May 1st was an important day in American History. Millions of Hispanic workers, most of them of Mexican origin, came together to express in unison “Aquí estamos y no nos vamos, y si nos echan, regresamos” (here we are, and we are not turning back, if you kick us out, we will come back) What the organizers referred to as “a day without immigrants” became a wave of nationwide protests and a call for undocumented workers unity across the United States. The purpose of the protest was to stop the Border Protection, Anti-Terrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act that was passed by the American House of Representatives on December 16, 2005, and under which “unlawful presence” would now be considered a crime and a felony.
In the city of Los Angeles a group that the American printed media described as “hundreds of thousands” and the Mexican news presented as “two million people” marched along Wilshire Avenue. The ambiguity of most of the commercial American media is remarkable for it reveals a lack of compromise with the deliverance of news and once again confirms how unreliable the coverage of such events is (as we had seen before in their accommodation to the White House’s policy with regards to the invasion of Iraq). It’s also worth noting that NPR (National Public Radio) although it claims to deliver un-biased information gave the same amount of air-time to a group of 40 Minutemen (a group of men who hunt down illegal immigrants along the border in Texas) who protested against the massive demonstrations that took place nationwide claiming that the illegal workers do nothing but have a negative effect on American society’s wellbeing.
The demonstration in Los Angeles was a surprise not only by its dimensions but also because of the peaceful nature and respectful manner in which it was held. Families, most of them from Mexican origin, marched along side youngsters from El Salvador, Guatemala, and even a few people from India, China and Korea. We decided to photograph the crowds that marched cheerfully with signs that read “We are Workers, Not Criminals”; “Legalization yes, Exploitation no” and that very Mexican slogan “Sí se Puede” (Yes! It can be done!)
The march was held in two parts: the first started early in the morning in the downtown area of Los Angeles and brought together the more radical protesters that advocated for a national boycott on behalf of the Latino communities and urged many to not attend work or school that day. The second march was composed of those who attended work earlier that day, because either they didn’t want to harm their employer’s businesses or because they had to tend to family affairs and could not deal with the loss of income, joined in at 4.00 pm starting at McArthur Park and ended late that night.
Immigration is a hot topic to discuss these days. These marches of undocumented workers have been of unseen magnitude in the US. So far the protests have been all peaceful and with rational claims, such as “We are part of America, all we want is an opportunity to work and make a living”. This has been the case up until now. Immigration is a very complicated matter for many reasons, but amongst these is the fact that it was convenient to have cheap labor available, therefore the immigration policies have not been enforced as they could have been during the past decades.
Now, as the years passed by, there are families in which some members are legal residents, some illegal aliens, and some even American citizens. If legislation HR4437 is to be approved and such families dismembered, the anger that would rise amongst a critical sector of the American economy may result in severe problems.
The issue is what to do with the nearly 11 million undocumented workers that now reside in American territory? There are those who believe that giving amnesty, as the immigrants propose it, will generate a dynamic under which any person may claim the rights of being an American citizen. Other citizens, many of foreign descent, claim that to give amnesty to those who have disregarded the law would be unfair to those who did wait in line, who did their paperwork according to the book, and invested much time and money in doing so. There is also the fear that Mexican workers may in fact take away their jobs, thus robbing them of opportunities (ironically though, at this time, there is in fact a need for workers, and for this reason, this argument is more of a political football than a real issue).
On the other side, you have those who have been living, working, and making a family in a land that they already claim as their own. The message that most of the protesters are trying to get across is in fact “We are America”. The real importance of the rallies held on May 1st is the change in the attitude of the immigrant workers. So far they had always tried to keep themselves on the margins, to keep a low profile and stay mostly out of sight. However, in coming together like they did they are claiming their visibility; they want to be taken into account. No longer can the issue be ignored, there are millions of people that have become part of communities in which they live and work
On display during the march on May 1st in Los Angeles was the outpouring of solidarity by many groups towards the Hispanic community. Some business owners allowed their employees to attend the march, others, even closed down for the day to call even more attention to the cause, and there where even some that marched side by side amongst many of their friends and co-workers. A few followers of Martin Luther King were present, as well as groups of students and women supporting the cause. The message of unity and solidarity was one of the strongest ones.
Another thing to report, was the lack of discussion in the media with regards to the symbols appropriated by the protesters to represent their causes. Images of Che Guevara, Sub-Comandante Marcos, Emiliano Zapata and Frida Kahlo were present amongst American, Mexican, Guatemalan, Ecuadorian, Salvadorian and even Israeli as well as Communist flags. The question is, did the media find the symbols irrelevant because they lack meaning even to those who display them? Or have the symbols lost their meaning by being homogenized by the vendors? Or does the public simply not know what the symbols represent anymore? Most of the symbols used to call for insurrection of peasants, or call for a union in Latin America or advocate for communist ideals. The matter of the fact is however, that the call for insurrection is lost somewhere and the images remain as imprints of a revolution that nobody truly remembers or fully understands.
Banners with work referencing the prints of Guadalupe Posada marched next to others referencing “Meet the Fockers”, as young kids from El Salvador disguised their faces in a manner that resembled that of the Intifada a few feet away from an Israeli flag, the mariachis would play their nostalgic tunes after eating one of the tamales or hotdogs that were being sold on the street, and a man with the word Aztlan (legendary city of the Aztecs) posed next to a giant Lakers Billboard, as a young girl holding both the Che and American Flag sang along “We are workers, not criminals.”
Another phenomenon that is worth mentioning is the fact that for the first time in a political event of this size and nature, the participants themselves documented in pictures and video as they marched, something quite new to such events brought about by the possibilities ushered in by new technologies. The amount of people with video and photo cameras, as well as cell phones was quite staggering. Considering the speed at which this information can be shared and or published, and the amount of people with access to it, requires a reconsideration of what the role of news agencies and professional reporters is.
So the question is, what is next? Amongst the most positive and active proposals on behalf of the American left wing, there is the suggestion to give amnesty to those who can prove to have been living and working in the US for a specific period of time (without incurring in any other illegal activity) and to have better control of those who come into the country in the future. For this, they propose the creation of identity cards that will be required to hold and request any job. They also recommend equal repercussions to those who employ un-documented workers as those who work without their corresponding paperwork.
This however does not resolve the problem in its origin, which is undoubtedly the lack of opportunities and better wages in third world countries. An interesting idea however, that was published in Salon.com, by Andrew Leonard mentions “A Marshall Plan for Mexico” in which he reminds us that if Mexico achieved rough parity with the U.S. undocumented migration would undoubtedly decrease. Mexico has, in fact, better wages than it had in 1994, however the growth of these is not as quick as that in the United States. It is obvious that immigration would in fact stop if two prosperities were comparable one to the other. This may seem difficult for a country such as Mexico but not impossible if we consider that Mexican economy finds itself today in a position similar to that of Spain or Portugal when they decided to join the European Union.
Of course the notion that the U.S. actually wants to stem the tide of workers from Mexico is questionable, especially at a time when it’s own population is reaching an increase of elderly citizens and therefore does not have enough young workers. Even the U.S. military has a higher proportion of Latino soldiers than the proportion of this community in the overall percentage of the population.
It appears that the idea of massive deportation
of undocumented workers is unfeasible, both from a political as well
as economic point of view. One
will have to wait and see how the politicians handle what appears to
be the solution in the interest of everyone and that is to declare
total amnesty.