with much less radical demands than "full amnesty." This "We Are America" coalition instead calls for "legalization with a path to citizenship for hard-working immigrants," plus "an effective visa program for future immigrants that protects their rights and includes a path to citizenship" - basically the McCain-Kennedy bill.

The all-important Spanish language radio DJs, who proved to be the secret force behind the massive March 25 demonstration that stunned Anglo LA with its size and intensity, did not support the boycotts. Instead they joined the mayor and the cardinal in calling on kids to stay in school today and come to the afternoon march.

But the hundreds of thousands marching in LA today probably didn't care much about the different politics of the two marches, as Marc Cooper has argued. (See his report and photos here.) And when the mayor and the cardinal tell kids not to boycott school for the day, many find it hard to resist defying authority, especially for this cause.

The downtown march four hours earlier had an estimated 250,000 people. As the march stepped off at noon, the side streets were full of vendors grilling sausages, peppers and onions. These marchers were also cheerful, peaceful, and mostly young--many very young, alongside their parents. The signs showed that marchers know about the key legislation, a lot more than the great majority of Anglos. "Alto a la HR 4437" was a popular sign, and many young women wore tank tops that said "Contra 4437" - referring to the bill passed recently by the House, officially "HR 4437," that would make undocumented aliens into felons.

When hundreds of thousands take to the streets on a day like today, we are witnessing the birth of a movement for social justice of historic proportions. What I remember best is a somber ten-year old girl who marched by with her Mexican-American family, carrying a sign that read "We Are Not Criminals." That summed it up for me.

Comments (49)

1. .

   The Nation Magazine's Two Faces

   America has seen mass protests on behalf of three causes between April 29 and May 1. Anti-war rallies on Saturday, Darfur demonstrations on Sunday, pro-immigration marches on Monday. Two of those causes The Nation has whole heartedly supported. Darfur, where Arab horsemen and helicopter gun-ships fall on defenseless black Africans, it ignores.

   What does that mean?

   This year alone there have been a dozen anti-war rallies. The magazine beat the drums for each one and has discussed that cause with passion. The immigration issue, where hundreds of thousands insist on their right to flagrantly violate US law, The Nation supports in editorials and blog pieces. But where over 2 million blacks have been ethnically cleansed and at least 180,000 murdered by a Muslim regime in Khartoum, where the issue is genocide, then, when for the first time in three years Americans take notice, the roar of the courageous Nation suddenly subsides to a whisper.

   How can the principal "progressive" voice in the country, whose brief is justice and succor for the forgotten and downtrodden, deliberately ignore the calvary of millions?

   Several days earlier it jammed a mention of the Saturday rally inside several Rothberg announcements. That was for the record, to have given the subject a menion, but in a way that did not help or constitute an endorsement.

   Katrina vanden Heuvel points an indignant finger at Rush Limbaugh's hypocrisy, even as she covers-up for mass murder and ethnic cleansing. That is entirely in keeping with a movement that sided with a dictator who tore out tongues, and that yet supports Baathist and Islamist insurgents, the purest fascist evil since Heydrich hanged democrats from meathooks.

   .

   Posted by nacl at 05/01/2006 @ 8:04pm

2. You're talking about the Sudan, NACl, because you can't address the policy of ethnic cleansing that you and your rightie buddies will undertake right here at home if they get their immigration act passed. You've got vigilante shit heads patrolling the U.S. border, raving on talk radio about shooting people who come over illegally, and you think you're going to do something about similar shit over in Sudan. Well, NACL old pal, nip it in the bud here, and you'll have plenty of room to criticize what's going on over there. But no, you and your friends would rather wink at a brownshirt outfit like the Minute Men. You stupid motherfuckers are trying to start a war on the border, and the immigrant movement is trying to stop it. Deal with the issue at hand, or shut your damn mouth.

   Posted by Mikeyeshu at 05/02/2006 @ 12:17am

3. .

   MIKEYESHU 05/02 @ 12:17am

   You're talking about the Sudan, NACl, because you can't address the policy of ethnic cleansing that you and your rightie buddies will undertake right here at home if they get their immigration act passed. You've got vigilante shit heads patrolling the U.S. border, raving on talk radio about shooting people who come over illegally, and you think you're going to do something about similar shit over in Sudan. Well, NACL old pal, nip it in the bud here, and you'll have plenty of room to criticize what's going on over there. But no, you and your friends would rather wink at a brownshirt outfit like the Minute Men. You stupid motherfuckers are trying to start a war on the border, and the immigrant movement is trying to stop it. Deal with the issue at hand, or shut your damn mouth.

