After the Marches: Immigrant Mobilization
April 4, 2008
By Janelle Staci Wong
In May of 2006, more than 500,000 protesters filled the streets of Los Angeles, calling for fair immigration reform. Tens of thousands more joined demonstrations in Sacramento, San Francisco, Denver, New York, and Houston.
What led to that upswelling of protest, and why hasn't it been repeated on the same scale since? In order to understand the development of mass action among contemporary immigrants, and the sporadic nature of such action, one must examine the historic role of parties and community-based organizations in shaping immigrants’ political mobilization.
The immigrant rights demonstrations that took place during the spring of 2006 show that political parties have taken a backseat to community-based organization in their ability to mobilize immigrants. Labor organizations, worker’s centers, advocacy and social service organizations, ethnic voluntary associations, and religious institutions passed out flyers, tacked up posters and knocked on people’s doors to mobilize the immigrant community. These organizations — along with the Spanish-language media — were the key to the success of the demonstrations.
We haven’t seen a repeat of the mass actions that took place in 2006. Pro-immigrant demonstrations held during September 2006 in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., were sparsely attended, leading organizers and their supporters to question the movement’s momentum. In Washington, less than 5,000 demonstrators arrived for a Labor Day weekend rally. In Los Angeles, only 200 people attended a pro-immigrant rally held that same weekend.
What happened to the thrilling throngs of people crying out for fair treatment, respect and the opportunity to live a decent life in the United States?
Many marchers in the spring 2006 protests were outraged over a U.S. House measure that would have criminalized persons in the country without legal documents, as well as those who tried to aid them. Organizers of the demonstrations supported legislation in the U.S. Senate that would have allowed some undocumented immigrants to become citizens. Frustration over failure to advance the latter bill in the months following the spring demonstrations may have kept many people from joining demonstrations in September. Organizers’ internal divisions over strategies and poor timing — including the start of the school year and events marking the attacks of September 11, 2001 — also undermined the demonstrations. Finally, the spring demonstrations had prompted a backlash from anti-immigrant groups and set off a wave of state and local legislation aimed at restricting illegal immigration, which may have intimidated protesters.
Also, community-based organizations face obstacles to sustained, consistent political mobilization, and limited participation is the result. First, for most of these organizations, the primary mission isn’t political mobilization, but the provision of much needed social services, networking, labor advocacy, and even spiritual ministering. Consequently, most organizations can’t engage full-time or consistently in political activities. Second, most have serious limitations in terms of financial resources, placing consistent mass mobilization out of reach.
Although community-based organizations may face challenges to mass mobilization and may not be able to achieve sustained mass mobilization among immigrants, they are often rich in human capital and legitimacy — unique resources that help them to mobilize immigrants. They do foster action and involvement, with visible consequences for the political system and policymaking.
Janelle Staci Wong is assistant professor of political science and American studies and ethnicity in the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences. She is an expert on ethnicity and politics, political participation and public opinion research.