part A and B

 

Part A 

The history of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo is important because it explains how many Mexican people became part of the United States through conquest, not migration. After the Mexican-American War in 1848, Mexico lost a large amount of land, and Mexicans living in that land were placed under U.S. control. This history helps explain Chicanx identity because it shows how imperialism and colonialism shaped Mexican American life inside U.S. borders. It also connects to white supremacy because Mexicans were often treated as racially inferior and were excluded from full political and social rights, even when they were legally considered citizens. This history intersects with Native American history because both groups experienced land loss and oppression under settler colonialism. However, Native Americans were treated as separate nations and faced genocide and forced removal, while Mexicans were absorbed into the U.S. and then racialized as second-class people within the new system (Espinoza-Kulick and Acevedo 6.2).

Part B 

U.S. immigration policy and the border have helped racialize immigrants by labeling certain groups as “illegal” and criminal. Professor Tsuchitani explains that the border became a tool of exclusion, especially after Border Patrol was created in 1924 (Tsuchitani Week 5 Lecture 2). The reading also explains that immigration policy and immigrant policy both control immigrants, including through enforcement systems like ICE (Espinoza-Kulick and Acevedo 6.5). This racialization increases vulnerability because undocumented immigrants have fewer protections and more fear. Both the reading and lecture show that capitalism benefits because vulnerable immigrants are easier to exploit for cheap labor (Tsuchitani Week 5 Lecture 2; Espinoza-Kulick and Acevedo 6.5).

U.S. immigration policy and the border have played a major role in the racialization of immigrants because certain groups are labeled as “illegal” and treated like criminals. In Professor Tsuchitani’s lecture, I learned that the border has been used as a tool for exclusion for over a century, especially after the Border Patrol was created in 1924. This part stood out to me because it showed that immigration is not just about laws, but also about race and power. I also realized that when immigrants do not have legal status, they become more vulnerable because they have fewer protections and less ability to defend themselves. This vulnerability makes it easier for employers to exploit immigrant labor by paying low wages and offering unstable work. The lecture helped me see how capitalism benefits from this system because migrant workers are often treated as disposable labor instead of human beings. I also connected this to NAFTA, because the lecture explained that NAFTA damaged Mexico’s economy by displacing farmers and increasing poverty. This made me think that migration is often caused by economic survival, not personal choice. Overall, this lecture helped me understand the strong connection between racialization, vulnerability, and capitalist labor exploitation (Tsuchitani Week 5 Lecture 2).

Page

 focus on imperialism andimmigration.

 understanding the immigration crisis.

Largely through the film, feature-length documentary called

 Harvest of Empire, The Untold Story of Latinos

in America.

We'll review some immigration and deportation

policies, just a brief history.

 Chican X Latinx Studies material.

 For you to connect it with what's happening in

the world, in the U.S. right now.

Scott Tsuchitani: What are the structural causes behind the

immigration crisis?

What are the structural causes behind the immigration crisis?

Scott Tsuchitani: And when 3 minutes is up, I will

Scott Tsuchitani: Same with the Japanese.

Scott Tsuchitani: they get excluded. So, Korean and Indian.

Scott Tsuchitani: Same thing, and then eventually it's, Filipinos

who are not exactly immigrants, because they had

Scott Tsuchitani: What are the structural causes behind the

immigration crisis? Today, we're going to look at Latinx

immigration to the U.S, especially from Mexico, Central America,

and the Caribbean.

Scott Tsuchitani: And structurally, looking at your response to

the question might have somehow if you're not familiar with

Democracy Now! the show that

Scott Tsuchitani: Gonzalez co-hosts, I highly recommend it as a

source of reliable news in this age of misinformation and

Scott Tsuchitani: Fox News bias, and yeah, AI slop. Check out

Democracy Now! It's great, independent.

114

115

Scott Tsuchitani: And they're really good with their coverage of

race and immigration.

116

00:13:22.960 --> 00:13:36.469

Scott Tsuchitani: So, a quote from, Juan Gonzalez, they never

teach us in school that the huge Latino presence here is a direct

result of our own government's actions in Mexico, the Caribbean,

and Central America over many decades.

117

00:13:37.070 --> 00:13:42.490

Scott Tsuchitani: Actions that forced millions from that region

to leave their homeland and journey north.

118

00:13:43.420 --> 00:13:49.470

Scott Tsuchitani: So the film provides a rare and powerful

glimpse into the enormous sacrifices and rarely noted triumphs

119

00:13:49.770 --> 00:13:52.269

Scott Tsuchitani: of our nation's growing Latino community.

120

00:13:52.970 --> 00:13:55.150

Scott Tsuchitani: So it looks both at the

121

00:13:55.340 --> 00:13:58.920

Scott Tsuchitani: kind of these systemic interventions of the

U.S.

122

Scott Tsuchitani: To serve capitalist needs, and the instability

that caused to drive migration, but it also looks at, and

provides direct first-person accounts of

123

00:14:12.160 --> 00:14:19.249

Scott Tsuchitani: Latinx immigrants and their children, Through

that effect of that on pushing migration to the U.S.

Scott Tsuchitani: So, specifically, the viewing guide asks you to

pay attention

Scott Tsuchitani: to these countries, Guatemala, Mexico, Cuba,

Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, and El Salvador.

Scott Tsuchitani: Before it gets into these countries, the film

talks about Puerto Rico. I didn't include it on this list,

because it's not a separate country, it's a U.S. territory, but,

Scott Tsuchitani: So that will precede these sections of the

film.

Scott Tsuchitani: Even though immigration is such an issue or

topic, In the news media,

Scott Tsuchitani: They never give us this context, so you might

wonder.

Scott Tsuchitani: Why is it always in the news, but we don't

really have a structural understanding of what's causing it?

Scott Tsuchitani: And think about, instead, what the news is

telling you, and how it reinforces these,

Scott Tsuchitani: Racialization of immigrants spouted by The,

current administration, the highest elected official in the land,

spouting racist rhetoric

 about immigrants, And Framework?

Let's look at some U.S. immigration and

deportation policies.

00:18:10.990 --> 00:18:15.510

Scott Tsuchitani: There's a lot more than this, just highlighting

some here.

160

00:18:16.000 --> 00:18:27.350

Scott Tsuchitani: For perspective, so 1790, Immigration

Naturalization Act, only free whites could become citizens. So,

again, From the founding.