   You have just gone along way to making up my mind about immigration.

   You pretend that the Nazis were about enforcing border regulations! You pretend Americans resisting an uncontrolled, in-rushing stream of Latinos is comparable to Arabs driving 2 million people off THEIR land and slaughtering 180,000.

   When we are face to face, you fellows couldn't be more polite and soft spoken. But at a safe distance, you are fearless. You begin by throwing the crudest language at me, by slandering me as a storm trooper, and threatening me with war. Interfere with us and we will destroy your economy: that is the message of the demonstrators. You make demands with a knife to the throat. Well old pal, it won't work. You are going to play by our rules, we are not going to play by yours.

   If the Democrats ever had a chance to win the Congress it's this year. And if there is one issue that can lose it for them, it's immigration. Either they join and lead the fight to close the border, or they lose in November. Ignore the country on this issue and you will produce a xenophobic backlash that will put Latinos who don't speak English on south bound boats from New York to Florida, from Seattle to San Diego and across to Louisiana.

   Something is building. It is building against the debt and funding problems, against the power grab of the corporations, against the fascist left, and again the illegals. Let's hope it's headed off at the pass and doesn't come to pass. Backlashes always turn harsh and mean, and the innocent suffer. But the way to bring it about, is exactly. by putting a knife to our throat, calling us brown-shirts and daring us to fight for our country.

   This is an immigrant nation, with very few Mohegans. Most of us are off the boat relatively recently, be it one generation ago or ten. Most have sympathy for immigrants because for that reason, few don't have some family member or friend with a grandparent or great-grandparent with an accent. But most followed the law, often waiting years for a visa. You show up without a visa but with a knife and call us brown-shirts.

   This is a heterogeneous country. It can only hold together if there is a wide willingness to obey the law. It will not survive if it admits people whose instincts and habits are lawless from day one.

   In the past there were strong immigration laws that were strictly enforced. Many were refused admission at Ellis Island because they were diseased. Before Ellis Island was set up the wheat was weeded from the chaff by long and dangerous sea voyages in small sailing vessels. Only the ablest found the money and courage to dare the trip. And when they arrived, they had to find food and shelter on their own. Sure, there was plenty of good, cheap land on the frontier. The untold story is that life out there was hard and dangerousn and most perished. That was the law that culled and made the Americans who created this country. Now you come over in two hours on a credit card and Boeing, or on a pickup truck, and join protests promising to destroy the economy if you don't get your way.

   No sir, that is not how it will be.

   .

   Posted by nacl at 05/02/2006 @ 04:07am

4. Colombianos, with an "o." Columbianos would be the students at the elite uptown university, rendered in spanish. And it's the "primero de mayo," not the "primo" (cousin) de mayo. Proofreaders? Bilingual reporters?

   Posted by fusco at 05/02/2006 @ 09:05am

5. The day without immigrants here in SoCal was quite nice. There was no traffic.

   Posted by tkacg at 05/02/2006 @ 11:36am

6. Actually, if you and I were talking face to face, NACL, it is you who would be sneaky and false. I've lived in this country all my life, grown up around creeps like you in many a small town, and know you all for what you are, a group of people one is perfectly safe around so long as it's not night out and one's back isn't turned. I don't listen to your concerns about African history because I know they're as valid as your concerns about Iraq. You discovered Darfur twenty minutes ago to speak metaphorically, and now you're the expert. Well, I've been active in international black politics for a quarter of a century now, quite often up against the hard opposition of experts of your calibre with your issues of the month, and have watched guys like you come and go, making loud noises, getting in the way, obstructing, obstructing. I don't listen to you about the crisis in the Sudan, because I know you're talking out your ass, based upon an imperial mindset and the blogs of a half dozen wanna be nazis on the right. You want me to ignore the fact that I know the right is only making noise about Darfur because Sudan is a major petroleum supplier to China. That's why you and your fellow benign Nazis want to start yet another one of your butchering "humanitarian" concerns there, not to aid, not to assist, but to get a stranglehold on the lifeline of Chinese industry. And as I said earlier, I hate staliinism more than you can ever imagine, particularly because I know both the politics of stalinism and religious fundamentalism grow out of the same kind of dragon's teeth politics you advocate. So no. No imperial adventures in Darfur. You market ideologues will only make things as crazy as they are in Iraq, only more so. Stay the fuck out.

