A Day Without Immigrants

May 1st. was an eventful day. Undocumented immigrants of all races, colors and national origins came out of the shadows and demanded their rights in a show of the constant struggle for human rights that in this country have never come free.

First, the pilgrims fought for their rights by escaping from England to a new promised land; then the catholics had to flee the puritans who wanted a protestant theocracy in Massachussets; afterwards, the Scottish and Irish indentured servants worked like slaves for many years to pay off their fares to the new country; then the Italians, Jews and other Europeans scaped from wars, persecution, discrimination and abject poverty by flocking in huge numbers to the promised land; women, in the nineteenth century, fought for the right to vote well into the twentieth century; African Americans, after having found freedom in the nineteeth century had to fight for their civil rights and against discrimination even to this day; then women fought for control of their bodies and the fight, won in 1972 is again restarting; homosexuals are fighting for the right to marry and have a normal life, one state at a time and facing fierce opposition. Now immigrants, having worked hard, competently, without complaints nor any kind of protection and always fearing deportation have decided to demand their rights.

They will get them. The Sensenbrenner and Tancredo House bills, so inhuman, nativist, xenophobic, and unworkable, will not work. Immigrants having a job, a family, paying taxes and making a living in this country need to be legalized. Period.

We can then tighten up the borders and work out other methods of security. But first, let's legalize all those immigrants who are contributing so much to our country.

A Day Without Immigrants

by Cristina Rodriguez

Across the country yesterday, unauthorized immigrants and their allies held a boycott. Early estimates suggest that nearly one million people stayed home from work and school. The soundtrack for the event included Nuestro Himno, a Spanish-language version of the Star Spangled Banner accented by Latin American rhythms and instrumentation. This adaptation of a cherished symbol of American identity, intended by its producers at the New York-based Urban Box Office as an expression of patriotism, did not impress all observers. Yesterday, Lamar Alexander introduced a resolution in the Senate insisting that the anthem be sung in English. . When asked about the translated anthem during last Friday's Rose Garden press conference, President Bush declared: "I think people who want to be a citizen of this country ought to learn English and they ought to learn to sing the national anthem in English."

President Bush has one thing right about what has been happening. Events like the boycott and the rallies held in April underscore immigrants' desire to be considered Americans. These events highlight the considerable roles immigrants (in particular unauthorized immigrants) play in the life of the nation-the fact that immigrants already belong to our communities. The demonstrations also constitute a loud call to Congress not to criminalize unauthorized status and to provide unauthorized immigrants with a path to American citizenship-a path to permanent belonging. The Spanish-language anthem, which will appear on an album exploring the immigrant experience called "Somos Americanos," symbolically expresses this desire to belong.

But the President was off-base in suggesting that singing the national anthem in Spanish diminishes its value, or undermines the anthem's celebration of American identity and unity. Behind the President's statement and the other condemnations of the Spanish-language translation lurks a fear of disloyalty, or the suspicion that translating the symbols of American citizenship implies their rejection. But in the debate over immigration reform, it is crucial to keep one very simple premise in mind. Acts like the translation of the national anthem into Spanish are not rejections of the English language or of American culture. Immigrants, probably without exception, hope to learn and expect their children to learn English. An either/or mentality with respect to language usage has a vise-like grip on American thinking, but learning and using English need not be synonymous with forgetting Spanish, or reserving its use only for private occasions.

In fact, the controversy over the anthem highlights how Spanish-language usage can help inculcate the values of citizenship. The idea of translating the anthem arose when organizers of a rally in the Washington area began distributing the English-language lyrics with phonetic pronunciation guides for demonstrators who did not speak English. For many marchers, then, the translated version transformed a meaningless repetition into an actual engagement with the content of the anthem. More broadly, the Spanish-language media and the use of culturally familiar modes of discourse have helped make the organizational feats of the last month possible, simply by spreading the word. The demonstrations have raised political consciousness, fostered community solidarity, given individuals agency, and inspired peaceful petitioning of government-all important values of citizenship. Ultimately, the demonstrators' chants of "sí, se puede" and the translation of the anthem give immigrants and their allies a personal and meaningful way of expressing their belonging in public life. Far from being a rejection of assimilation, these uses of the Spanish language convey the desire to be seen as full members of American society.

The fact that expressions of belonging sometimes take shape through the Spanish language-in some cases out of necessity, in other cases as the result of preference-underscores another simple point about the process of assimilation. It is a two-way phenomenon. It requires not only the adjustment of the immigrant population to the customs and traditions of the dominant society, but also the adjustment of the dominant society to the realities of the immigrant population. This dimension of assimilation is part of what makes immigration seem culturally destabilizing to some, but without openness to change and willingness to adapt to new circumstances, no society can remain economically and culturally vital.