161

00:18:27.510 --> 00:18:36.140

Scott Tsuchitani: of this nation, founded in white nationalism,

right? A white nation. That's who counted as American.

162

00:18:36.420 --> 00:18:47.029

Scott Tsuchitani: And we saw what happened when they brought in

Chinese Labor and Exclusion Act, right, first racially targeted,

specifically in the name, effective for over 60 years.

163

00:18:48.040 --> 00:18:57.870

Scott Tsuchitani: 1924, the creation of border

167

00:19:12.560 --> 00:19:15.939

Scott Tsuchitani: repatriated or deported from the U.S.

168

00:19:16.460 --> 00:19:23.869

Scott Tsuchitani: after the Great Depression, during and after

the Depression, Mexican workers were scapegoated for the

169

00:19:24.580 --> 00:19:27.500

Scott Tsuchitani: you know, as labor competition during the

Depression.

170

00:19:28.460 --> 00:19:37.890

Scott Tsuchitani: The thing is, 40-60% of those who repatriated

or were deported were actually U.S. citizens.

171

00:19:39.220 --> 00:19:45.149

Scott Tsuchitani: 1942-64, the Bracero program, also discussed in

Harvest of Empire.

172

00:19:45.700 --> 00:19:52.770

Scott Tsuchitani: exploitable temporary migrant labor, especially

capitalist inclusion of exploitable labor, but temporary, right?

Not allowed permanent residency status or a path to

naturalization, just cheap, exploitable labor.

175

00:20:11.270 --> 00:20:15.110

Scott Tsuchitani: 1943 was the repeal of Chinese exclusion.

176

00:20:15.420 --> 00:20:27.409

Scott Tsuchitani: So, post-war, 1950, 1954, government policy

Operation Wetback, so wetback being a racist, derogatory term.

177

00:20:27.540 --> 00:20:31.330

Scott Tsuchitani: For migrant laborers from south of the border.

178

00:20:32.120 --> 00:20:38.050

Scott Tsuchitani: This operation involved military-style removal

Of immigrants, but not address the Control Act part of it,

189

00:21:37.230 --> 00:21:50.099

Scott Tsuchitani: So this was, further securitization of the

border, Yeah, securitization and policing, so, increased

criminalization of immigration.

190

00:21:52.340 --> 00:21:53.480

Scott Tsuchitani: So, I wanna

199

00:23:08.160 --> 00:23:13.519

Scott Tsuchitani: pulling Asian immigration to the U.S, labor

exploitation, Native ex This week.

202

00:23:33.120 --> 00:23:35.359

Scott Tsuchitani: But this week, it's through the border.

203

00:23:36.470 --> 00:23:39.930

Scott Tsuchitani: As a site of racialization and exclusion.

204

00:23:40.230 --> 00:23:44.009

Scott Tsuchitani: But also, from a Chicana feminist standpoint.

205

00:23:45.400 --> 00:23:48.210

Scott Tsuchitani: The possibility of a space of agency.

206

00:23:49.270 --> 00:23:55.719

Scott Tsuchitani: And

209

00:24:13.670 --> 00:24:17.929

Scott Tsuchitani: single concept Settler colonialism, right?

212

00:24:32.830 --> 00:24:42.369

Scott Tsuchitani: Week 3, Native American Studies, Systemic

Racism, week 4, Asian American Studies

216

00:25:05.140 --> 00:25:13.880

Scott Tsuchitani: let's see, 101 years, that might have been when

I started teaching here a couple years ago. So it's been over a

century, since the creation of the border.

217

00:25:14.340 --> 00:25:20.949

Scott Tsuchitani: And the border has been racializing immigrants

as criminal, right, as illegal.

218

00:25:21.740 --> 00:25:28.160

Scott Tsuchitani: Ever since the Border Patrol was created,

here's some

224

00:26:18.050 --> 00:26:25.630

Scott Tsuchitani: naturalization Secure Fence Act, promising 700

miles of fencing along the U.S. border.

227

00:26:41.770 --> 00:26:45.419

Scott Tsuchitani: So, this is earlier history, and then

Especially if you don't have legal status, that makes you even

more vulnerable.

238

00:27:47.330 --> 00:27:52.479

Scott Tsuchitani: So One way to rethink the concept of the border

comes from Chicana feminist Gloria Anzaldua.

242

00:28:09.660 --> 00:28:15.939

Scott Tsuchitani: in his canonical work, Borderlands, or La

Frontera, The New Mestiza.

243

00:28:16.600 --> 00:28:18.160

Scott Tsuchitani: From 1987.

244

00:28:19.660 --> 00:28:31.559

Scott Tsuchitani: So

245

00:28:32.030 --> 00:28:37.600

Scott Tsuchitani: Not one or the other, but New futures, new

imagination.

254

00:29:36.340 --> 00:29:42.890

Scott Tsuchitani: Through the power of being in between, to

challenging the construction of borders and difference.

255

00:29:44.130 --> 00:29:50.269

Scott Tsuchitani: The new mestiza Consciousness is one that

recognizes the fluidity of culture and position.

256

00:29:50.700 --> 00:29:54.100

Scott Tsuchitani: claiming This chapter is included as a

supplemental reading, highly recommended if

263

00:30:40.090 --> 00:30:44.930

Scott Tsuchitani: You find interest in these ideas, these really

powerful ideas.

264

00:30:46.140 --> 00:30:53.209

Scott Tsuchitani: So, this Fixed thinking, fixed ideas.

265

00:30:54.120 --> 00:31:02.760

Scott Tsuchitani: It means death, because things are just static,

they're frozen, they're stuck in the past. Not just the past, but

a past that's

266

00:31:03.090 --> 00:31:04.980

Scott Tsuchitani: structured by hierarchies.

267

00:31:05.110 --> 00:31:10.050

Scott Tsuchitani: power, right? Patriarchy, colonialism, white

supremacy. So

279

00:32:34.210 --> 00:32:38.970

Scott Tsuchitani: The question of North American Free Trade

Agreement, who benefits, right?

280

00:32:39.930 --> 00:32:45.530

Scott Tsuchitani: So, as you saw in the film, it removes tariffs

and barriers to trade between U.S, Canada, and Mexico.

281

00:32:46.040 --> 00:32:51.680

Scott Tsuchitani: But in doing so, removed market, labor, and

environmental protections for Mexico.

