Which Side are You On?

by: Mike Lux

Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 11:33


Having spent most of March 21st (the day health care reform passed in the House and the day of the immigration rights march) inside the boiler room vote whipping operation, I missed most of the action on the streets, but a friend of mine who was at the march was telling me about how striking the contrast was between the immigration reform rally and the tea partiers gathered outside the Capitol building to protest the health care vote. The biggest difference, of course, was the size of the two crowds, the 200,000 on the side of immigration reform vs. several hundred tea partiers. But that wasn't what struck her.

"In our rally, the crowd was incredibly diverse - plenty of Latinos, of course, but a really tremendous cross-section of nationalities and backgrounds and religious faiths. A lot of young people, but a good cross-section of older people. Many immigrants, naturally, but a large number of clearly non-immigrant supporters as well.

"Beyond the demographic diversity, thought, it was striking how upbeat the really was. People were determined to get immigration reform passed, and there was some disappointment that it hadn't yet been a priority, but the crowd was happy, proud to be there, and confident that the country would do right by them."

The contrast could not have been sharper with the tea partiers. She didn't see a single non-white face, and saw very few young people. But the spirit of the crowd more than the demographics was what was most striking: that sense of bitterness, fear, and hate that was evident in their faces and remarks as the pro-immigration crowd passed by them by.  

Mike Lux :: Which Side are You On?
I was thinking this must have been the feeling held by civil rights marchers in looking at the pro-segregation crowds in the 1950s and '60s. In spite of the law, and the police, and decade after decade of oppression being against them, which side was more hopeful and which side was more fearful in those marches? Which side had more joy and which side had more hate? The answer is obvious, now as it was then. The question for our times is the same question earlier generation of Americans had to answer: which side do you want to be on? The question goes far beyond the relatively easy question (for many of us) of which group of demonstrators you would have wanted to align yourself with on March 21st. The bigger question is whether we want to be aligned more broadly with the forces trying to change America vs. those not only with the most extreme forces of reaction and fear, but also with the money and power that is aligned with those forces. Insurance companies, the big banks, oil companies, and the Chamber of Commerce fuel the fear with their misleading ads and support of Dick Armey style groups and Limbaugh/Beck style media. They don't want any important change to happen in America, so they are doing what they can to stir up anger and bitterness and fear at any kind of change.

The Republicans have clearly chosen a side, the side of "Hell, no" as Sarah Palin put in her rally with John McCain, the side of fear. But too many Democratic politicians have had trouble choosing a side. Some of them don't want to, because they want to keep the big business campaign contributors flowing into their re-election efforts, and they see the intensity on the fear mongers side, and it scares them.

Here's the problem: trying to make everyone happy in times like these doesn't work. The tea partiers won't compromise, and big business will only compromise as much as they are forced to - they won't give up any power or money willingly. To bring real change to America, the change Barack Obama promised, Democrats will have to make a choice: which side are you on?

It takes some courage to walk away from big money contributions, and from DC conventional wisdom. But at the end of the day, looking at both history and our future, this shouldn't be too hard a choice.

Given how I was raised, it's the most obvious choice in the world for me. I am on the side of the immigrants marching that day because I was taught that I would be judged by whether I welcomed the stranger and gave aid to those who had less than me. I am on the side of the health care reformers because I was taught to take care of the sick and hurt and those in need. I was taught that kindness is better than cruelty, that generosity is better than  selfishness, that love is better than hate. I was taught to believe this country is a beloved community, where we all respect each other and look out for each other.

It's easy to be on the other side of a movement that spits on people, calls others derogatory names, and throws rocks through windows. It's easy to be on the other side of the movement whose leaders are cheered when they make fun of people and talk about "the lions eating the weak." And it's easy to be on the other side of the big money that runs ads that plays to people's fears.

Which side are you on? This should be a very easy choice.  


Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I am on the side of immigrants and workers and not big business or racist xenophobes (0.00 / 0)
This is why I have serious qualms about trying to push immigration reform now - similar to health care reform though a few notches higher given that migrants have much less representation than even the uninsured and underinsured.  A few notches lower than the last effort at immigration reform, which was a terrible idea to pursue with a Congres and Presidency made up of big business (pro-immigration for all the wrong reasons, not really pro-immigrant) and racist xenophobes (anti-immigrant and anti-immigration).

More from me here if you're interested: http://www.passtheroti.com/pos...

Conclusion:

for now, try to delay immigration reform as long as possible (at least four years!), try to change the political balance while you delay to increase the collective voice of migrants (there are millions people who marched in the streets a few years ago! the base is there!), other disempowered groups, and people in sending countries, and try to attack corporations systemically, all while making the political establishment both more decent and more responsive to the underclasses.  It's only then that you're going to get a given-the-long-term-circumstances relatively decent bill (the kind you can hold your nose and support while being genuinely excited about a few things in it).


i agree to an extent ... (4.00 / 1)
... but the suffering is so great on the ground that I would take even a problematic CIR bill over the status quo as long as it put a majority of the 11 million into legal status.  People are getting deported into warzones, people are literally dying in the U.S. because they can't get status, families are ripped apart.  I am an immigration attorney at a Philly nonprofit and the constant emotional toll on my clients is devastating.  I have clients in separate cases who have experienced miscarriages as a direct result of the intense stress caused by ICE or USCIS action.  Rough estimate is that 1/4 to 1/3 of my clients suffer from PTSD, some of it caused by interaction with the immigration system.  And 90% of the American public either doesn't know or doesn't care.