   As for your revisionist history of the expansion of this country, I note that your little survey course conveniently ommitted the murderous military purges your heroes conducted against the peoples who originally occupied this soil. But then, given that your version of African history also downplays the role SLAVE LABOR played in building your little whiteman's utopia, that's hardly surprising. Everyone who experiences pain or loss at the end of your guns just needs to get over it, right? FUCK YOU. You think you know so damn much about this country? It's reshaping itself right now, with or without your eurocentric fantasies. The borders are going to change, too, you bet you. Get ready, NACL. Get ready.

   Posted by Mikeyeshu at 05/02/2006 @ 11:36am

7. This discussion is so full of spin and hyperbole; it's amazing. Both sides miss the main points of the issue when the discussion degenerates to name calling (Nazis, etc). Silly...

   Posted by tkacg at 05/02/2006 @ 11:37am

8. You white people lecturing the world on societies of law, having unleashed the most lawless administration since the Polk administration? Don't talk to me about laws, NACL. This country was built upon theft, landgrabs, slave labor, massacres of the indegenous, and exploitation of the poorest members of society. Talk about law. There is no law. There's only you crazies, equipped with megatons of firepower, cheap electronic junk that you no longer manufacture yourselves, biblical nutcases damn near all. The law is something you all stretch and twist to fit your line, which is, and I cite, "posession is two thirds of the law". Yes indeed. Yes indeed. Try this shit on some twenty year old political science major. If we were talking face to face, you'd retreat with your little piggy tail between your legs. Count on it.

   Posted by Mikeyeshu at 05/02/2006 @ 11:42am

9. Posted by MIKEYESHU 05/02/2006 @ 12:17am

   I admire your passion on this issue, but have a hard time understanding the comparison of the Minutemen to ethnic cleansing. How many illegal immigrants have been hunted down and killed by the Minutemen?

   Posted by tkacg at 05/02/2006 @ 12:35pm

10. What will really hurt the "pro-immigrants" movement...comes from within...

    "FUCK YOU. You think you know so damn much about this country? It's reshaping itself right now, with or without your eurocentric fantasies. The borders are going to change, too, you bet you. Get ready, NACL. Get ready. Posted by MIKEYESHU 05/02/2006 @ 11:36am | ignore this person"

    As radicals become the "face" of it, the backlash against Latinos will only intensify. True, Southwestern politicians will kowtow, and some pro-business Republicans will still be able to "weather the storm" and keep the situation as it is....but many Repubs AND Dems will get hammered with quotes from guys like MIKEYESHU and get pushed into the "build a wall" camp.

    And when ANSWER, the "peace activists", the "anti-globalist activists", the "trans-gender activists" et al get involved...it gets even worse!

    Posted by Mask at 05/02/2006 @ 1:08pm

11. Posted by MASK 05/02/2006 @ 1:08pm

    Well said...

    Posted by tkacg at 05/02/2006 @ 1:22pm

12. Posted by MASK 05/02/2006 @ 1:08pm: the backlash against Latinos will only intensify

    What exactly is the "backlash against Latinos", Zorro?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/02/2006 @ 1:26pm

13. Posted by TKACG 05/02/2006 @ 1:22pm: Well said...

    If you like delusional rants...

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/02/2006 @ 1:27pm

14. "As radicals become the 'face' of it ..."

    So, Mask, is this reality ... or what opponents and contrarians like yourself hope to spin? WHO exactly is the one responsible for "radicals" becoming the face of the movement? Seems to me that this is only a version of reality you are trying to portray. Sure, if you gather a half million people together for any cause, there are bound to be elements out of the mainstream - doesn't give them any greater weight than they deserve. And I am sure that candidates will be grilled endlessly about the comments of people who anonymously post on political blogs and the like - right. There is quite a difference between you proclaiming radicals are driving the ship and it actually being so.

    Posted by Hman23 at 05/02/2006 @ 1:40pm

15. When you have an economic system that depends upon an ever increasing number of people to support it, this it what you get. Yeah, our economic numbers go up but at what cost? The future looks bleak with an ever increasing number of people competing for less and less resources. There are already a number of environmental problems trying to sustain 300 million people, what about 500 million? Or even a billion?

    Let's face it, our current economic model won't work forever.

    Posted by Zeddmen at 05/02/2006 @ 1:41pm

16. What exactly is the "backlash against Latinos", Zorro?

    Posted by ORWELL2005 05/02/2006 @ 1:26pm | ignore this person

    Well...how about the more draconian House bill?