282

00:32:52.890 --> 00:33:01.870

Scott Tsuchitani: And it took the form of an increased number of

export processing zones along the U.S.-Mexico border, called

Maquiladoras.

283

00:33:02.690 --> 00:33:05.630

Scott Tsuchitani: Duty and tariff-free factories.

284

00:33:06.000 --> 00:33:11.870

Scott Tsuchitani: Nafta had a devastating impact on Mexico, it

really benefited

285

00:33:12.130 --> 00:33:15.820

Scott Tsuchitani: U.S. corporations, U.S. capitalist interests.

286

00:33:16.250 --> 00:33:18.850

Scott Tsuchitani: The first year of NAFTA in Mexico.

287

00:33:19.440 --> 00:33:27.770

Scott Tsuchitani: Wages down 40-50%, cost of living up 80%,

Thousands of indigenous farmers displaced.

288

00:33:28.910 --> 00:33:34.230

Scott Tsuchitani: Right? Through that import of U.S. corn, just

devastating the local

289

00:33:34.670 --> 00:33:42.310

Scott Tsuchitani: local farm destruction to Mexico in terms of

local environment, local economies.

295

00:34:05.520 --> 00:34:10.940

Scott Tsuchitani: Families, because it was a gendered workforce,

As well as state agencies.

296

00:34:11.719 --> 00:34:14.650

Scott Tsuchitani: So, huge toll to Mexico.

297

00:34:15.170 --> 00:34:17.290

Scott Tsuchitani: for the benefit of the U.S.

298

00:34:18.920 --> 00:34:26.609

Scott Tsuchitani: On the ground, in the maquiladoras, these were

foreign-owned factories in Mexico, which imported parts were

assembled.

299

00:34:26.800 --> 00:34:30.330

Scott Tsuchitani: By low-paid workers, into products for export.

300

00:34:30.639 --> 00:34:37.270

Scott Tsuchitani: Right, exempt from

302

00:34:47.130 --> 00:34:55.499

Scott Tsuchitani: Gendered labor exploitation, so mostly women

Workers, and also femicide, so about that fight.

311

00:36:04.010 --> 00:36:05.949

Scott Tsuchitani: Hour and 9 minutes.

312

00:36:06.180 --> 00:36:11.429

Scott Tsuchitani: This one is available through Foothill's Canopy

Catalog, as well as your public library, so

324

00:37:11.080 --> 00:37:20.530

Scott Tsuchitani: this element of humor and performance, right?

So, a play on words, narco trafficante, which you

325

00:37:20.670 --> 00:37:25.499

Scott Tsuchitani: you know, through TV shows or movies about drug

traffickers,

326

00:37:26.210 --> 00:37:31.460

Scott Tsuchitani: So they're engaging in a subversive practice

that I do in my own art practice called

327

00:37:31.620 --> 00:37:36.570

Scott Tsuchitani: appropriation, or reappropriation. So they're

taking that term.

328

00:37:36.780 --> 00:37:41.720

Scott Tsuchitani: Which has

329

00:37:42.220 --> 00:37:47.030

Scott Tsuchitani: identify themselves as libro traficantes,

right? They're trafficking books.

330

00:37:47.910 --> 00:37:50.810

Scott Tsuchitani: So that video's embedded here.

331

00:37:51.130 --> 00:37:53.760

Scott Tsuchitani: And I've got a couple prompts,

332

00:37:54.560 --> 00:37:59.169

Scott Tsuchitani: Reflect upon the value and efficacy of this

activism.

333

00:37:59.290 --> 00:38:06.580

Scott Tsuchitani: So what can you learn about doing this kind of

work from watching the video of what the Libro Traficantes did?

334

00:38:07.750 --> 00:38:12.159

Scott Tsuchitani: What was their actual goal or intention? How

did they achieve it?

335

00:38:12.760 --> 00:38:16.819

Scott Tsuchitani: What role did the media play in influencing the

outcome?

336

00:38:17.250 --> 00:38:27.989

Scott Tsuchitani: So

340

00:38:41.770 --> 00:38:45.100

Scott Tsuchitani: slide, the video's actually embedded in the

PowerPoint.

341

00:38:45.230 --> 00:38:52.900

Scott Tsuchitani: So I recommend you watch that. I'm gonna skip

through it so we don't get stuck on that slide. It's five and a

half minutes. Please watch it.

342

00:38:55.810 --> 00:39:02.689

Scott Tsuchitani: And so, hopefully you just watched that five

and a half minute video on the Libro Trafficantes, and This

lecture,

346

00:39:23.650 --> 00:39:25.480

Scott Tsuchitani: If you have any questions, let me know.

347

00:39:25.930 --> 00:39:27.569

Scott Tsuchitani: Have a great weekend.

Based on this week's lectures and readings, what role have US immigration policy and the border played in the racialization of immigrants? What is the relationship between racialization, vulnerability, and capitalist exploitation of labor? How is this reflected, for example, in trade and immigration policy between the U.S. and Mexico?

1. Based on this week's lectures and readings, what role have US immigration policy and the border played in the racialization of immigrants? What is the relationship between racialization, vulnerability, and capitalist exploitation of labor? How is this reflected, for example, in trade and immigration policy between the U.S. and Mexico?

 

U.S. immigration policy and the border have played a major role in the racialization of immigrants because certain groups are labeled as “illegal” and treated like criminals. In Professor Tsuchitani’s lecture, I learned that the border has been used as a tool for exclusion for over a century, especially after the Border Patrol was created in 1924. This part stood out to me because it showed that immigration is not just about laws, but also about race and power. I also realized that when immigrants do not have legal status, they become more vulnerable because they have fewer protections and less ability to defend themselves. This vulnerability makes it easier for employers to exploit immigrant labor by paying low wages and offering unstable work. The lecture helped me see how capitalism benefits from this system because migrant workers are often treated as disposable labor instead of human beings. I also connected this to NAFTA, because the lecture explained that NAFTA damaged Mexico’s economy by displacing farmers and increasing poverty. This made me think that migration is often caused by economic survival, not personal choice. Overall, this lecture helped me understand the strong connection between racialization, vulnerability, and capitalist labor exploitation (Tsuchitani Week 5 Lecture 2).

