For those of us who participate in 2006 nation-wide immigration rallies, this historical event ignites certain optimism. From mid-February to mid-May in 2006, around 3.7-5 million people participate in rallies in more than 60 cities across the country to protest H.R. 4437, a bill that would further police the flow of illegal immigration and criminalize undocumented migrants. The magnitude of these protests seems to signify the revival of strong collective actions and an increased public support for immigrants’ rights. Yet, the 2006 event fails to translate into continual large-scale protests or long-term impact. Subsequent rallies for immigrant rights are small in comparison and the number of protesters never matches the previous record. The questions then are: are 2006 immigration rallies a unique historical event that cannot be replicated? What contributes to its uniqueness? Are existing theories applicable? How do we explain its lack of sustaining impact in the long-term perspective? Rallying for Immigrant Rights: The Fight for Inclusion in 21st Century America, edited by Kim Voss and Irene Bloemraad, seeks to answer these questions.
This collected volume mainly focuses on experiences of Latino immigrants even though immigrants from other ethnic communities also join the rallies. This book includes chapters that reviews the history of immigration policies, discusses the inadequacy of existing theoretical frameworks, provides critical analysis of factors contributing to the “success” of the event, examines the role of the media and churches, and discusses case studies on cities, etc. Rather than discussing each chapter in detail, my review will be organized based on the following major themes from certain chapters, including existing theories, new theoretical constructs, contributing factors to this historical event, and the lack of long-term impact. These themes pertain to theories and constructs on collective actions in general as well as substantive analysis specific to the 2006 event.
The first major issue worthy of attention is the discussion on the inadequacy of current theoretical frameworks on social movements and political participation. As Irene Bloemraad, Kim Voss, and Taeku Lee point out in their chapter “The protests of 2006: what were they, how do we understand them, and where do we go?” conventional theories usually analyze citizens’ participation in collective actions. While concepts such as mobilization, structure, frame and identities may be useful in interpreting citizens’ political actions, they are inadequate in explaining the 2006 protests, which involve non-citizens’ participation.
One of the main theories is the political behavior perspective, which focuses on the participation of citizens within the formal political structure. This perspective, individualistic in nature, argues that citizens engage in politics within the formal political system when they are motivated, have the means, and are mobilized. Another major theory, the social movement perspective, argues that a contentious politics, e.g. protests, is necessary to affect political changes. In terms of the political behavior perspective, given that there are more costs for undocumented Latino immigrants to participate in protests, such as the loss of earning due to their attendance of protests, the inadequate monetary, organizational, and informational resources, and the risk of possible arrest and deportation, the focus on factors such as motivation, means, and mobilization cannot fully explain the 2006 rallies. The social movement perspective contends that people engage in contentious politics mainly because their grievances cannot be resolved through the formal channel. However, while the criminalization of undocumented immigrants and the passage of restrictive regulations have been increasing since 1990s, large-scale protests do not take place until 2006. This particular perspective cannot fully account these nation-wide protests occur at this particular historical moment. The 2006 event defies conventional theoretical explanations.
Jonathan Fox and Xochilt Bada introduce two constructs in their article “Migrant civic engagement” that might explain rallies in 2006. These two theoretical constructs are civic binationality and migrant civic society. Both constructs, based on the speedy transnational movement of people for the past few decades, reflect the need for a globalized perspective. According to these two authors, civic binationality refers to immigrants’ civic engagement in the general US civic society as well as in immigrant communities and their countries of origin. Migrant civic society refers to migrant-led membership organizations and public institutions, such as hometown association, churches, and the media, etc. The loyalty of immigrants’ simultaneous involvement with both the USA and their home countries are deemed as divisive and questionable. Immigrants’ straddling on both national territories, which creates binationalities, bilingualism, and biculturalism, is considered a threat to the existing solid US national identity. These two authors point out that immigrants’ participation in their homeland's political affairs assist their deeper involvement in the US politics. This dual engagement contributes to the increasing number of immigrant participants (documented or undocumented) in the civil society.
It is important to point out that the authors use civic binationality to describe immigrants active in the public sphere. However, they stress that this concept alone cannot explain why a large number of immigrants who usually are not political join the rallies in 2006. The authors use migrant civic society to address the increased participation of these non-participants in the formal political sphere. Migrant civic society, i.e., migrant-led organizations and institutions, includes membership organizations, non-governmental organizations, media, and autonomous public sphere. These organizations usually devote their efforts to their own communities. Migrant civic society, i.e., migrants’ political engagement with the civil society, better accounts for the increasing incorporation of immigrants, non-participants in particular, in the US political life. The 2006 event represents their expanding involvement in the US civil society.
In the article “Groundswell meets groundwork: building on the mobilization to empower immigrant communities,” Ted Wang and Robert C. Winn provide an analysis of major factors contributory to the broad coalition of national and local activist groups as well as the scale and the size of protests in 2006. They point out that some characteristics are unique to the 2006 rally. They distinguish this particular protest for immigrant rights from others based on the collective participation of family members across generations. The rally thus becomes a family affair rather than an individual concern. In addition, immigrant communities, particularly Latino immigrants, desire to protest their persistent low-socioeconomic status, few educational achievements, and inadequate political representations. The desire to redress the inequality and injustice compels the large-scale participation. Another major facilitating factor is the influence of ethnic media. Ethnic media, such as radios and well-known DJs, play an important role in raising immigrants’ awareness, providing up-to-date information, and encouraging community members’ involvement. Ethnic media, as a central informational and educational hubbub, extends its influence from the cultural to the political sphere. The authors also point out the groundwork built by local activists, community groups, and national organizations that have historically worked for immigration issues is central in consolidating multiple group resources and efforts. Furthermore, community faith groups and leaders also play a critical role in mobilizing community members. All the above factors, unique to the Latino immigrant communities, collectively contribute to the scale, scope, and the size of protests across the country.
How do these nation-wide protests mean to immigrant integration in the US society? Do they achieve the intended goals? Does the 2006 event have lasting impact on enhancing immigrants’ visibility and representation in the political arena? Louis DeSepio in “Drawing new lines in the land: evaluation of the failure of immigration reforms from 2006 to the beginning of the Obama administration” seeks to answer these questions. As he points out, while the large-scale protests in 2006 might have achieved the short-term goal, i.e. blocking the passage of H.R. 4437, they do not translate into lasting influence on public policy changes. After 2006, members of the House and the Senate have debated about legislative proposals that favor the decriminalization of undocumented migrants and permit their status adjustment to permanent residents. Regardless of the results, the 2006 event does exert certain impact on the direction of immigration control.
However, various reasons account for the failure of achieving a lasting influence. One major point raised by DeSepio is the role of public opinions, which play an important role in shaping the future of the immigrant rights movement. According to him, the general public feels ambivalent about the increase of immigrants while acknowledging that they are an asset for the economy. People are opposed to illegal immigration, but they support a measure that would enable undocumented migrants to achieve legal status instead of deportation. Based on various polls and surveys, this attitudinal pattern among the general public has not shifted much after 2006.
This is an excellent collected volume. While the focus of book centers on Latino immigrants, I do wish there could be a chapter that discusses the subjective experiences of participants from other immigrant communities. This would allow readers to have a sense of why it is important for immigrants from other communities to attend the rally and show solidarity and support. After all, immigrants from different communities attend the 2006 rallies, regardless whether they are the usual focus of immigration debates or not. Nonetheless, the volume makes substantive contributions to fields of social movements, political participation, immigration, the inclusion of immigrants (both documented and undocumented), and citizenship study. The volume mainly caters to the academic audience. Scholars from the above fields would definitely find the book interesting.