    Posted by Mask at 05/02/2006 @ 2:06pm

17. Posted by HMAN23 05/02/2006 @ 1:40pm | ignore this person

    Feel free to cruise around the blogs...you'll find "the quotes". Some academics, but many Hard Left Latino political leaders discussing "the Reconquista" of the Southwest, "dying off Anglos", and other incendiary language.

    Also feel free to note the "jumping on the bandwagon" types from ANSWER and other non-Latino/non-immigrant policies activist groups, because Lord knows, we can't have a national debate on immigration policy without discussing....the environment (note ZEDD above), "womens' issues", "gay rights", "globalization", "international debt", "Iraq", "Bush", "Guantanemo", "universal health care", and "Veganism".

    Posted by Mask at 05/02/2006 @ 2:10pm

18. Posted by MASK 05/02/2006 @ 2:06pm: Well...how about the more draconian House bill?

    You wrote that "As radicals become the "face" of it [pro-immigrants" movement], the backlash against Latinos will only intensify.". How does the Draconian House bill "intensify"? Are you claiming that the House bill will become even more Draconian? In what way?

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/02/2006 @ 3:08pm

19. Progressives are too easily manipulated and deceived. This reflects a lack of a strong foundation supporting their viewpoints. Who were the main sponsors of this event? Businesses and the Catholic Church. why? Businesses want to keep an unlimited flow of desperate, poor, illegal immigrants from Mexico coming into the U.S., working for low wages, displacing the American workers, and thereby increasing the profits of the businesses. The Catholic church wants more members to increase their own power in our new religious-based government.

    For those who think "Oh, the poor immigrants," I can only say this: use a little rational analysis, and stop relying on knee-jerk emotional manipulative sentiment to guide your politics.

    Does the writer support open borders? The marchers do.

    The only proper question is this: what is in the best interest of the American public. Should we allow immigration? Yes. How many, who, from where? Those are decisions that should be made based upon the sole question of what is in the best interest of the American public. We benefit from the contributions of immigrants. We suffer when the number of immigrants overwhelms our social systems, housing, sanitation, police, fire, jobs, schools, hospitals. Most of the immigrants from Mexico are poor, uneducated, unskilled, and do not speak English. This is a fact, not a bias. How many can we successfully incorporate into our society each year? One million, ten million? Stop and think for a moment about the expenses incurred in taking in millions of people who cannot even afford to buy food, never mind contribute to the tax fund. Aren't these exactly the types of decisions that must be rationally-based to avoid social breakdown and chaos?

    The policy of the U.S. in allowing an unrestricted constant flow of immigrants into the U.S. from Mexico is hurting the people of this country.

    Also keep in mind that many of the immigrants are either Catholics or evangelicals, and strictly follow the directions of their church leaders. So all you sentimental liberals need to keep in mind that these immigrants are in many cases future supporters of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and religious control of the country.

    Open your eyes. Start using your brain instead of your sentiment.

    Posted by NABNYC at 05/02/2006 @ 3:32pm

20. Posted by NABNYC 05/02/2006 @ 3:32pm: Progressives are too easily manipulated and deceived.

    George W. Bush is the greatest prisident in the histery of the Werld. He has kept each and every one of us from dyin multiple times. If you commie-patch progressive tirrorists weren't so easily manipulated and deceived, you would know this too.

    Posted by orwell2005 at 05/02/2006 @ 3:54pm

21. The protestors (at least the Mexican portion) are going about this the wrong way. Instead of demanding U.S. citizenship in this country, they should be petitioning politicians in Mexico to ask the U.S. Congress for annexation. Mexicans would then gain the voice they want, plus a slightly less corrupt government and police force, and people now living in Mexico wouldn't have to make the dangerous trek north to enter the United States. The U.S. would gain access to natural resources, a large labor pool, and be able to add a few stars to the flag. Plus, if politicians really wanted to put up a fence, it would be a lot cheaper to put it on the southern border of Mexico.

    Posted by Snarfangel at 05/02/2006 @ 3:59pm

22. The marchers, estimated by the police at 400,000 people, were almost all Mexican-American and mostly young. [...] When hundreds of thousands take to the streets on a day like today, we are witnessing the birth of a movement for social justice of historic proportions.

    Without a broad base, it is merely a school holiday.