Reflection Summary: Week 5 Addendum (Harvest of Empire and White Supremacy)

 

Reflection Summary: Week 5 Addendum (Harvest of Empire and White Supremacy)

In this Week 5 addendum lecture, Professor Scott Tsuchitani adds more explanation about Harvest of Empire and connects the course themes to current racial conditions in the United States. He says this lecture is urgent because racial discourse is changing quickly. The lecture has two main parts. The first part explains the “lie” behind U.S. imperialism in Latin America. The second part discusses current events related to white supremacy and the normalization of vulgar racism.

First, Professor Tsuchitani explains that race has often been used as an “alibi” to justify state violence in the service of capitalist interests. He reviews examples from earlier weeks. He mentions chattel slavery and scientific racism against Africans. He connects this history to modern systemic racism in areas like the criminal justice system, healthcare, and education. He also connects Manifest Destiny to violence against Native Americans. He explains that the “White Man’s Burden” was used to justify colonization of the Philippines and exclusion of Asians.

Then he asks what lie was used to justify U.S. intervention in Latin America. He explains that the U.S. often claimed it was defending democracy and stopping communism. He argues this was a lie because communism and democracy are not the same type of system. He explains that communism and capitalism are economic systems. He explains that democracy and dictatorship are political systems. He says the U.S. did not defend democracy, because it often supported dictators or helped overthrow democratically elected leaders. He connects these actions to protecting U.S. capitalist interests in the region.

Professor Tsuchitani also explains what Harvest of Empire means by “harvest.” He says the harvest is capitalist profit and control. He also says the harvest includes pushing people into migration so the U.S. can benefit from exploitable labor. He gives El Salvador as an example. He explains that the U.S. supported death squads and supported a system where a small group controlled most land. He mentions the School of the Americas and says it trained militias in violent repression. He also shares a resource for learning more about activism connected to that history.

In the second part, Professor Tsuchitani connects these ideas to current white supremacy. He discusses how racist ideas can be normalized by people in power. He uses a post by Ibram X. Kendi as an example and explains the history of comparing Black people to apes as a foundational racist idea. He connects this to the course idea that race is not biological, but social meaning assigned to bodies. He also uses the idea of intertextuality to explain how old racist images and messages can be reused and understood by the public without being directly explained.

Overall, this lecture helped me connect historical patterns to the present. It shows how racism can be used to justify violence, control, and economic power. It also shows how media and leadership can shape what society accepts as “normal.” The lecture encouraged me to pay attention and not ignore racism when it appears. It also reminded me that awareness creates responsibility, even if each person chooses a different way to respond.

Reflection Summary: Week 5 Lecture 2 (Imperialism and Immigration)

  

U.S. immigration policy and the border have helped racialize immigrants by labeling certain groups as “illegal” and criminal. Professor Tsuchitani explains that the border became a tool of exclusion, especially after Border Patrol was created in 1924 (Tsuchitani Week 5 Lecture 2). The reading also explains that immigration policy and immigrant policy both control immigrants, including through enforcement systems like ICE (Espinoza-Kulick and Acevedo 6.5). This racialization increases vulnerability because undocumented immigrants have fewer protections and more fear. Both the reading and lecture show that capitalism benefits because vulnerable immigrants are easier to exploit for cheap labor (Tsuchitani Week 5 Lecture 2; Espinoza-Kulick and Acevedo 6.5).

Reflection Summary: Week 5 Lecture 2 (Imperialism and Immigration)

In Week 5 Lecture 2, Professor Scott Tsuchitani explains the immigration crisis in the United States using a structural perspective. He connects immigration to imperialism and U.S. government actions in Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean. He introduces the documentary Harvest of Empire: The Untold Story of Latinos in America as the main source for this week. The film helps students understand that immigration is not random. It is connected to history, power, and U.S. interventions.

Professor Tsuchitani explains that U.S. immigration policies have always been racial.

For example, the 1790 Naturalization Act only allowed free white people to become citizens. 

He also discusses the creation of the border and Border Patrol in 1924. 

He explains that the border became a tool to criminalize immigrants.

 He also explains how Mexican workers were deported after the Great Depression, even though many of them were U.S. citizens. He gives more examples such as the Bracero Program and Operation Wetback. These policies show that immigrants were often welcomed only when the U.S. needed cheap labor.

The lecture also explains how NAFTA caused major harm to Mexico. Professor Tsuchitani states that NAFTA benefited U.S. corporations but caused wages in Mexico to drop and living costs to rise. Many farmers were displaced because of imported U.S. corn. He explains that NAFTA increased maquiladoras near the border. These factories exploited workers, especially women. This also connects to gendered violence and femicide.

Another important part of the lecture is the idea of the border as a place of racialization and exclusion. However, Professor Tsuchitani also introduces Gloria Anzaldúa’s ideas from Borderlands/La Frontera. Her idea of “new mestiza consciousness” shows that people can create identity and agency in between cultures. This part helped me understand the border not only as a place of oppression, but also a place where new futures and new imagination can be created.

Overall, this lecture helped me understand immigration as something caused by systems, not individual choices. It also helped me see how U.S. policies and capitalism created instability in Latin American countries. The lecture gave strong historical examples and made the immigration crisis clearer and more meaningful

Reflection Summary: Latinx Worker Resistance and the Politics of Immigration

Reflection Summary: Latinx Worker Resistance and the Politics of Immigration

Paul Ortiz’s Truthout article, “Latinx Workers Are Organizing Fierce Resistance to Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda,” offers a powerful and timely perspective on immigration, labor, and political struggle in the United States. Ortiz challenges popular media narratives that suggest Latinx communities are moving politically to the right. Instead, he argues that Latinx workers have been leading fierce resistance against Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda, especially after the 2024 presidential election. The article explains that immigration enforcement, deportation threats, and ICE militarization are not only political actions but also tools used by the state and capitalism to control immigrant labor. Ortiz’s main point is clear: Latinx worker resistance is not new, and it may shape the future of the labor movement and the broader fight against authoritarian politics in the United States.

One of the most important ideas in Ortiz’s article is that the escalation of ICE raids and state violence is a reactionary response to immigrant organizing. He suggests that immigrant communities in Los Angeles and other cities have not remained silent or passive after the election. Instead, they have organized democratic insurgencies, protests, strikes, and public actions that challenge Trump’s deportation plans. Ortiz frames these actions as a threat to “the rule of capital,” meaning that immigrant workers have power because they are essential to the economy. This argument helps the reader understand why the government may respond with fear and force. If immigrant workers organize and refuse to be exploited, the system of cheap labor and inequality becomes unstable. In this way, Ortiz connects immigration enforcement to labor control, showing that anti-immigrant policies are also anti-worker policies.

