Before the future becomes the pasture I thought I’d get out my crystal ball and do a little wild speculation on what the outcome might be of the planned ‘A Day Without Immigrants’. As I see it there are a number of potential outcomes and something depends on what actually happens tomorrow.
1) The rallies may fizzle
2) The boycott may fizzle.
3) Both the rallies and the boycott may fizzle.
4) The rallies and/or the boycott may shut down one or more cities.
5) It could be a danged nuisance but otherwise not much.
I can think of several possible reactions to them:
a) Who cares? No reaction.
b) It could reveal the objective falsehood of the necessity of (illegal) immigrants to our system.
c) It could be a nuisance but basically ignored. A sort of “What can you expect of the wogs?” response
d) We need to do something!
e) My goodness! We do need the illegal immigrants. Let’s reform the system.
I’m guessing that the we’ll basically have 2c i.e. there will be some big rallies around the country, no appreciable boycott, and a slight continued erosion of support for the illegals (and, possibly, immigrants generally).
I think that outcome 4 and reaction e (which, I guess, are the objective of the organizers) are extremely unlikely. Jay Tea at Wizbang thinks that the illegal immigrants and their allies are trying to backpedal and reduce expectations.
I think it’s very, very unlikely that there will be any major violence. If there is, all bets are off.
UPDATE: Well, that’s a good question from Ed Morrissey:
Speaking of which, has anyone ever asked these dolts how they can oppose national sovereignty in the same breath as globalization?
In response to the “good question” from Morrisey:
Who exactly is opposing national sovereignty? I believe this is what’s known as a “strawman”.
Principally, the demonstrators are expressing opposition of one immigration law (HR4437) in favor of others. No one is suggesting that the U.S. should not be allowed to guard it’s borders, however many are suggesting (both illegals and others) that there are better ways to do that than to build walls – such as employer penalties or guest-worker programs.
When I say that I am against the fence, or that I think it is folly to suggest deporting 12 million people, it does not necessarily follow that I am opposed to the sovereignty of the United States. Far from it.
I think he’s going after the ANSWER folks, LaurenceB, not immigrants.
I’ve been impressed by the peaceful quality of the rallies so far and, as I’ve been pretty consistent about, I don’t have a problem with immigration and, indeed, I don’t think we have an immigration problem.
I wish I had a better idea of the basis on which the protestors are making their claims. It seems inescapable to me that asking prospective immigrants to present themselves and be scrutinized is a bare minimum. Anything less is de facto open borders. That process means that someone won’t get in when they want to.
I’m very much in favor of employer penalties and very much against guest-worker programs. I believe that one of our great strengths has been birthright citizenship and the equality of all individuals here. Guest-worker programs everywhere deny that.
In practice employer penalties mean enforcement by local governments. Consequently, I’m also in favor of inducements to states and local governments to enforce such laws.