Remember The Alamo On May Day
April 27, 2006
By Dan Whitcomb
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Pro-immigration activists say a national boycott and marches planned for May 1 will flood U.S. streets with millions of Latinos to demand amnesty for illegal immigrants and shake the ground under Congress as it debates reform.
Such a massive turnout could make for the largest protests since the civil rights era of the 1960s, though not all Latinos -- nor their leaders -- were comfortable with such militancy, fearing a backlash in Middle America.
"There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno," said Jorge Rodriguez, a union official who helped organize earlier rallies credited with rattling Congress as it debates the issue.
Immigration has split Congress, the Republican Party and public opinion. Conservatives want the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants classified as felons and a fence built along the Mexican border.
Others, including President George W. Bush, want a guest-worker program and a path to citizenship. Most agree some reform is needed to stem the flow of poor to the world's biggest economy.
"We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is here (illegally)," Rodriguez said. "That is the message that is going to be played out across the country on May 1."
Organizers have timed the action for May Day, a date when workers around the world traditionally have marched for improved conditions, and have strong support from big labor and the Roman Catholic church.
They vow that America's major cities will grind to a halt and its economy will stagger as Latinos walk off their jobs and skip school.
Teachers' unions in major cities have said children should not be punished for walking out of class. Los Angeles school officials said principals had been told that they should allow students to leave but walk with them to help keep order.
In Chicago, Catholic priests have helped organize protests, sending information to all 375 parishes in the archdiocese.
CRITICS CHARGE INTIMIDATION
Chicago activists predict that the demonstrations will draw 300,000 people.
In New York, leaders of the May 1 Coalition said a growing number of businesses had pledged to close and allow their workers to attend a rally in Manhattan's Union Square.
Large U.S. meat processors, including Cargill Inc., Tyson Foods Inc and Seaboard Corp said they will close plants due to the planned rallies.
Critics accuse pro-immigrant leaders of bullying Congress and stirring up uninformed young Latinos by telling them that their parents were in imminent danger of being deported.
"It's intimidation when a million people march down main streets in our major cities under the Mexican flag," said Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman volunteer border patrol group. "This will backfire," he said.
Some Latinos have also expressed concerns that the boycott and marches could stir up anti-immigrant sentiment.
Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, an outspoken champion of immigrant rights, has lobbied against a walkout. "Go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterword," Mahony said.
And Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who has long fought for immigrant rights, has said he expects protesters to be "lawful and respectful" and children to stay in school.
In Washington on Thursday, immigrant-rights activists brushed off talk of a backlash.
"This is going to be really big. We're going to have millions of people," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, director of the Latino Movement USA. "We are not concerned at all. We believe it's possible for Congress to get the message that the time to act is now."
(Additional reporting by Aarthi Sivaraman in Los Angeles, Dan Trotta in New York and Michael Conlon in Chicago)
posted by John | 1:25 AM
5 Comments:
What would they do in Mexico if the roles were reversed. They wouldn't put up with such an invasion.
There are many Hispanics who are in this country legally. They had to go through all the proper channels. What do they have to say about this.
I should ask my friend Olga about this. She was born in Mexico and came here legally.
Kelly said:
"What would they do in Mexico if the roles were reversed. They wouldn't put up with such an invasion."
You got that right. Mexico does not tolerate migrants.
"There are many Hispanics who are in this country legally. They had to go through all the proper channels. What do they have to say about this."
Last time I checked, they weren't too happy with it (because they played by the rules).
Notice this passage:
"Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Los Angeles archdiocese, an outspoken champion of immigrant rights, has lobbied against a walkout. 'Go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterword,' Mahony said."
It's political acivists like that who were in mind when the House crafted a bill to prevent and punish illegal immigration and included churches that had become pulpits of political activism on this issue and aided and abetted the criminal behavior.
And it was in opposition to that bill--which penalized church's that took the laws of the State into their own hands while engaging in political activism-- that made Senator Clinton come out and say that the proposed legislation was: "mean-spirited" and "certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
That was being preachy about a secular issue, and I pointed out the shameless double-standard as the president has been attacked for being a "Christo-fascist" who "compromised the separation of Church & State," *etc.,* but for nothing that even came close to Senator Clinton's behavior.
The Liberal Samurai pointed out that Senator Clinton's comments were not gratuitous but were relevant to the issue of church involvement with illegal immigrants.
I then pointed out that the propaganda of the Bush "Christo-fascist theocracy" (whatever) was unloaded amidst the Administration's early first-term efforts to enact the Faith-Based Initiative (a plank he campaigned--and was elected--on), which likewise involved church activity, so the double-standard holds, even if the senator's Jesus comments were not gratuitous but apropos to the subject of church activity.
But the double-standard is doubled because Hillary's comments were indeed gratuitous, and exceptional: President Bush, in all his stumping for the Faith-Based Initiative, NEVER used such religiously-judgmental language (and if he did, fuhget about it: there'd be meltdowns on the Left).
The doubled double-standard is then tripled because while the president was promoting congressional *legislation* to legalize the Faith-Based Initiative, Senator Clinton, citing New Testament figures, was *FIGHTING* LEGISLATION THAT WOULD PENALIZE (liberal) CHURCHES PRESUMED PREROGATIVE TO BREAK THE LAWS OF THE STATE BY THEIR AIDING AND ABETTING OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
It was Senator Clinton--a servant of the State-- who gratuitously used religious figures to compromise the supposed wall that separates Church and State and furthermore on the grounds that the Church activity that was spiting the laws of the State should be preserved without the appropriate legislation!
She was guilty of the precise charges against President Bush that the President himself was not guilty of!
Of course, there's no need for an outcry that's *tripled* in volume to the outcry against President Bush after he was accused of those very behaviors that he did not engage in but Senator Clinton did, because she means none of it and is merely trying to corral a voting bloc into her corner (i.e. the Hispanic-American vote that cheers on illegal immigration) while simultaneously--and cynically--adhering to the party strategy of becoming more Christo-friendly because the good American people have caught on to the Left's theophobic--if not satanic--hostility towards Jesus Christ.
I chatted with my Hispanic friend about her opinons on illegal immigrants and this issue.
OH MY!!!was that a sore subject to bring up.
Like you said, legal immigrants aren't too happy about it. But she also pointed out that they come because they have the "support" (to come here) from the Mexican government. They are actually encouraged to come here, make some money and bring back the US Dollar.
Yes. The Mexican economy is getting a windfall of remittances, so, naturally, it is in their best economic interest to have a Mexican labor pool making money and sending it back from here than having them unemployed there.
But there's an agenda among "Aztlanists" that goes beyond practical considerations and is imperial in vision.
Post a Comment
<< Home