 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Great American Boycott" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(May 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | |
| Date | May 1, 2006 (2006-05-01) |
|---|---|
| Location | United States, nationwide |
| Type | Demonstration |
| Theme | Immigrants rights |
| Participants | ~1,000,000[1] |
TheGreat American Boycott (Spanish:El Gran Paro Estadounidense, orEl Gran Paro Americano, lit. "the Great American Strike"), also called theDay Without an Immigrant (Spanish:Día sin inmigrante), was a one-dayboycott ofUnited States schools and businesses by immigrants in the United States (mostlyLatin American) which took place on May 1, 2006.
The date was chosen by boycott organizers to coincide withMay Day, theInternational Workers' Day observed as a national holiday in Asia, most of Europe, and Mexico, but not officially recognized in the United States due to itsCommunist associations to some, and a separateLabor Day (a holiday it shares withCanada) in early September.[2][3][4]
As a continuation of the2006 US immigration reform protests, the organizers called for supporters to abstain from buying, selling, working, and attending school, in order to attempt to demonstrate through the extent to which the labor obtained of undocumented immigrants is needed. Supporters of the boycott rallied in major cities across the US to demand generalamnesty and legalization programs for illegal immigrants. For this reason, the day was referred to as "A Day Without an Immigrant", a reference to the 2004political satirefilm,A Day Without a Mexican.[citation needed]
Though most demonstrations were peaceful, crowds began throwing rocks and bottles at sheriff's deputies at a rally inVista, California.[5] There were also two arrests made at a demonstration in Los Angeles'sMacArthur Park.[6]
In a show of solidarity, internationally,labor unions and other groups engaged in a one-day boycott of US products called the "NothingGringo Boycott", particularly inMexico andCentral American countries.[7] Demonstrations were also held in major cities across Mexico.[8]
The boycott was announced on April 10, 2006, inLos Angeles, California, by the March 25 Coalition of Catholic groups, immigration advocacy organizations, and labor unions. Hermandad Mexicana, an affiliate of theMexican American Political Association, theCoalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), Amigos de Orange, and localMEChA chapters all promptly joined.[9] It was coordinated nationally by the May Day Movement for Worker & Immigrants Rights.[4]
The Coalition arose out ofprotests againstH.R. 4437, a legislative proposal that was passed by theUnited States House of Representatives on December 16, 2005, by a vote of 239 to 182, only to die in theUnited States Senate by not being brought to the floor before the 109th Congress ended. This bill would have made residing in the US illegally afelony and imposed stiffer penalties on those who knowingly employ and harbor noncitizens illegally. It also called for the construction of new border security fences along portions of the 2,000-mileUnited States–Mexico border. The March 25, 2006, protests were noted for their peaceful nature, despite the controversy surrounding the immigration issue.[10]
The boycott and strike provoked controversy as soon as they were proposed. National organizations and prominent figures split over whether to support the boycott, with many moderates endorsing demonstrations but withholding support for the boycott. Many of the "moderate" demonstrations were scheduled for three o'clock in the afternoon, after working-hours for the many unskilled professions where illegal immigrant labor tends to be concentrated.
PresidentGeorge W. Bush urged immigrants not to boycott, and instead to protest after work and on the weekend.[11]
California GovernorArnold Schwarzenegger said that a boycott would "hurt everyone".[12][unreliable source?]
California's top education official opposed the boycott and called for students to stay in school on Monday.[citation needed]
Los AngelesMayorAntonio Villaraigosa, the city's first Mexican-American mayor since the 19th century, called for children to attend school and for a late afternoon rally.[13] He also urged protesters to carry American flags, and not the flags of their home countries.[14]
TheUnited States Conference of Catholic Bishops offeredMass as an alternative to boycotting, and suggested that churches toll their bells in memory of immigrants who died trying to come to the US. The bishops, too, urged students to stay in school.[15]
National Hispanic and immigration-advocacy groups were also split, with some fearing that the actions would provoke a backlash. TheLeague of United Latin American Citizens, normally a moderate organization, was one of the few to fully support both the boycott and the strike.
