A Boycott Is Best Served Up Cold

Anyone who spends time in the Latino community has heard complaints about working and living conditions -- and about the disrespect that is routinely afforded to immigrant workers.

I can’t count how many conversations I have had over the years that end with the familiar statement, “If one day we stopped working, then the people of this city would finally recognize how important we are to the economy of this state and this nation.”

This notion of a work stoppage has been common in the conversations of our community for many years. The idea is rooted in a deep belief that the labor of immigrants is not appreciated and that immigrants are condemned at every turn. Thus when SB 60, the law that granted California driver’s licenses for all immigrants, was repealed in a game of political posturing and maneuvering by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the clamor for an economic boycott was again heard.

Still, the unilateral call by the Mexican American Political Assn. and Hermandad Mexicana Nacional for an impromptu economic Latino boycott last week took many of us by surprise. So far, the economic boycott has included a one-day work stoppage, consumer boycott and a petition to have parents keep their children out of school for one day. There will be claims of either success or failure, but the boycott as organized didn’t lend itself to accurate measurement.

The idea of the boycott was proposed publicly, with other organizations and Latinos being asked to join in. Without much conversation or even an invitation to be part of the planning, many organizations were left to decide whether they would quickly endorse the plan and whether or how they would participate. Immigrant rights organizations, religious institutions, unions and community- based groups that have promoted the driver’s license law for years were in most cases ignored in this impromptu process.

Additionally, the call to honor the boycott asked Latinos to take actions that would require deep sacrifice of them but that would not necessarily adversely affect or influence the politicians or businesses that supported the repeal of the driver’s license law or are supportive of anti-immigrant groups.

Economic boycotts like this one punish our communities more than our adversaries. For example, not sending our children to school deprives some of the most resource-depleted schools of the daily attendance money that they depend on.

We were asked not to make purchases, except from businesses that supported the boycott. But how could small Latino and immigrant businesses, restaurants and shops get on this supporters list in time not to be hurt by the consumer boycott?

At day labor centers throughout Los Angeles, many immigrant workers are unemployed and desperate for jobs. The request to not take jobs for a day or to risk being fired for not showing up for work is difficult in these harsh economic times.

Finally, one endorser of the boycott was American Apparel, one of the most progressive and responsible employers in the Los Angeles garment district. It shut down production and joined in the economic boycott, while most of the exploitative sweatshops kept their doors open and continued to make profit off immigrant labor.

The boycott was also framed as a Latino, Mexican and Catholic action. Many in the immigrant population who would have benefited from a driver’s license are not Latino, but Asian or African and from other religious backgrounds. Moreover, according to polls and recent election results, it is apparent that a large number of native-born Latinos are opposed to undocumented immigrants and to extending to them any favorable treatment.

Thus the framework of the boycott from the start excluded many of those affected by anti-immigrant actions.

We all agree that there is indignation in the immigrant community because its members feel excluded and scapegoated and are denied basic rights. There is deep resentment over the repeal of the driver’s license law. The law would have made our roads and highways safer, but it fell victim to campaign politics and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

These are the roots of dissatisfaction, and no doubt many Latinos and non-Latinos honored this symbolic boycott for these reasons. However, if we are serious about our rights as immigrants, we must do more than offer symbolic actions. Real change comes from considerable organizing and consciousness-raising -- first in our community and then in the general public. It takes coalition-building and cooperative projects with a strategy that involves key sectors from development to end.

The Latino community is diverse and so is its leadership. The boycott’s organizers were wrong not to recognize the need for coalition politics.

Angelica Salas is the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.