fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

No Me Gusta El Boicot

Some local activists predicted that thousands of Washington area immigrants would participate in a national economic boycott today, but immigrant groups who have spoken out against the boycott said they fear that the immigration reform movement is being commandeered to promote political causes beyond immigration. The public tug of war, which continued in the Washington […]

Some local activists predicted that thousands of Washington area immigrants would participate in a national economic boycott today, but immigrant groups who have spoken out against the boycott said they fear that the immigration reform movement is being commandeered to promote political causes beyond immigration.

The public tug of war, which continued in the Washington area yesterday on Spanish-language radio, could result in more limited participation in the region than is expected in Dallas and Los Angeles, where the organizers of last month’s massive protests have been more unified in support of today’s boycott, which asks immigrants to refrain from buying goods and to stay home from work and school.

Police in Los Angeles said they expect a rally that could draw as many as a half-million people. Some major national firms that rely heavily on immigrant labor said they would close for the day. Perdue Farms said about half of its chicken processing plants would close, and Tyson Foods Inc. said nine of its 15 beef and pork plants will not operate. ~The Washington Post

What should be interesting to see with this boycott is how it dramatises the concentration of immigrants in certain major cities, with L.A. looking to be one of the most heavily affected, and how little value immigrants are adding to the bulk of the national economy. Boycotts are effective political weapons if they stand a good chance of inflicting economic pain on the people whom you are trying to cajole into submission, but a one-day symbolic boycott manages to inflame the question at the same time that it fails to demonstrate any economic power outside of a few choice areas. The boycott punishes the cities most heavily dependent on the immigrant labourers, cities whose native-born inhabitants are in all likelihood more sympathetic to the immigrants than much of the rest of the country, and so manages to do the most economic damage to the people who are probably among the friendliest to them while nonetheless agitating the rest of the country with what comes across as a crude power play that probably appears to the average American as excessive. Even favourable media coverage will not make up for the clumsy politics of this boycott. As a strategy to win sympathy or support for what the articles euphemistically refer to as “immigration reform” (i.e., amnesty or some other version of capitulation), it could not have been any worse planned. Also, concerning political rhetoric, why did anyone think the phrase “Day Without Immigrants” helped their cause? For more than a few immigration restrictionists, that might be just the kind of day they would like to see.

As the article goes on to explain, the ubiquitous political dead weight that is ANSWER has now latched itself on to this cause. That in itself is reason to view this effort in a dim light.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here