Ortiz places Latinx worker resistance in a long historical timeline. He references labor struggles from the antebellum period, the Haymarket insurrection of 1886, and other organizing movements that included immigrants. This historical approach is meaningful because it shows that immigrant workers have always played an important role in U.S. labor history. They have organized unions, built coalitions, and challenged exploitation. Ortiz argues that ICE and deportation have been used for decades as weapons to break organizing campaigns. This is an important point because it shows how immigration enforcement is not only about borders. It is also about power. When immigrant workers are threatened with deportation, they are more likely to accept low wages, unsafe working conditions, and abuse. Ortiz explains that the current moment is a “renewed effort” to keep Latinx workers in terror and powerlessness. This framing made me reflect on how fear is used as a political tool and how state violence often targets those who are most economically vulnerable.

A major strength of the article is how it challenges the idea of a “Latino turn to the right.” Ortiz argues that this media narrative hides the reality of resistance happening across the country. According to him, Latinx workers have been in the vanguard of protest and anti-Trump organizing since the early days of Trump’s presidency. After the 2024 election, protests against Trump’s immigration and labor threats took place in over 100 cities. Ortiz emphasizes that these protests involved not only immigrants but also human rights advocates, small business owners, union members, students, and other community allies. This shows that resistance is not isolated. It is collective. It also shows that Latinx communities are not politically uniform. Just as Ethnic Studies teaches, identity categories like “Latinx” contain diverse political views, class positions, and experiences. Ortiz’s article reminds readers that focusing only on voting patterns can erase the organizing, activism, and solidarity work happening at the grassroots level.

Ortiz also describes the wide range of protest strategies used by Latinx communities after the election. These included hunger strikes, boycotts, rallies, teach-ins, and “stay at home” actions. These actions were not random or emotional reactions. They were organized efforts to show the economic power of immigrant labor. This part of the article connects directly to a major concept in Ethnic Studies: resistance. Immigrant communities are often portrayed as victims, but Ortiz shows them as agents of change. They do not only endure oppression; they actively challenge it. I found this part inspiring because it shows that ordinary people can create collective power even when they face fear and uncertainty.

One of the most powerful moments in the article is Ortiz’s discussion of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and its “Day of Action and Solidarity” on December 18. Ortiz highlights a statement from Pablo Alvarado, co-executive director of NDLON, who declares that the fight is not for dignity, because immigrant workers already have dignity. Instead, the fight is for respect and equality. This statement is important because it reframes the immigrant struggle. Immigrant workers are often treated as if they must prove they deserve rights. Alvarado rejects that logic. He argues that immigrant labor is already essential to the country and that the people who benefit from immigrant labor must accept immigrant humanity. This statement strongly connects to ideas of human rights and structural oppression. It also reflects the importance of dignity as something inherent, not something granted by the state.

Ortiz also provides a detailed example of organizing in Los Angeles, where thousands marched from La Placita Olvera to an ICE center. This description stood out because it shows how resistance is tied to place, history, and community identity. Ortiz mentions that Mexican Los Angeles was founded in 1781 by Afro-Mexicans, which adds another layer of racial and historical complexity. The march included signs supporting immigrants and opposing walls, and it included educators such as Angélica Reyes, who described herself as an Indigenous immigrant. This detail is significant because it shows how intersectionality appears in real movements. Reyes is not only immigrant; she is also Indigenous, a woman, and an educator. Her identity shapes her activism and her role in teaching students about political threats. This example connects well to our course transition into intersectionality and centering women of color. Ortiz’s inclusion of her voice suggests that immigrant resistance is not led only by men or only by political elites. It includes women, teachers, and youth.

Another key part of the article is the role of social media and community organizing. Ortiz describes Sam Ruiz, a Latinx activist who used TikTok to call for a general work stoppage. Ruiz’s message shows that immigrant workers understand their economic importance. He compares the treatment of migrants to modern slavery and argues that a strike could force the country to recognize immigrant contributions. Ortiz lists workers from many industries: truckers, construction workers, field workers, restaurant workers, and hospitality workers. This list is important because it shows how deeply immigrants are connected to the U.S. economy. It also supports Ortiz’s claim that immigrant resistance can influence the future of the labor movement. If immigrant workers stop working, entire industries slow down. This creates leverage. It also shows that immigrants are not powerless. They are central to economic life.

Ortiz provides additional examples of organized resistance, such as rallies in St. Louis and weeklong strikes of labor and businesses. He describes how business owners supported the strike, even though it meant losing money. One business owner said that no amount of money can replace peace of mind. Another said that losing money was worth it because they would gain more in the long run. These examples are meaningful because they show cross-class solidarity. Ethnic Studies often emphasizes coalition building, and Ortiz’s article provides a clear example. Workers and small business owners worked together. Community members supported each other. This challenges stereotypes that immigrants only take from society. Instead, it shows immigrants building community power and mutual support.

Ortiz also describes the national “Day Without Immigrants” actions held in February. He notes that strikes and demonstrations took place in at least 120 cities, 40 states, and Puerto Rico. Many businesses closed in solidarity, including large numbers of Latinx-owned businesses in California. These details show the scale of immigrant organizing. It was not a small protest. It was a nationwide movement. Ortiz also includes voices from business owners who emphasize that immigrants are the backbone of the food industry and local economies. These statements show that immigrant labor is not replaceable. The economy depends on it. This reinforces Ortiz’s main argument that the state’s attack on immigrants is also an attack on labor power.

Ortiz argues that immigrant resistance had immediate effects. He mentions that when Trump targeted sanctuary cities, officials complained that immigrant communities were learning how to avoid ICE. This is significant because it shows that education, organizing, and community knowledge can resist state power. Sanctuary cities, community training, and mutual aid networks make deportation harder. This suggests that resistance is not only symbolic. It has real consequences. Ortiz frames these actions as part of a larger democratic struggle, and he argues that the future of anti-MAGA resistance depends on joining immigrant workers in this fight.

Finally, Ortiz connects today’s movements to a longer history of Latinx labor organizing, including Mexican American railway strikes, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers union, and the historic 2006 immigrant strike known as El Gran Paro Estadounidense. This historical context strengthens his argument that Latinx labor resistance is not new. It is part of a long tradition. Ortiz also highlights Latinx participation in Black Lives Matter and in modern union organizing efforts such as the Amazon Labor Union. These examples show coalition building across racial groups, which is central to Ethnic Studies. They also show how struggles against racism, policing, and labor exploitation are connected.

