Alexander Kovalchuk
The U.S. Congress is discussing two diametrically opposed bills related to immigration legislation. The 'conservative' bill proposes criminal prosecution for illegal presence and work in the country (under current law, the most serious threat for illegal immigrants in the U.S. is deportation). In addition, conservatives propose building a wall along the border with Mexico (a particularly large number of illegal immigrants enter the U.S. through this border). The 'liberal' bill, on the contrary, proposes simplifying the legalization procedure and introducing a number of social programs for immigrants. At first, supporters of both bills took to the streets. But on April 10, the street remained entirely with opponents of tightening the immigration regime.
An unprecedentedly massive protest against the 'conservative' bill took place on March 26 in Los Angeles. About half a million people participated in it. In the following days, mass actions, often paralyzing all traffic in city centers, took place in Washington, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and other cities, including not so large ones.
On April 7, senators considered a compromise version of the 'conservative' bill, under which illegal immigrants who had lived in the country for more than five years (about 7 million people) were given the opportunity to obtain citizenship by paying taxes and fines; those who had lived in the country from two to five years (about 3 million people) - to obtain a green card (work permit); and those who had lived in the country for less than two years (about 1 million people) were required to leave the U.S., after which they could apply for a green card. However, this version was not adopted.
For his part, President George Bush, before the compromise was rejected, stated that he supported it, but did not intend to ask 'conservatives' in the Republican Party to change their attitude toward the bill. This is understandable, since Bush's own support is falling not only among citizens (his approval rating, according to a poll published by the Washington Post, is about 38%), but also among fellow party members. In this situation, it is not in his interest to once again 'stand on principle,' as was the case in the dispute over transferring management of American ports to Arab companies.
The immigrant protests were mainly attended by Latin Americans. The actions were organized by trade union and religious organizations with the support of Spanish-language media, which not only coordinated the actions of the protesters but also urged them to behave as correctly as possible: to avoid violence and to bring trash bags. It turned out not so much a protest campaign as a campaign of requests. Immigrants demonstrated that they very well understand and share the ideals of freedom and human rights, that they are guided by these ideals, and that those who wish to expel them from the country betray them. For the U.S., where there is much more idealism in politics than in any other Western country, this is an almost win-win concept. Especially since it was backed by quite rational arguments. 'Today we march - tomorrow we vote!' This is, so to speak, the most political slogan of the campaign.
The Spanish-speaking diaspora makes up about 14% of the U.S. population (this does not include about 12 million illegal immigrants, the majority of whom are also Latin Americans). At the same time, among citizens eligible to vote, they make up about 8%. However, due to the specifics of the American electoral system, the importance of this social group may be higher than its share of the electorate.
The most significant percentage of Latin American immigrants lives in the southern states of the U.S. For example, in Texas it is significantly higher than the national average. And since Texas is the second most populous state, it is represented by a large number of electors in the Electoral College for presidential elections.
Traditionally, Texas is a 'fiefdom' of Republicans, and the most conservative part of them. However, immigrants, as a rule, support Democrats, who - again, by traditional gradation - are more liberal, including toward immigrants, and who, by the way, continue to gain political points by supporting immigrant protests and introducing a bill in Congress on social programs for guest workers.
In 2005, a political scandal erupted in Texas. The Republican majority in the state legislature initiated a change to the boundaries of electoral districts in such a way that areas with the largest number of immigrants were 'grouped' into separate electoral districts. This prevented the 'dilution' of the Republican electorate in more densely populated (and, therefore, providing more seats in the legislature) electoral districts. This in itself clearly demonstrates the Republicans' anxiety about the future of their dominance in Texas. Opponents of changing district boundaries (Democrats counting on immigrant support) called this measure 'racist.'
Texas is just one example of how significant the importance of immigrants in American politics can be. The legalization of more than ten million immigrants will almost certainly mean a significant strengthening of the Democrats' positions. Meanwhile, the crisis in the Republican Party is becoming increasingly obvious: the resignation of the vice president is being predicted, the most prominent leaders, such as Tom DeLay, find themselves involved in high-profile scandals, and Republican congressmen openly come into opposition to the Republican president.
The image of America as a "melting pot", in which peoples and cultures continuously mix, with each people and each culture contributing something new to the synthetic American culture, is very common. For example, in the 19th century the United States experienced the peak of German immigration, which gave American literature one of its greatest representatives - Theodore Dreiser. Mass migration from the Far East led to the emergence of famous China-towns, "little Chinas", in practically all major American cities. There is still a joke about Russian immigrants and "their" neighborhood in New York - Brighton - that they allegedly do not need to know English, because in Brighton they get by with Russian, and "they do not go to America".
The United States cannot be a "foreign country" for anyone, since by definition they cannot be a nation-state. Based on this idea, the very concept of "migration problems" as applied to the United States looks absurd. And the project of building a wall along the border looks entirely like a symbolic act, a demonstrative rejection of this idea that is most important for America.
Observers note: on the day when New York immigrants went on a protest march, the city had interruptions in pizza delivery, window washing, and street cleaning. Immigrants, including illegal ones, perform a significant amount of work that is not too prestigious or well-paid, but so necessary for a huge metropolis. This work is practically invisible while it is being done, but when it is not done, it immediately becomes noticeable. Illegals make up about 17% of janitors and 17% of construction workers, as well as about a quarter of the workers on farms where future hamburger steaks and turkeys are raised, which are then served on Thanksgiving.
Illegal immigrants take out of the United States, as from Europe, huge capitals - they send the money earned in the States to families left behind in their homeland. As in Europe, complaints that they allegedly take jobs away from local residents look dubious: being an unskilled, low-paid workforce, they occupy those jobs that local residents, as a rule, do not even claim. They form ghettos, and their integration into society is very difficult, which provokes mutual alienation and creates the danger of xenophobia.
However, there is a fundamental difference. Recent immigrant protests in France turned into pogroms, which law enforcement forces could not cope with until they themselves died down. The "children of ashallem" cursed France, its social security system, its government, and its people in the strongest terms. And immigrants in America held incomparably more massive and at the same time exceptionally peaceful actions, waved American flags, sang the American anthem and "God bless America, my home sweet home!" ("God bless America, my home sweet home!").
People continue to believe in America, this "arch-aggressor of the modern world", despite everything. Perhaps this is the success of American propaganda. But there, at least, a person is not rewarded for killing an immigrant.
Ivan GRUSHIN.
Lenta.ru