    Posted by Jay Cline at 05/02/2006 @ 4:30pm

23. If the pro-immigration demonstrations are the forefront of a "movement for social justice" then where are the rights of American workers to an equitable wage? The fact that meat and poultry packing plants were closed all over the country calls attention to the fact that the latinization of America has proceeded in lock step with the destruction of the American middle class.

    Over the twenty years that followed Reagan's amnesty plan, wages in manufacturing, especially in those areas of manufacturing that are resistant to overseas relocation due to logistic concerns, have remained stable and even fallen in real terms, due to the persistent pressure of predominantly latin immigrants that are always arriving ready to do the job for less. The industries that today claim that they could not exist without the labor of illegal immigrants are the same industries in which Anglo-phonic Americans have been squeezed out by low-wage immigrants. The dependence upon low wage labor in these industries is a consequence of the employers' actions - it is an addiction of their own creation - and not a justification for the continued presence of illegal immigrants.

    If the illegal immigrants are sent home, and employers choose to then pay the market price for legal workers, those jobs that are necessary to America will be filled. We should remember that unemployment rates in the United States are NOT a measure of the number of people that are unemployed or even of the number of people who desire or seek employment - they are simply a record of the number of people who are registered with state-run employment agencies as eligable for unemployment benefits. In many American cities, the actual unemployment rates are not the four or five percent that is reported but are actually in the range of twelve to twenty percent, with unemployment rates among sections of the black male population reaching up to forty percent. We have enough people in this country to do the work - what we want is a fair wage for our labor and we will not get that as long as we allow the employers to import (actively or passively) low-wage labor from the third world.

    Immigration, illegal or otherwise, has the effect of increasing the labor supply and lowering wages. This is the simple economic law of supply and demand. The purpose of immigration laws is to limit the impact of this fact upon the living standards of American workers while allowing some concession to those who benefit from stability in labor costs.

    When immigration laws are not enforced, then the inevitable consequence is falling wages and the destruction of the middle class.

    Posted by rexrobards at 05/02/2006 @ 4:32pm

24. Thank you Rexrobards! I can speak for poor working Americans who have to deal daily with immigrant workers legal or otherwise who are taking their jobs and lowering their wages. Right now I am unemployed in Chicago and feel discriminated against in favor of Latino workers. It is not uncommon to apply at hotels or cafes who's staff is 80 percent latino and discover that even though I am totally qualified for the position they are not interested in hiring non-spanish speaking Americans. Are to get a job working with people who can not speak English and can not follow instructions half the time.

    What I find so frustrating is all the thousands of people who have shown up for these marches for the rights of people who are technically of course here illegally, right or wrong it is illegal, and yet where are the marches against the horrendous public educational system in America that is dumbing down our children, or the total lack of affordable health care for 60 million uninsured working Anericans. Where are the march organizers?

    What is the matter with the working poor and middle class in America that once again you continue to be mocked, financially raped, while letting a egomaniac send your young offspring to fight in an absurd insane war fighting for someone elses supposed freedom (which they never asked for) while our freedoms here in America are seeing a rapid decrease. And now you are being asked to carry the burden of accepting 12 million illegal aliens with open arms. And they are waving their nations flag in your face! The bravodo of these demonstrators is amazing! They dont love America they love the American Dollar, let's call a spade a spade for heaven sakes.

    All you educated intellectual snobs who sit around saying oh this is a great new movement blah blah blah. Well I see this as damn right weird, these poeple are becoming heroes now. Is it the number of peopel commiting a felon that should force our lawmakers to change the laws. Then what about the millions of Americans who take illegal drugs - shouldn't we legalize drugs after all by some estimates 30% of Americans use some form of illegal drug.

    And here is another thought. You know how the catch phrase goes: "Illegal Immigrants are doing the jobs Amercians will not do." - right? Well maybe that is because we have allowed the abortion of over 50 million unborn souls since legalization in 1973? So yeah maybe we do need some help but why at such a high cost.

    Well you can bet these illegal immigrants are laughing load and audaciously right in your faces fellow hard working Americans, what other nation would even begin to tolerate this flagrant disregard for civil government.

    Posted by Ispeaktoo at 05/02/2006 @ 6:19pm

25. 400,000! WOW! This is history in the making!

    I think it is a demonstration of their good character to form an alternate march - a "positive" march to oppose the negative "walk-out" march...I think, in the long run, positive efforts will go much farther than negative ones. Negative efforts will only, in my opinion, lead to another divided country - and I don't believe this will be tolerated or beneficial to anyone.

