i was a little confused by the immigrant demonstrations in the US on monday [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/03/news/immig.php] because i can't figure out who exactly the immigrants are. is it
a. any one in the US, working there who doesn't have US citizenship?
b. anyone whose family originally came from the US?"
c. anyone working illegaly in the US?

this story got a lot of coverage, but i don't think it was well told.

there's a lot of self interest in the US in not really tackling this issue. that way, immigrants can keep being exploited as cheap labor in the country, and the US Congress can keep pretending there are no questions of humanity and justice that need answering.

does anyone have any links to good perspectices or other blogs that focus on this issue?

~ dvb


immigrants protest, but the results are mixed
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006
WASHINGTON A nascent immigrant rights movement has shown that it can build an organization, mobilize hundreds of thousands of people across the United States and wield economic power.

But the protesters do not appear to have achieved their primary goal - changing votes in Congress. And some critics say the demonstration Monday may have generated a backlash, hardening positions on Capitol Hill.

The protests, which began in March and resumed Monday with a boycott of work, school and shops, has clearly grabbed the attention of Americans when the issue of illegal immigration is high on the agenda in Washington.

The heightened attention will make it difficult for Congress to duck the question of what to do with the estimated 11 million to 12 million people living illegally in the United States.

Although the outpouring has drawn comparisons to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, questions remain about whether the protesters can translate their passion into political results.

Although some companies closed, it is too early to assess the economic effects of the boycott. The effects were diminished because many workers notified their employers ahead of time that they planned to take the day off.

"This was a one-day deal," said Randel Johnson, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which supports legislation to legalize immigrants. "If immigrants decided to abandon their jobs for two weeks, that would definitely have an impact."

Some advocates who support "comprehensive immigration reform," the idea that illegal workers should be put on a path to citizenship, say the protests have given that concept an important lift in the debate on Capitol Hill.

Other people say that few if any minds were changed and described the demonstrations as a Rorschach test in which people simply saw their own view reflected in the sea of mostly Latino marchers.

"I have no effective data on this, but it has probably hardened positions and maybe done a little bit of wedging," said Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, a Democrat and former senator who said he supported the protesters' cause. "I think that the people that were really fired up about this still are, and the position that they had to start with, they still carry."

The protesters have discovered that there is a thin line between promoting national pride and pushing the buttons of their opponents. They made tactical errors - flying the Mexican flag, recording the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish - that have left even some of their supporters feeling a little bit queasy.

"I have a great respect for a lot of the people that did the protesting, but I think their message is all confused," said Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, whose sympathy dates from his childhood, when his mother, an Italian immigrant, was nearly deported. "The flag, the anthem, all that, it got everybody all mixed up. Take off work, it sounded wrong to some people, right to others."

The American public is deeply divided on illegal immigration; a survey in March by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, found that 53 percent of respondents say people who are in the United States illegally should be required to go home, while 40 percent say they should be granted some kind of legal status that allows them to stay here.

That divide is reflected on Capitol Hill, controlled by Republicans. The House of Representatives opposes citizenship for illegal workers, and has passed legislation aimed only at controlling the borders, while a more comprehensive Senate bill is backed by Republicans like Domenici.

Some say the protests have given the Senate approach a boost.

"While you could never point to a specific vote, they moved the tone and the thrust where now a balanced bill has the upper hand, and it's in part because of the protests," Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said.

A Republican split over the issue is complicated because it is not just the immigrants who are weighing in. Among their biggest allies are employers, large and small, who are demanding assurances that they will continue to have the labor pool they need. Business groups are important for the Republican base, and many employers gave their immigrant employees the day off Monday in solidarity with the marchers.

"Obviously there's tremendous pressure on lawmakers to fix the problem," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group.

Julia Preston in New York and Rachel L. Swarns in Washington contributed reporting for this article.