Primero de Mayo: Le pegan a uno y nos pegan a todos…

Un par de observaciones al interesante artículo de nuestro amigo David Bacon, en el blog de Huellas Mexicanas (4/4/09). En el cuarto párrafo de su artículo afirma que las protestas del 2006 son el legado de Bert Corona. Eso no lo entiendo muy bien. Si por legado implica que gracias a Humberto N. Corona las marchas se llevaron a cabo en el 2006, definitivamente no estoy de acuerdo. En ese sentido hay más legacía atribuible a la iglesia católica en todos los Estados Unidos durante 2006. Las organizaciones de latinos siguieron la pauta marcada por la iglesia católica en cuanto se generaron las condiciones de protesta, despuesito de la carta del Cardenal Mahoney a Bush en diciembre de 2005. Si por legado implica que Corona fue el único líder sindical que se la pasó organizando y enseñando a los inmigrantes a protestar durante el movimiento chicano, pues tampoco estoy de acuerdo. Líderes como Reies Tijerina, César Chávez, Corky Gonzales, etc. fueron igual de importantes en la generación de discípulos activistas y en el proceso de organizaciones de protesta dentro del Movimiento Chicano y que, en su momento, definitivamente echaron a andar las protestas por mejores condiciones de trabajo y cero discriminación laboral entre la raza, independientemente si eran ciudadanos o trabajadores inmigrantes.

La legacía de Corona se ubica más en el Movimiento Chicano (en los estados de la frontera sur), en la formación del AMNA, el CIO, El Congreso, etc. Sin duda alguna Corona fue un pilar importante del Movimiento Chicano en términos de organización y protesta sindical y tiene muchos discípulos y ciertamente la influencia del Movimiento Chicano se vivió con mayor intensidad durante el 2006 en California, pero dicha influencia tal cual no se dio a nivel nacional. Simplemente en Chicago, Houston y los estados del Midwest yo le atribuiría más crédito a Saúl Alinsky en términos de influencia organizacional en las protestas. Las protestas del 2006 fueron acciones en las que el involucramiento del inmigrante se dio principalmente a través de la iglesia católica, por voluntad y espontaneidad del inmigrante mismo y de las organizaciones de inmigrantes y latinas que supieron coordinarse bien al respecto. Desafortunadamente, en cuanto la iglesia católica decidió salirse del juego, las marchas llegaron a su fin y nadie, absolutamente nadie, pudo hacer nada al respecto.

En lo que sí estoy de acuerdo con Bacon es que poco a poco, a través de las protestas, se le está dando un nuevo significado al Primero de Mayo en los Estados Unidos. Y es aquí donde se verá la verdadera influencia de las organizaciones activistas en los Estados Unidos (de origen chicano o no, de origen sindical o no, de origen migrante o no); por el momento a ellos corresponde tomarle la palabra al Presidente Obama de ejercer presión para que el asunto siga vivo durante el presente año. Si este Primero de Mayo salen a marchar millones de gentes a las calles, definitivamente las organizaciones de activistas estarán a la altura de las circunstancias y tendrán voz y voto fuertes en el cabildeo que en teoría está por iniciar formalmente en el Capitolio en relación a una reforma migratoria integral. Si nada mas salen unos cuantos cientos de miles a nivel nacional… pues entonces la mano nuevamente la tiene la iglesia católica y la clase política norteamericana.

Finalmente, regresando al asunto de Corona, una de sus principales legacías que influyen directamente de manera impresionante en la actual coyuntura, es que, entre los propios organizadores (incluyendo los sindicatos) no se haga distinción alguna entre latino ciudadano, latino documentado y latino indocumentado. Le pegan a uno y nos pegan a todos. Ahí sí, mis respetos para Corona en lo referente a las legacías del 2006, ya que en sus tiempos no fue tan fácil aplicar dicha estrategia al proceso de defensa del trabajador latino migrante contra la discriminación y explotación laboral.