TheWashington, D.C.–based National Capital Immigration Coalition denounced the boycott, while theNational Council of La Raza took no position whatsoever.[citation needed]
Numerousanti-war,left-wing,socialist andcommunist groups also endorsed the boycott. TheAct Now to Stop War and End Racism coalition, in particular, provided signs and mobilized supporters to attend demonstrations, and while theAmerican Civil Liberties Union took no official stance, it offered advice and information for protesters on its website.[16] TheAFL-CIO also endorsed the protests, saying that theH.R. 4437 "isn't the answer" to immigration issues.[17] The AFL-CIO's executive vice president,Linda Chavez-Thompson, stated: "We believe that there is absolutely no good reason why any immigrant who comes to this country prepared to work, to pay taxes, and to abide by our laws and rules should be relegated to this repressive, second-class guest worker status."[18]
Organization of events fell to local groups. In some cases, the split that occurred on the national level was evident on the local level as well in that separate events were planned by the various organizers. Major events were held in:
Republican congressmanTom Tancredo stated that "The iron triangle of illegal employers, foreign governments and (interest) groups … puts tremendous pressure on our elected officials to violate the desires of law-abiding Americans. As nearly every recent poll shows, Americans want secure borders—not amnesty—and sooner or later they'll elect representatives who will listen to their constituents."[36]
Counter-demonstrations took place in various cities to coincide with the day's events, although they were mostly small in size.[24] Some encouraged their members to buy from American businesses to offset the economic impact of the boycott. Among them are the Southern Californiatalk radio hostsJohn and Ken, who called for "The Great American Spend-a-Lot", a contest with prizes for listeners who spent the most money.[37]
The volunteer border securityMinuteman Project, which has organized citizens' patrols along the US-Mexican border to monitor and deter illegal immigration, hosted rallies across the country, starting on Wednesday, May 3 in Los Angeles.[38] They also began constructing a 6-foot-high (1.8 m) barbed wire fence along the border in Arizona.[39] According to Minuteman Project founderJim Gilchrist, "It's intimidation when a million people march down main streets in our major cities under the Mexican flag. This will backfire."
A new group, the 'You Don't Speak For Me' coalition, was formed in response to the boycott to challenge the notion that May 1 protesters speak on behalf of allHispanics. According to formerAssistant Secretary of the Treasury Pete Nunez, who was the group's spokesperson, "Millions of Hispanic-Americans—including many who have gone through the immigration process the right way—are offended by the demands being made by people who have broken our nation's laws."[40]
CNN'sLou Dobbs, criticized the boycott for its promotion by groups such as the protest organizationAct Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER). Dobbs also stated that "It is no accident that they choseMay 1 as their day of demonstration and boycott. It is the worldwide day of commemorative demonstrations by varioussocialist,communist, and evenanarchic organizations."[41]
TheWashington Post suggested that the May 2 ouster of the mayor and two council members in the town ofHerndon, Virginia who had suffered criticism for their support of a day-labor center was a negative reaction to the Boycott.[42] Some Southern and Western states drew up new tougher anti-illegal immigration laws.[43] ThePost also credited backlash from the Boycott support in theArizona legislature for the passage of laws penalizing businesses who hire illegal immigrants and on other crimes associated with illegal immigration.[44] Georgia has also since passed a law, which took effect in 2007, that prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving many social services and requires police and employers to report illegal workers to the Immigration Service.[45]
Fox News'sSean Hannity asked "Why is it that so many people who didn't respect our laws and our sovereignty are demanding for the right to stay here, demanding for the right to jump in front of other people who are going through the process properly, and those that disagree are being called racist and bigoted?"[46]
According to an editorial by conservative commentator,Cinnamon Stillwell of theSan Francisco Chronicle, "The one thing the boycott did achieve was to expose the lie that the country cannot function without the labor of illegal immigrants. While some may have been inconvenienced by the experience, the economy hardly came to a grinding halt. It seems there are still some jobs Americans are willing to do."[47]
The boycott highlighted the concerns of millions living in the United States legally and illegally and the highly emotional issue of immigrants in the US, provoking intense debate on all sides of the political spectrum.[48]
On May 15, 2006, President Bush announced plans forthe Pentagon to deploy up to 6,000National Guard troops to help secure the Southern US border.[49]
H.R. 4437 was passed by the House of Representatives on December 16, 2005, by a vote of 239 to 182.
On May 25, 2006, the US Senate approved by a vote of 62–36, its own White House-backed immigration reform bill that would grant some illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship and strengthen border security. Negotiations were held with the aim of meshing the Senate's immigration bill with H.R.4437, no agreement was reached before the election in November.[50]