    Posted by Bluebutterfly at 05/02/2006 @ 7:35pm

26. Oh joy, NACl get to use the words left, Saddam, and fascist together again. Guess his day is complete. But how is that any different from yesterday?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/02/2006 @ 7:36pm

27. To all WingNuts

    Proposal for legalizing immigrants. All you gotta do is get old Dubya to allow green card status to illegals in exchange for 6-year tour in Iraq!

    ¿elegante, no es?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/02/2006 @ 7:39pm

28. Hey...we all forgot to wish Dubya "Happy Mission Accomplished Day" It was 3 yrs ago yesterday that on the aircraft carrier he said "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed..."

    On a similar note: Did you know that those mysterious detention facilities dotting the landscape in out of the way places were arranged in part by Ashcroft and built by Halliburton! Surprise, surprise. This site GovExec Mag states this was rolling as of 2/2006, but other stories trace this back much further.info Might illegeal immigrants have been on Dubya's mind some time back? Hmmmm.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/02/2006 @ 8:43pm

29. Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 05/02/2006 @ 7:39pm

    Wow, we made it pasts 40 posts before getting to the compulsory Bush/Iraq bashing. Are there any threads at the Nation that don't end up here? Can we actually discuss other issues?

    Posted by tkacg at 05/02/2006 @ 11:04pm

30. or past 40 posts. nice typo there

    Posted by tkacg at 05/02/2006 @ 11:04pm

31. i thnk all the illiegals shoudl go back to thier countries n give america back to the americans. that is y we dont have any jobs or rights!!!

    Posted by bobbisox64 at 05/03/2006 @ 12:23am

32. .

    REXROBARDS 05/02 @ 4:32pm

    pro-immigration demonstrations are the forefront of a "movement for social justice"

    They are in the forefront of a "give me" movement debasing the idea of social justice. They are making it synonymous with lawlessness and bullying. They constitute a loud and clear warning. A tsunami is threatening this country.

    The answer is to close the border and to invest heavily in robotics and automatic machinery. The post industrial era was supposed to leave behind the machine age's ugly aspects. But our master/servant society will remain as long as a need for unskilled workers remains. Marx's vision, where everyone is part of the proletariat was wrong. Huey Long's, where everyone is a king, was right. The idea that the tragedy of a laborer selling his life for a pittance is solved by raising his wages, is wrong. He/she must be replaced by a highly trained professionals exercising his special aptitudes and talents. Now people at jobs they were born to do and would do without pay (surgeons, basketball players, concert violinists, etc.,) are highly compensated, while ignominious work is poorly paid. That should be reversed. The disagreeable work deserves extra high compensation, because it is not fun but drudgery. That is social justice. And the more that work costs the greater the incentive to develop a machine to perform that task. But that won't happen while unskilled labor is so cheap. That was the problem with slavery. It was an obstacle to the industrialization of the South.

    As matters stand, the biggest victims of the Latinos are America's blacks. In the past. service jobs were overwhelmingly black. Now for example, blacks have alsmost disappeared from the restaurant and hotel industry.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 05/03/2006 @ 12:44am

33. No real issues being discussed here. Just name calling and race baiting. If this is typical of the left, I've had it with them.

    Posted by artgurrl at 05/03/2006 @ 01:14am

34. .

    JAY CLINE 05/02 @ 4:30pm

    When hundreds of thousands take to the streets on a day like today, we are witnessing the birth of a movement for social justice of historic proportions.

    When someone sneaks into your house, puts a knife to your throat and says, I'm moving in, better like it or else, that is not a social movement.

    They took to the streets, not for social justice but for crime and injustice. There is no justice when breaking the law is legalized and rewarded. A show of force and fierceness must not intimidate this country. It must do the opposite. That demonstration did not just warn: close the door, it showed how.

    Pictures and videos of those demonstrations will be the staple of anti-illegal immigrant political campaigns this fall. Laws will be passed criminalizing the hiring of illegal immigrants. It won't really be necessary to control the borders. There will be no reason to want to come. Illegals now in the country will find themselves pulling out. No employer will risk prison or heavy fines to engage them.

    The govt owes the country such legislation. It has the job of defending this country. It cannot beat its chest about defending US interests in Iraq, but not defend US borders against a direct invasion.

    If minimum wages have to go up, so be it. Better that than a tsunami. Deprived of cheap labor employers will invest in labor saving technology. Restaurants and hotels are now labor intensive because that kind of labor is presently cheap. When those costs rise those industries will reach for technology to reduce their need for labor.