Vamos a ver qué pasa este Primero de Mayo…

The 2006 Immigration Rallies in the U.S. from a 2009 Perspective

Almost three years have passed after the historical immigrant rallies took place in the United States. In that year, between March 11 and April 7, a number between 500,000 and 900,000 persons took to the streets in 76 cities. During the weekend of April 8-10, an estimate of 1.4-1.7 million people participated in rallies in 108 localities. Finally, on May 1, an estimated 1.2-2 million people in 63 cities across the nation participated in rallies linked to an economic boycott. The rallies of April 10 and May 1 are historical in the sense that for the first time in the U.S. millions of people took to the streets in a peaceful, simultaneous way, across the country.

Mobilizations were triggered when the United States House of Representatives passed the bill H.R. 4437 titled “Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005.” This bill would make illegal presence in the United States (U.S.) a felony. The bill also would require the Department of Homeland Security to construct a double security fence across several portions of the Mexican border; would encourage local police to enforce immigration law; would make it a felony “to assist, encourage, direct, or induce to enter or remain in the country with knowing or reckless disregard” of the fact that immigrants reside in the country illegally; and would impose a maximum fine of forty thousand dollars per undocumented worker that an employer hires or that an agency helps to find work. This legislative measure affected directly the interests of the Catholic Church.

The most important actors in the mobilization process of millions of immigrants were the Catholic Church, the Hispanic media, immigrant-oriented organizations and the immigrant him/herself. At this point, the learned lessons were the following: 1) the capacity of immigrant mobilization of the Catholic Church (mostly Latinos) is powerfully unique. The Church triggered the protest against the H.R. 4437 and ended the marches as soon as it was evident that its interests were no more at risk. 2) The role of immigrant-related organizations and the Hispanic media were also very important actors in the coordination of the rallies. However, they have no capacity to organize immigrant mobilizations at a national level. In that sense, they depend on a major force (the Catholic Church) to become an important actor in a major, effective mobilization effort. 3) The massive participation of the immigrants probed two things: a) that they are invisible no more, now they know that taking to the streets is a feasible option for major challenges; b) that they are important for the American economy, indeed, they have been important for the American economy since the 1960s, to say the least. Otherwise, the H.R. 4437 would also have passed in the Senate.

There are two things that are different in 2009 when compared to 2006. We have Obama in the presidency and the U.S. is facing gargantuan economic challenges. Historically speaking, when things go wrong in a generalized way in the economy of any country in the world, recent-arrived immigrants tend to be blamed for everything and anything… Chances are very high that the activity of anti-immigrant groups will skyrocket. This, in addition to the fact that many immigrants are losing their current job at a rapid pace. It is expected that first they will move within the U.S. in their search for work, and then they would consider the option of going back to their place of origin. This decision is more difficult to those immigrants who have American-born children, regardless of their migratory status.

Then we have Obama and a Democratic Congress. This only means that the coin is in the air in terms of the feasibility of an immigration reform favorable to the U.S. economy and the immigrant themselves, mostly the undocumented who are already in U.S. soil. Obama’s plan to rescue the economy is not implemented yet and there is no word or speculation about the role of the immigrant labor force in the dynamics of recovery of the U.S. Assuming that there will be a relatively fast recovery, the market forces could take care of the issue. However, if recovery takes longer or, even worst, if things go bananas despite the recovery effort… well, let’s wait and see. And pray. Two things are for sure: Mexico and certain Central American countries have no private or public resources to deal with millions of people going back home in a relatively short period of time; and the United States will need immigrant labor to assure continuing growth once the worst has come and gone. Conclusion: the economic recovery, the sooner, the better; for everybody’s sake. San Obama, we trust you. Congress’ angels: we also trust you, even the dark ones, no problem. Indeed, we have no choice.

For a more complete explanation of what happened in the 2006 rallies, please take a look to my website, Immigration Research Now. I also have opened a temporary expo-web (an expo in the web that is not permanent) with images of the rallies published by the national media at the time. The expo-web is a work in progress, which means that you can take a look to the first 25 images right now and that in the next couple of weeks there will be at least 75 more images to watch. Enjoy.