In conclusion, Paul Ortiz’s article offers a strong argument that Latinx workers are leading ongoing resistance to Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. Ortiz challenges simplified media narratives and shows that immigrant communities are actively organizing through strikes, protests, and solidarity actions across the country. His article highlights how immigration enforcement is tied to labor control and how state power uses fear to maintain exploitation. Most importantly, Ortiz emphasizes that immigrant resistance is essential for democracy and the future of the labor movement. After reading this article, I better understand that immigration struggles are not only about borders. They are about human rights, economic justice, and the fight against authoritarianism. Ortiz’s article supports a core lesson of Ethnic Studies: liberation requires collective action, coalition building, and centering the voices of those most targeted by oppression.

Phyu Phyu Thant
Professor [Instructor Name]
Ethnic Studies [Course Number]
13 Feb. 2026

Reflection Summary: Latinx Worker Resistance and the Politics of Immigration

Paul Ortiz’s Truthout article, “Latinx Workers Are Organizing Fierce Resistance to Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda,” offers a powerful and timely perspective on immigration, labor, and political struggle in the United States. Ortiz challenges popular media narratives that suggest Latinx communities are moving politically to the right. Instead, he argues that Latinx workers have been leading fierce resistance against Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda, especially after the 2024 presidential election. The article explains that immigration enforcement, deportation threats, and ICE militarization are not only political actions but also tools used by the state and capitalism to control immigrant labor. Ortiz’s main point is clear: Latinx worker resistance is not new, and it may shape the future of the labor movement and the broader fight against authoritarian politics in the United States.

One of the most important ideas in Ortiz’s article is that the escalation of ICE raids and state violence is a reactionary response to immigrant organizing. He suggests that immigrant communities in Los Angeles and other cities have not remained silent or passive after the election. Instead, they have organized democratic insurgencies, protests, strikes, and public actions that challenge Trump’s deportation plans. Ortiz frames these actions as a threat to “the rule of capital,” meaning that immigrant workers have power because they are essential to the economy. This argument helps the reader understand why the government may respond with fear and force. If immigrant workers organize and refuse to be exploited, the system of cheap labor and inequality becomes unstable. In this way, Ortiz connects immigration enforcement to labor control, showing that anti-immigrant policies are also anti-worker policies.

Ortiz places Latinx worker resistance in a long historical timeline. He references labor struggles from the antebellum period, the Haymarket insurrection of 1886, and other organizing movements that included immigrants. This historical approach is meaningful because it shows that immigrant workers have always played an important role in U.S. labor history. They have organized unions, built coalitions, and challenged exploitation. Ortiz argues that ICE and deportation have been used for decades as weapons to break organizing campaigns. This is an important point because it shows how immigration enforcement is not only about borders. It is also about power. When immigrant workers are threatened with deportation, they are more likely to accept low wages, unsafe working conditions, and abuse. Ortiz explains that the current moment is a “renewed effort” to keep Latinx workers in terror and powerlessness. This framing made me reflect on how fear is used as a political tool and how state violence often targets those who are most economically vulnerable.

A major strength of the article is how it challenges the idea of a “Latino turn to the right.” Ortiz argues that this media narrative hides the reality of resistance happening across the country. According to him, Latinx workers have been in the vanguard of protest and anti-Trump organizing since the early days of Trump’s presidency. After the 2024 election, protests against Trump’s immigration and labor threats took place in over 100 cities. Ortiz emphasizes that these protests involved not only immigrants but also human rights advocates, small business owners, union members, students, and other community allies. This shows that resistance is not isolated. It is collective. It also shows that Latinx communities are not politically uniform. Just as Ethnic Studies teaches, identity categories like “Latinx” contain diverse political views, class positions, and experiences. Ortiz’s article reminds readers that focusing only on voting patterns can erase the organizing, activism, and solidarity work happening at the grassroots level.

Ortiz also describes the wide range of protest strategies used by Latinx communities after the election. These included hunger strikes, boycotts, rallies, teach-ins, and “stay at home” actions. These actions were not random or emotional reactions. They were organized efforts to show the economic power of immigrant labor. This part of the article connects directly to a major concept in Ethnic Studies: resistance. Immigrant communities are often portrayed as victims, but Ortiz shows them as agents of change. They do not only endure oppression; they actively challenge it. I found this part inspiring because it shows that ordinary people can create collective power even when they face fear and uncertainty.

One of the most powerful moments in the article is Ortiz’s discussion of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and its “Day of Action and Solidarity” on December 18. Ortiz highlights a statement from Pablo Alvarado, co-executive director of NDLON, who declares that the fight is not for dignity, because immigrant workers already have dignity. Instead, the fight is for respect and equality. This statement is important because it reframes the immigrant struggle. Immigrant workers are often treated as if they must prove they deserve rights. Alvarado rejects that logic. He argues that immigrant labor is already essential to the country and that the people who benefit from immigrant labor must accept immigrant humanity. This statement strongly connects to ideas of human rights and structural oppression. It also reflects the importance of dignity as something inherent, not something granted by the state.

Ortiz also provides a detailed example of organizing in Los Angeles, where thousands marched from La Placita Olvera to an ICE center. This description stood out because it shows how resistance is tied to place, history, and community identity. Ortiz mentions that Mexican Los Angeles was founded in 1781 by Afro-Mexicans, which adds another layer of racial and historical complexity. The march included signs supporting immigrants and opposing walls, and it included educators such as Angélica Reyes, who described herself as an Indigenous immigrant. This detail is significant because it shows how intersectionality appears in real movements. Reyes is not only immigrant; she is also Indigenous, a woman, and an educator. Her identity shapes her activism and her role in teaching students about political threats. This example connects well to our course transition into intersectionality and centering women of color. Ortiz’s inclusion of her voice suggests that immigrant resistance is not led only by men or only by political elites. It includes women, teachers, and youth.

Another key part of the article is the role of social media and community organizing. Ortiz describes Sam Ruiz, a Latinx activist who used TikTok to call for a general work stoppage. Ruiz’s message shows that immigrant workers understand their economic importance. He compares the treatment of migrants to modern slavery and argues that a strike could force the country to recognize immigrant contributions. Ortiz lists workers from many industries: truckers, construction workers, field workers, restaurant workers, and hospitality workers. This list is important because it shows how deeply immigrants are connected to the U.S. economy. It also supports Ortiz’s claim that immigrant resistance can influence the future of the labor movement. If immigrant workers stop working, entire industries slow down. This creates leverage. It also shows that immigrants are not powerless. They are central to economic life.