    It is possible to have a waiter explain a menu and take an order on a video screen. It is even possible for the food to move on overhead or underground conveyors to a local serving station, allowing one waiter, to service two and three times as many tables as before. Hotels can be designed for room service that requires no waiter, bathrooms that clean themselves, and suitcases that move from the lobby to their rooms, without a bellhop.

    Posted by nacl at 05/03/2006 @ 01:31am

35. NACL

    First, read the article. Completely.

    Second, read my response. Completely.

    Posted by Jay Cline at 05/03/2006 @ 10:15am

36. NACL

    Hint: With friends like you, who needs enemies?

    Posted by Jay Cline at 05/03/2006 @ 10:17am

37. .

    JAY CLINE 05/03 @ 10:15am

    "The marchers, estimated by the police at 400,000 people" . . .

    Without a broad base, it is merely a school holiday. (05/02 @ 4:30pm)

    You think an assemblage of 400,000 people for one cause, does not suggest a broad base?

    You can't bring a crowd that size together without strong and capable organization and lots of publicity, i.e., money. They obviously have a strong base, and they are abetted by industrial interests that thrive on that cheap labor. That was not a whimsical and ephemeral crowd. Those people think they can twist human rights slogans to their ends, think they can insist on their own legalization, and mean to grow more and more numerous.

    To imply, as you do, that those hundreds of thousands were not unlike a bunch of kids given time off from school to go to a parade, is ridiculous.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 05/03/2006 @ 2:09pm

38. .

    MIKEYESHU 05/02 @ 11:36am

    FUCK YOU. You think you know so damn much about this country? It's reshaping itself right now, with or without your eurocentric fantasies. The borders are going to change, too, you bet you. Get ready, NACL. Get ready.

    This country has been reshaping itself for a long time. It never yet settled down to one steady direction, like Spain, or France. The constant shedding of skins is one of its most characteristic qualities. It has remade itself, again and again. What it hasn't done is allow any external force to overwhelm it, the contrary has been true.

    But you think America will allow Mexican migrants to turn her into a Latin and African country. You're already wetting your pants in excitement.

    First of all, you're a fool to want such a development. In your adroit hands that would before long reduce the US to a mixture of the Congo and Paraguay. Then blacks would really be well off, eh? If Africans have ever had a bit of luck, it was in being incorporated into America and getting a ride on her bus, even if at first in the back. As Cassius Clay said, before he became Mohammed Ali, if we hadn't been brought over to the US I'd still be running around naked spearing alligators. You would reverse that.

    You want to run the whole bus yourself. But before long, under the guidance of geniuses like you, it runs out of lubricant and needs replacement parts, and everyone ends up walking, and eventually your Nikes wear out and you're back to running around barefooted fighting alligators.

    But don't worry, it won't come to that. There are those "small town creeps like you [me]" whom you mentioned. They, like most of America, live in the suburbs and in rural places. There is a tough determined quality to them. They don't shoot off their mouths; they are slow to anger, but if they see themselves being ethnically cleansed, and losing their country, they will react. Then there'll be a reshaping like you've never yet seen. I don't think creatures like you and your friends will come off very well. Many other won't either, which is why such a showdown is not to be relished. But bet on it, something like that will happen if a Latino/African tsunami threatens to swamp America.

    You are the enemy of America's blacks, and of blacks in Africa. Your racial consciousness is at the service of your hate which centers on whitey and his American set up. Thus you side, for instance, with Arabs and Chinese petroleum interests. You see them as hostile to the US; that means you support them. Nevermind what that means to black Africans. You reflect the ravings of a crowd of "heavy thinkers" convinced that the US is the problem. Joe Feagin, at Texas A&M, sees America as a "total racist society" in which "every part of the life cycle, and most aspects of one's life, are shaped by the racism that is integral to [its] foundation." To Ron, Maulana Karenga, a professor of black studies at California State-Long Beach, 9/11, was a completely understandable response to "years of state terrorism." Ward Churchill described the victims of 9/11 as "little Eichmanns" who had been rightly targeted as a "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire."

    Timothy Shortell, at Brooklyn College sees religious Americans as "moral retards." Hamid Dabashi, a professor of Islamic studies at Columbia University, knows that Jews are congenitally predisposed toward sadism. Jose Angel Gutierrez, a political scientist at the University of Texas, holds that "we have got to eliminate the gringo . . . and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him." And Leonard Jeffries, still teaching black studies in New York, believes, blacks are "sun people," morally superior to white-hued "ice people."

