RALEIGH – Opponents of bills in Congress that would tighten immigration controls in the United States made some strides over the weekend to recover from the deep wounds they inflicted on themselves two weeks ago. At rallies in North Carolina on Monday, the modest recovery continued with demonstrations in Siler City, Smithfield, Asheville, Charlotte, Wilmington, Lumberton, and other communities.
I suppose that to many immigration activists, what I’m saying sounds like gobbledygook. The initial wave of protests, timed to the start of serious debate about a bill in the U.S. Senate, attracted a huge number of people in many American cities. Pro-immigration groups reveled in the copious media attention, many remarking on how the largely Hispanic turnout might well signify a political awakening among a group whose electoral significance in most parts of the country has remained modest.
But if you read and watched the debate in Congress and the national chatter about immigration over the ensuing days, you began to see the backlash. Too many of the media images from the initial rallies featured Mexican flags, upraised fists, strident demands, and signs with messages such as “This is our continent, not yours!” Far from being a statement about immigrants’ dreams and the economic benefits of free trade in labor, the protests looked like a large-scale rally in favor of cultural balkanization, increased government expenditure, and illegality. The best arguments against tighter immigration laws and mass deportation are a mixture of sober pragmatism and misty idealism. They are not claims of social justice. They can’t be: regardless of what one thinks of the current quota system, millions of immigrants are in the United States, and thousands in North Carolina, illegally. They are breaking the law in a way grossly unfair to the millions of other people who would like to immigrate legally and are waiting in line to do so.
It’s obvious that immigration supporters got over their initial euphoria and began to see the damage that was done to their cause. In weekend and Monday demonstrations, there were clearly observable differences. For one thing, American rather than Mexican flags and slogans predominated. For another, the largely Hispanic immigration groups made a concerted effort to bring out Asians, Africans, and other groups to deemphasize the south-of-the-border flavor of the initial wave.
Their efforts were almost painfully earnest. Reuters reported on a rally in Houston where participants chanted “USA, USA, USA.” Not everyone stayed on script, which made the effort to change the message even more blatant. At a Los Angeles rally, Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony urged attendees to “roll up” any non-American flags being displayed, saying that they did not help their cause.
The reason the images and tone matter so much is that there remains a swath of Americans whose views on immigration are mixed. You can see these views reflected in new polls from the Pew Center (nationally) and Elon University (in North Carolina). These ambivalent voters worry about border security, threats of terrorism and crime, and whether the taxes immigrants pay offset the cost of providing them government services. On the other hand, many favor expanded ways for immigrants willing to work to come to American legally. But they don’t want illegality to be rewarded. But they don’t favor mass deportations.
See? Their views are mixed. Their allegiances are up for grabs. It is likely that the only bill that will pass both chambers of Congress and receive a presidential signature will mix tighter security at the border and penalties for illegal immigration with new ways to enter and stay in the country legally as long as immigrants will be net contributors to government coffers, not net recipients. What we are seeing now is a battle over the relative proportions of regulation and deregulation in the final deal – if there is one at all.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.