Why I Will Boycott on May 1

On May 1, thousands of immigrants and their allies will engage in a one-day boycott. They will stay away from jobs, schools and stores. Instead of their daily routine, they will gather in public parks, city streets and community centers across the country to celebrate their presence and power in our country's economic landscape.

On that day, I will join my sister and brother immigrants. I will halt my economic activity. For one day, I will not perform schoolwork and I will not shop. For one day, I will join with thousands of immigrants in calling for an immediate path to citizenship, and saying no to criminalization and guest worker programs.

Some have noted that, historically, one-day boycotts have little lasting economic impact. Consumers simply shop a bit more the day before or the day after. Such criticism is valid of boycotts intended to bring the targeted businesses to their knees. That is not my goal, nor that of the thousands whom I will join.

I do not intend to wreak economic havoc on any business. After all, their economic well-being provides jobs for immigrants. The millions of people who have taken to the streets in recent weeks have done so expressly to protect the ability of immigrant workers to work.

Instead, I will cease my economic activity on May 1 to remind our legislators that this economy functions only because immigrants carry it on their shoulders as workers and consumers.

In addition, I will join the boycott to remind our legislators that they serve me. Their distant debates are my concerns, the concerns of my family, friends, and neighbors. Yes, I am watching the discussion in Washington. And on May 1, I will remind them that I have not stopped paying attention.

In the wake of the recent mass demonstrations, many commentators began referring to immigrants' rights as the new civil rights movement. Let us remember that the original civil rights movement did not start and end with one month of protest.

The civil rights movement consisted of many prolonged battles. While the NAACP used the courts, SNCC took the streets. While preachers utilized the privilege of the podium, they also relied on the moral power of nonviolently confronting injustice in the streets. When college students joined Freedom Summer they did so with the knowledge that their work was only part of a larger, longer struggle.

When engaging in our democratic process requires that we take to the streets, as we have done recently, we must remember that this form of democratic participation requires a longer commitment than pulling a lever in a voting booth.

Recently, French students reminded us that protest remains a critical tool in practicing democracy. When French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin stood before television cameras to reprimand students who protested, he did not realize that the students would not give up. And he surely did not realize that they would be joined by millions of workers across France.

As I write, millions of Nepalese continue to demand democratic reforms. They remain in the streets even while the government brutally represses their efforts.

Last week, members of Congress continued to travel their districts during the congressional recess. As they did, anti-immigrant voices continued to press their demands. When legislators return to Washington, lobbyists will greet them ready to explain their constituencies' take.

Even with the best efforts of prominent national immigrants' rights organizations, labor unions, and countless local activists, those of us who are in this country lawfully and who support dignified immigration reform, do not have the lobbying prowess to match. Moreover, undocumented people, by definition, do not have a ready ear in Congress.

We cannot now abandon our one proven tactic -- protest.