    That is your bailiwick, your nourishment, you racist jerk.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 05/03/2006 @ 4:00pm

39. NACL

    Again, read the entire post.

    Lemme dumb it up for ya,

    The marchers, estimated by the police at 400,000 people, were almost all Mexican-American and mostly young

    No, I don't call that a broad base. I call it an excuse to cut classes. Where are the rest of your "broadbase" demographics??

    Posted by Jay Cline at 05/03/2006 @ 4:06pm

40. NACL

    And, to respond to the obvious "followup":

    population of LA county - 8,388,607

    Latino population of LA - 44.6% (3,741,318)

    median ago of LA Latino community - 26.5

    Latino population of LA under 26.5 - 1,870,659

    Number of Latinos under the age of 26.5 who did NOT go to the march - 1,470,659

    Draw your own conclusions.

    Posted by Jay Cline at 05/03/2006 @ 4:15pm

41. NACL

    To imply, as you do, that those hundreds of thousands were not unlike a bunch of kids given time off from school to go to a parade, is ridiculous.

    I didn't imply that.

    I said it. And quoted it from the article reporting on the event.

    Posted by Jay Cline at 05/03/2006 @ 4:22pm

42. ARTGURRL

    Its not always like this.....

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/03/2006 @ 7:03pm

43. .

    JAY CLINE 05/03/2006 @ 4:15pm

    Latino population of LA under 26.5 - 1,870,659

    Number of Latinos under the age of 26.5 who did NOT go to the march - 1,470,659

    Draw your own conclusions.

    You say there are 1,870,000 Latinos in LA under 26.5 years.

    You don't consider that the majority are kids from 1 day old to 17 years.

    The real total adult pool under 26.5 would be at most between 700,000 to 900,000.

    If 400,000 demonstrated that would mean a participation by half! You don't think that is phenomenal?

    Do you suppose that percentage of Irish join the Saint Patty's Day parade in NY, when parochial schools are indeed closed?

    .

    Posted by nacl at 05/03/2006 @ 7:18pm

44. ARTGURRL

    Its not always like this.....

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER

    Actually, it is always like this here. Those claiming to be the most open-minded are the first to shout down opposing views. Hystrionics has replaced policy. Opposing politicans can't simply be misinformed or even misguided - they must be Nazis intent on destroying America. Intelligent discussion cannot take place in such an environment. This is the left. More particularly, this is The Nation.

    /sad Democrat

    Posted by phargle at 05/03/2006 @ 7:44pm

45. Phargle

    Not true...we are having an informed discussion over in the KVH / Energy Day thread.

    In the recent past I've had a fairly civil discourse with LoveLiberty. (Surprised even me...)A downright friendly one with Freihet. Had some decent ones with Todd (OK_sportsguy), and even a "cordial" one with NaCl (a ...while... back, but actually agreed with him on another thread) and a few "moderately OK" discussions even with CPT and JMaasch.

    We can have dialogue, civil human discussions...we just all have to agree to stop slinging feces like chimps at the zoo. Try it sometime...and your hand stays a a lot cleaner and fresher too!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/03/2006 @ 9:06pm

46. BTW: regarding Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 05/02/2006 @ 7:39pm

    Isn't there a grain of potential there....where's CPT when you need him? Howzabout it LL?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 05/03/2006 @ 10:25pm

47. NACL

    By broad base, you need more than one faction. You've only proven my point.

    Posted by Jay Cline at 05/04/2006 @ 09:31am

48. .

    JAY CLINE 05/04 @ 09:31am

    By broad base, you need more than one faction. You've only proven my point.

    If 45% of LA's population is Latino and around half of their adults under 26 join a protest, and they are supported by the industrial interests of the area, and by the Left, then, instead of a point, you have the most solid base imaginable.

    .

    Posted by nacl at 05/04/2006 @ 9:16pm

49. NACL

    Apologies. I really have problems understanding conpiracy theories such as you presuppose. You keep throwing out assertations that are not only unsubstantiated by facts, but actually contradict them.

    As reported in the article we are discussing, the protesters were mostly Mexican-American and young. From this you assert,

    they are supported by the industrial interests of the area, and by the Left,

    The obvious conclusion is that industrial interests are mostly young Mexican-American and young. As is the Left.

    Perhaps that does explain why the Left cannot win elections? They no longer have a broad base of support??

    Maybe I am missing something after all...

    Posted by Jay Cline at 05/05/2006 @ 09:35am