Two quick points:
(1) We need to give up the chimera of CIR this year or next and pass piecemeal, starting with the Dream Act.  The best way to create the sea change you are talking about is to legalize 1-2 million Dream-eligible youth who can then advocate for their families and friends.
(2) I ask the question "Which side are you on?" as well, and at this point I don't know which side President "400,000 deportations and counting" Obama is on, which side Schumer is on, which side the Democratic leadership is on, which side the progressive blogosphere is on.  The lack of support from purported allies is breathtaking and has just about driven me out of the Democratic party for good.  Maybe this is counterproductive, but for me at this point it's an emotional reaction, and a strong one.  


[ Parent ]
thanks for this (4.00 / 1)
i agree with you - THIS is the basic problem - massive suffering vs. a political and legislative climate that is not goign to produce major legislation that is pro-migrant.

i did some immigration casework as well, though I don't think as much as you - and receiving collect calls from old women in jails and seeing people 8 months pregnant going through pregnancy and birth on their own... that is not what i had signed up for and it's a hidden but massive national shame.  the dehumanization is unbearable.

I like your path to success.  I have very little doubt that obama would get you at best something like the health care reform on immigration reform.  I don't trust Schumer and haven't for years - I would also note that why isn't he authoring more personal bills if he cares so much about immigration  ;)  or as a former DA addressing how f"£ked up the intersection of criminal and immigration law is in terms of basic principles like 'double jeopardy' but more so in terms of the effects it has on people's lives.

there are allies out there, but you're not going to find them in congress, the white house, or for the most part in the general progressive blogosphere.  i think the unions on the national level may mean well but go along to too great an extent with the dc-based groups.  the major city groups like nyic and the chicago based one whose name i can't remember and others during the last debate were basically arms of the dc policy network which was pushing the mccain-kennedy bill.  there are more community-based groups and individuals  that played a huge role in the last mobilisations - people like jesse diaz and emma lozano and others.  if you look in places like chicago and l.a. and phoenix, you may be able to find some people.  there are grassroots organisers you might want to work with like families for freedom or legal organisations like the nysda.  american friends has always been good.  

they're out there.  the problem is that they don't all talk to each other, let alone get in groups.  but they're out there.   they do form in groups like detention watch network, the latino immigration supporters i listed above like emma lozano were part of broader networks, etc.  

and of course there are your clients - they are the ones who can do the most if you see them as an organizing base and not just clients.

if you're looking for one national group to rely on because you don't have much time, i'd suggest either afsc or national network for immigrant and refugee rights.  they are a little better than the dc based groups like national immigration forum.  and i'm assuming you know about nlg.


[ Parent ]
read your post (0.00 / 0)
... and you have an interesting take.  I got involved around the time you stopped--2006--so my perspective is a little different.

As far as networks likely to promote positive change, there now exists a "pro-migrant blogosphere" which can be fractious but is generally having the right conversations.  There is DWN whose politics are impeccable but unfortunately they are not involved with the politics of immigration reform--too busy keeping their clients from getting deported.  There is RIFA which organized the rally on 3/21/10 but still hasn't realized that grassroots have to come from the bottom up, not the top down.  

As for my clients, they are busy trying to put food on the table, most don't have time to strategize and organize, and many face huge barriers to public participation (language, fear of law enforcement, social isolation).  Plus when they took to the streets in 2006, the message cable news ran was OMG there's a sea of Mexican flags.  The messaging spurred a backlash that led to the terrible 2007 bill.  

The multitude of community groups, union locals, and churches that made up the 3/21/10 march have the energy and numbers to do something, but as long as they are organized under RIFA's umbrella, I expect the same behind the scenes players (churches, unions, Chamber of Commerce) will be directing the show.  They think the crowds are just there to get TV coverage and motivate politicians, not that the individuals and groups who make up those crowds should have a hand in shaping policy.  

All this is why I place hope in the Dreamers.  The American public will listen to them because they act, sound, and dress American.  Many are college-educated and don't face the same barriers to public participation their parents do.  They are motivated, they are organized, they are going to stir some shit up.  I believe they are the key to changing the CW on immigration and reaching those "immigration undecideds" you described.  At this point, I think they may be the only ones who can break this logjam.  


[ Parent ]
thanks- that's really helpful (0.00 / 0)
and it makes sense.  i think it's a great idea to start working with potential dream recipients and as key to work with groups that already work with them to pull them out from the dc-policy group umbrella of control.

i think there are other groups besides the potential dream recipients that could be involved but from a similar sensibility of not being interested in selling out migrants for a legislative accomplishment any more than absolutely necessary to alleviate some problems.   when i did community organizing work, i worked mainly with adults who were facing deportation and specifically focused on the link between service provision and getting people involved.  a lot of people have a free hour for something they believe in and they're affected by personally.  there were literally millions of people marching a few years ago - a substantial percentage of whom were undocumented to give it a conservative estimate, and there must be? groups among them besides young people who can get involved.

i (hopefully) believe the framework is there, even if it has limits.  the other thing that gives me hope is that the marches in 2006 were not initiated by the same old DC/Chamber of Commerce crowd - they were initiated by a largely Latino network that had little to do with them and turned out millions of people.  


[ Parent ]
Just like with HCR (0.00 / 0)
This is the best Congress we're likely to see for a decade. We could keep the status quo of big business using voteless immigrants to cut wages of citizens and legal immigrants; or we can change it with a progressive-influenced compromise; or we can take an inferior reform from a future Congress. The general Democratic goals of legalization for a large group of permanent immigrants combined with switching enforcement from immigrants to their employers are good goals and a reform passed now is almost certain to be an improvement.

on what basis do you believe that this is the best congress we're likely to see for a decade? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Start a Petition »





Donate to Open Left


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search