WORLDVIEW/Anthony O'Halloran:Here in southern California the debate on Mexican immigrant labour is becoming very intense. Given southern California's close proximity to the Mexican border this is hardly surprising.
As November congressional elections approach, the attention of both politicians and commentators is firmly focused on this evolving debate.
On Monday last, May 1st, Mexicans throughout the United States boycotted their places of work. This is part of a larger trend in recent months where Mexicans have engaged in well organised efforts of mass mobilisation. Most notably more than five million protesters were present for a recent march in Los Angeles.
On arriving in southern California, visitors will be struck by two fundamental realities. Firstly, Mexican immigrants, both documented and undocumented, are deeply integrated in the local labour market. Whether working as gardeners, domestic servants or construction workers, these immigrants are a crucial part of the local economy.
Secondly, many of those advocating strict enforcement of immigration law are living in a world of total denial. Much of this labour market is neither hidden nor subterranean. On the contrary, it is in the open for all to see. To borrow a phrase from European Union studies, it seems that a "permissive consensus" existed on the immigration issue, at least until recently.
What does the phrase "permissive consensus" mean in this context? It means that citizens and politicians, especially those on the right, accepted that immigrants were not a "problem" if they remained apolitical. The fact that immigrants are currently transcending their status as economic actors has shattered this consensus.
Three political issues are dominating the current debate. Firstly, few dispute the importance of Mexican labour to the economy. In fact, it is difficult to envisage the hospitality and agricultural sectors surviving in the absence of Mexican labour. Ethical arguments must also be considered. Mexican workers are undoubtedly exploited on a significant scale.
Secondly, there are concerns about how secure the border is. Despite very high levels of security on the US side, immigrants continue to cross in significant numbers. Stories abound of smuggling efforts.
Thirdly, Republicans argue that illegal immigrants should not be conferred with an amnesty. Immigrants have flouted US law and as such should not be rewarded. Republicans conveniently forget that President Ronald Regan granted an amnesty in 1986. And what about employers who have consistently broken US law by hiring illegal immigrants? Republicans thus stand accused of adopting an a la carte approach to their much vaunted rule of law.
The question arises whether the recent highly successful efforts in mass mobilisation will translate into positive political outcomes. Politically, Mexicans are demanding a fair guest worker programme which might in time lead to US citizenship. As congressional mid-terms approach, their timing could not be better.
However, at Congressional level in Washington DC the efforts of senators Edward Kennedy and John McCain to broker a legislative compromise have been put on hold. Right-wing Republicans in the House of Representatives are determined to scuttle all efforts at compromise. Although President Bush appears to be supportive of the Kennedy/McCain initiative, November elections make compromise on such a contentious topic very difficult.
Casting party politics aside, there is yet another fundamental reality to be considered. That is the deep economic disparity between Mexico and the US, the world's richest economy and most powerful polity.
This point became very clear to me on a recent trip to Tijuana, a sad and miserable place. Located 25 miles south of San Diego city, it is a popular night life destination for southern Californian students, and the main crossing point between Mexico and the US.
Tijuana is a strange and surreal space possessing a hybrid identity. Poverty and blatant consumerism exist side by side. Ugly neon signs occupy much of the skyline. Impoverished old ladies sell packets of chewing gum for a few cents. Rarely have I seen second world poverty and first world consumerism exist in such sharp contradistinction.
So where does the debate go from here? When I arrived for an evening meal in a local restaurant on Monday last, the boycott's impact was very evident. My partner and I were immediately advised that the menu was very limited. The Mexican staff had not turned up for work.
When my partner expressed her support for the boycott, the manager took umbrage. Arguing that he was an innocent victim of political action, he explained that he treated his staff very well. Restaurateurs across southern California faced similar difficulties all day.
Evidently, the Mexican community is tasting empowerment. It is unlikely that this community will achieve its political objectives in the near future. Nevertheless, immigrants have triggered a wide-ranging debate in the public sphere. The seeds of future success have already been planted.
• Anthony O'Halloran is a visiting professor with the department of political science, California State University, San Marcos.