Ortiz provides additional examples of organized resistance, such as rallies in St. Louis and weeklong strikes of labor and businesses. He describes how business owners supported the strike, even though it meant losing money. One business owner said that no amount of money can replace peace of mind. Another said that losing money was worth it because they would gain more in the long run. These examples are meaningful because they show cross-class solidarity. Ethnic Studies often emphasizes coalition building, and Ortiz’s article provides a clear example. Workers and small business owners worked together. Community members supported each other. This challenges stereotypes that immigrants only take from society. Instead, it shows immigrants building community power and mutual support.

Ortiz also describes the national “Day Without Immigrants” actions held in February. He notes that strikes and demonstrations took place in at least 120 cities, 40 states, and Puerto Rico. Many businesses closed in solidarity, including large numbers of Latinx-owned businesses in California. These details show the scale of immigrant organizing. It was not a small protest. It was a nationwide movement. Ortiz also includes voices from business owners who emphasize that immigrants are the backbone of the food industry and local economies. These statements show that immigrant labor is not replaceable. The economy depends on it. This reinforces Ortiz’s main argument that the state’s attack on immigrants is also an attack on labor power.

Ortiz argues that immigrant resistance had immediate effects. He mentions that when Trump targeted sanctuary cities, officials complained that immigrant communities were learning how to avoid ICE. This is significant because it shows that education, organizing, and community knowledge can resist state power. Sanctuary cities, community training, and mutual aid networks make deportation harder. This suggests that resistance is not only symbolic. It has real consequences. Ortiz frames these actions as part of a larger democratic struggle, and he argues that the future of anti-MAGA resistance depends on joining immigrant workers in this fight.

Finally, Ortiz connects today’s movements to a longer history of Latinx labor organizing, including Mexican American railway strikes, the Industrial Workers of the World, the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers union, and the historic 2006 immigrant strike known as El Gran Paro Estadounidense. This historical context strengthens his argument that Latinx labor resistance is not new. It is part of a long tradition. Ortiz also highlights Latinx participation in Black Lives Matter and in modern union organizing efforts such as the Amazon Labor Union. These examples show coalition building across racial groups, which is central to Ethnic Studies. They also show how struggles against racism, policing, and labor exploitation are connected.

In conclusion, Paul Ortiz’s article offers a strong argument that Latinx workers are leading ongoing resistance to Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda. Ortiz challenges simplified media narratives and shows that immigrant communities are actively organizing through strikes, protests, and solidarity actions across the country. His article highlights how immigration enforcement is tied to labor control and how state power uses fear to maintain exploitation. Most importantly, Ortiz emphasizes that immigrant resistance is essential for democracy and the future of the labor movement. After reading this article, I better understand that immigration struggles are not only about borders. They are about human rights, economic justice, and the fight against authoritarianism. Ortiz’s article supports a core lesson of Ethnic Studies: liberation requires collective action, coalition building, and centering the voices of those most targeted by oppression. 

Latinx Workers Are Organizing Fierce Resistance to Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Agenda

Media narratives about a Latinx shift to the right obfuscate ongoing anti-Trump insurgencies led by Latinx communities.

By

 

Paul Ortiz , 

Truthout

Published

August 18, 2025 

August 18, 2025

People march in support of immigrant rights and against mass deportation on the streets of Los Angeles as part of International Day of Action and Solidarity with Migrants on December 18, 2024.

Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.

The recent escalation of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and armed state attacks on immigrants in Los Angeles and other cities is in large part a reactionary response to democratic insurgencies led by Latinx workers in the wake of the 2024 presidential election.

From the antebellum period through the Haymarket insurrection of 1886 to the present, immigrant workers have presented grave threats to the rule of capital by engaging in labor internationalism, union organizing, and coalition building with progressive elements of the middle class. While ICE and other federal authorities have used incarceration and deportation as weapons against immigrant organizing campaigns for over two decades, today’s war on workers is a renewed effort by capital and the state to keep Latinx workers in a state of abject terror and powerlessness. The outcome of this struggle will most likely decide the fate of the labor movement as well as the future of the anti-MAGA resistance in the United States.

Foiling media narratives of a “Latino turn to the right,” Latinx workers have led the resistance to Donald Trump’s presidency from early days, helping organize protests against the incoming government’s anti-labor policies in over 100 cities in the weeks after Election Day. These direct actions drew the participation of human rights advocates, small business owners, labor unionists, students, and others to demonstrate against President-elect Trump’s threat to deport upwards of 10 million immigrants from the United States. Understanding that Latinx workers have been in the vanguard of the struggle to save democracy is a necessary step in creating a broad-based freedom movement.

Don’t miss a beat

Get the latest news and thought-provoking analysis from Truthout.

• Email*

The Latinx working class registered its outrage at the outcome of the 2024 presidential election by engaging in a wide range of protest activities including hunger strikes, boycotts, rallies, teach-ins, and countless “stay at home” actions in the weeks after November 7, 2024.

Today’s war on workers is a renewed effort by capital and the state to keep Latinx workers in a state of abject terror and powerlessness.

The National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) called for a “Day of Action and Solidarity”on December 18 to overlap with the United Nation’s “International Migrants Day.” Announcing rallies in Atlantic City, New York City, Houston, Trenton, Philadelphia, and other cities, Pablo Alvarado, co-executive director of NDLON, declared:

Our fight is not for dignity. Because we already have enough of that, in abundance. Our fight is for respect and equality. Both friends and adversaries benefit from our labor, but you don’t want to accept our humanity. Our fight is to ultimately remind you of this: if you take our labor, you must respect our rights. You must accept our humanity. And if you ignore it, we will make you see it.

Thousands of Angelenos answered NDLON’s call and organized a march on December 18 from La Placita Olvera near the center of historic downtown Mexican Los Angeles (founded in 1781 by Afro-Mexicans) to the nearby ICE center to register their dissent to Trump’s promised war on the immigrant working class. Marchers carried homemade signs reading, “Protecting immigrants and destroying walls,” “Immigrants’ rights are human rights,” and “Migrant workers do the work.” Teacher and union member Angélica Reyes described herself as an “Indigenous immigrant on this continent.” Reyes asked her students at Santee High School “to reflect on Trump’s election and his threats to separate families.”

