According to local police estimates, more than half a million people of various ethnicities and colors took to the streets here on Monday, 400,000 more in Chicago and still another 100,000 in other cities, demanding immigration reform.
The motto as expressed in Spanish here in Los Angeles ? “We march today, we vote tomorrow” ? was a plea for political power to match the economic contribution the 12 million undocumented workers make to the society. But the marchers also protested any action by Congress that would brand these workers as felons for having entered this country illegally, and would kick them out.
The protests were billed as an economic boycott to drive home the reliance on undocumented workers, and on those grounds the results were uncertain. Work stoppages did occur in many places, but it was business as usual in many others. In one smaller California town, the Paso Robles Press reported that an elementary school principal had sent children home with a letter urging parents to see that they attended and to look “for other avenues of expression on this topic.”
However, the numbers who poured into the streets around the country asking for the right to stay here, and for a greater opportunity to achieve eventual citizenship, served notice that a potent political movement is afoot that can?t be ignored.
In Los Angeles, with its heavy population of Latinos, a solidarity among the diverse marchers was reminiscent of the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960s, but without the violence that often marked those earlier protests.
The difference was that the civil rights movement drew its strength from a moral conviction that the constitutional rights of one group of Americans were being flagrantly denied, particularly in the Deep South. Justice finally came in congressional and judicial actions.
In this fight over immigration reform, the issue is not so clear-cut. The protesters cannot assert that a constitutional right has been abridged. Immigrants who entered the United States illegally and have remained here illegally are not in the position of the African-Americans of the 1960s, who as native-born citizens were demanding their full constitutional protections.
Furthermore, opposing congressional forces argue that granting what they call “amnesty” to illegal entrants undermines the system by which millions of other immigrants patiently entered this country legally. They insist that a greater national problem is the continued influx of illegal immigrants, and they demand greatly intensified border protection.
The dispute, and the street protest from the immigrant community and its sympathizers, clearly cries out for presidential leadership. Yet while President Bush has paid lip service to finding a compassionate resolution, he has yet to seize the issue with direct involvement of his own, choosing instead to urge Congress to address the matter.
He has made noises suggesting he could favor the bipartisan approach of some senators whereby undocumented workers who have been good taxpaying members of society would pay a penalty for their illegal entry, agree to learn English and undertake other actions that could lead to their eventual citizenship.
But the determined resistance from Republicans who cry “no amnesty” appears to be staying the president?s leadership hand. Admittedly, the political capital about which he boasted in the wake of his 2004 re-election has been seriously depleted. As he thrashes about seeking to regain political footing, however, there may be no better way than by taking a personal hand in achieving a legislative breakthrough.
Bush recently defended his role as America?s chief “decider.” In so doing, he was confirming the old Harry Truman adage that “the buck stops here” ? at his desk. That being the case, immigration reform favoring undocumented workers can be his chance to get in front of an emerging new parade before it marches over him.
As a candidate for president in 2000, he counted on support from Hispanic voters to help put him in the White House. As that voting bloc continues to mushroom, and with a critical congressional election approaching in November, neither he nor his party can afford to be seen as ignoring it.
Jules Witcover, a Baltimore Examiner columnist, is syndicated by Tribune Media Services. He has covered national affairs from Washington for more than 50 years and is the author of 11 books, and co-author of five others, on American politics and history.