Related Story

News Analysis 

| 

Prisons & Policing

Local Police Departments Are Enabling ICE’s Deportation Machine

Even in cities where police decline to work with ICE, local law enforcement still bolster Trump’s deportation agenda.

By

 

Alex S. Vitale & 

William D. Lopez , 

Truthout/EconomicHardshipReportingProject

June 18, 2025

The first Latinx strikes aimed at President-elect Trump’s vows to incarcerate and deport millions of immigrants were announced before Christmas. Sam Ruiz was one of many Latinx activists who deployed social media to register their dissent against the president-elect’s immigration policies. Ruiz used his TikTok platform of more than 146,000 followers to spread messages in Spanish and English calling for a general work stoppage of migrant laborers between January 11 and January 18. Ruiz channeled the Latinx anger surging across social media platforms in the weeks after the election:

When my community speaks, it says it feels like they’re trying to make migrants look like the new modern slaves. So we’re planning a strike 10 days before Trump takes office. A week without work to see if they can turn around and look at our community and how we contribute to this country … We have truckers, construction workers, field workers, restaurant workers, and hospitality workers. In Las Vegas, we’re creating a pretty big movement and it feels bigger than what happened in Florida with Ron DeSantis after SB 1718 was passed.

Over 1,000 people rallied in St. Louis on February 1 carrying picket signs saying, “Immigrants Make America Great.” Latinx workers and their supporters used the rally as a springboard to organize a weeklong strike of Latina/o labor and businesses in the greater St. Louis area between February 11-18.

“Our fight is not for dignity. Because we already have enough of that, in abundance. Our fight is for respect and equality. Both friends and adversaries benefit from our labor, but you don’t want to accept our humanity.”

Businesses participating in the strike included landscaping workers, bakeries, clothing boutiques, markets, and nightclubs, among others, as I documented in my Labor Studies Journal article on “Latino Workers, the 2024 Presidential Election and the Future of the Labor Movement.” Reflecting on the money he would lose during the weeklong strike, Antonio García, owner of La Tejana Mexican Store and Taqueria, said, “No amount of money can replace peace of mind.” García planned to “dip into his business’ emergency funds to pay his workers. ‘We were going to lose some money that week, but we’re going to gain a lot more.’” Reportedly more than 50 St. Louis-area businesses participated in the strike.

The St. Louis actions were part of a national “Day Without Immigrants” demonstration that was held the week of February 3. Latinx workers, their families, and supporters carried signs at rallies and marches held across the country demanding an end to deportation, detentions, and labor exploitation. According to Mike Elk of Payday Report, strikes of Latinx workers and demonstrations were held in at least “120 cities, 40 states, and Puerto Rico…” Grassroots participation was so widespread that many businesses shuttered in solidarity with the protests. In Kent County, Michigan, Mary Martinez, a restaurant proprietor, paid her workers for time off to participate in the protest. In an interview conducted for my scholarly article in Labor Studies Journal, she said: “We are hard workers. We have support in this community. We have a business, we have a house, we have a good family, no bad record, so we are good people in this community … but afraid that this [federal anti-immigrant action] will go to another level.”

A small restaurant owner in Redwood City, California, said: “We stand with our immigrant communities. They are the backbone of the food industry. Without them, it wouldn’t exist.” Workers and small businesses organized protests in small towns, rural areas, and big cities. Carlos Solorzano-Cuadra, CEO of the Hispanic Chambers of Commerce of San Francisco, California, reported that out of “…approximately 11,000 Hispanic/Latino businesses registered in various Hispanic chambers in the Bay Area … We have approximately 65 percent of them closed today in support of the Day Without Immigrants.” Solorzano-Cuadra estimated that nearly half of the 90,000 Latinx-owned businesses in California were closed on February 3 in solidarity with “The Day Without Immigrants.”

In West Chicago, one small business posted a sign in English and Spanish stating, “In support of our immigrant people, on Monday February 3, we will be closed.” The Chicago Tribune reported:

In the shadow of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, some business owners and workers from Elgin to Chicago Heights took action Monday: They closed their businesses and stayed home from work. The goal they said, was to send a message about the contributions immigrants make to their communities and local economies.

David Fernández, a board member of the area Chamber of Commerce said on February 3 that, “18th Street is empty, no foot traffic. I counted 34 closed businesses in a 2-mile drive on 18th Street between Damen and Halstead.”

Latinx resistance had an immediate impact. When Trump targeted sanctuary cities that offered protections to undocumented workers, Tom Homan, Trump’s so-called border czar, complained that mobilizations of workers and their communities in cities like Chicago and Denver were making it difficult for the federal government to incarcerate immigrant workers. “Sanctuary cities are making it very difficult,” Homan noted. “For instance, Chicago … they’ve been educated on how to defy ICE, how to hide from ICE.”

If we are serious about building a “resistance” that can take back the republic, we must join immigrant workers wherever we are and start fighting back.

The Day of Action and Solidarity and the Day Without Immigrants actions constitute part of a long history of Latinx labor and political organizing in the United States, including Gilded Age Mexican American railway strikes, activism in the Industrial Workers of the World and leadership in the International Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers in the 1950s. Latinx communities and their allies organized the historic El Gran Paro Estadounidense, on May 1, 2006, in response to congressional efforts to criminalize immigrant workers. This was the largest general strike in the history of the Americas.

Between 2016 and 2024, Latinx workers contributed to Black Lives Matter protests, and engaged in union organizing campaigns with the Amazon Labor Union, the California Fast Food Workers Union, home health care drives in Florida and many other industries. These emerging freedom movements have also revived a venerable tradition of cross-class solidarity hearkening back to years when support for workers from businesses, students, and the middle class played a critical role in the industrial unionism of the New Deal era as well as in United Farm Workers unionizing drives of the 1960s and later.

Trump’s invasion of Los Angeles, the militarization of ICE, and initiatives like Florida’s “Alligator Alcatraz” seek to stamp out these incipient social movements and to crush democracy wherever it appears. The values that immigrant workers, their communities, and their allies express when they organize together — values such as empathy, mutual aid, and solidarity — threaten the power of ruling class Americans such as Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Stephen Miller. If we are serious about building a “resistance” that can take back the republic, we must join immigrant workers wherever we are and start fighting back.