You thought commissars were a thing of the past? Not at UCLA. Here in the states, a fierce debate is going on as to whether illegal immigrants should all walk out on their jobs on May 1 to make a political point, one that says the U.S. economy cannot function without illegal immigrants. It’s a takeoff on a clever movie that came out recently called ‘A Day Without A Mexican.’

The problem is, if the immigrants do this, they’ll probably be fired from their jobs, negating the point of being an illegal immigrant altogether. And being fired could leave such people without any source of income because not having paid taxes, they cannot make claims on its unemployment insurance system. Way better to stay employed and hang on to one’s job. Should anyone’s livelihood be thrown away just to make a political point?

But if you’re a would-be Che Guevara, with claims on commanding this new immigrant revolucion, that is but a small and insignificant detail. After all, to make an omelet, eggs must be broken.

Take a look at this EFE article:

L.A. activists divided over May 1 immigration protest

By Ivan Mejia.

Los Angeles, Apr 19 (EFE).- Activists who organized the half-million-person immigrant-rights march late last month in Los Angeles are bickering over how to mount a similar demonstration on May Day.

The big argument is over whether the May 1 events should be limited to protests or expanded to include a boycott by immigrants of work, school and purchases of U.S. products.

Representing the more militant side of the debate is Alfonso Gonzalez, a UCLA graduate student and activist who says that every battle produces casualties.

“And if there are people who lose their jobs (as a result of joining the boycott), they are sacrifices we have to make,” he told a press conference on Tuesday.

In his sermon last Sunday, the Catholic archbishop of Los Angeles, Cardinal Roger Mahony, came out against a May Day strike and boycott, suggesting instead that workers report to their jobs and students to school and then join an evening vigil in the city center.

Gonzalez and others in the coalition known as the Continental Front were dismissive of the prelate’s recommendation.

Jorge Rodriguez, a Southern California organizer for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, said that Mahony’s position in the church did not give him “the right to decide what it is the community has to do. The people have a voice and their voice will he heard.”

“Besides,” chimed in front member Isaura Rivera Agnus, “he (the cardinal) has never worked, he’s never had to cross the desert on foot, nor endure thirst or cold.”

Dolores Huerta, the veteran leader of the United Farm Workers, said in comments to local media that she opposes the idea of a boycott on May 1, maintaining that such measures should be directed only at companies known for anti-immigrant practices.

A crucial element in bringing 500,000 people onto the streets of Los Angeles for last month’s pro-immigration march was the support of the city’s Spanish-language radio stations.

One of the most popular on-air personalities is Renan Almendarez Coello, better known as “El Cucuy,” who works for La Raza 97.9 FM.

He told EFE that boycotts and strikes are extreme measures and that resorting to such steps “could be a double-edged sword.” Policarpo Chai, a Continental Front member who represents Maya Indians from Guatemala, suggested that employers give their immigrant workers the afternoon off on May 1 so they can join a midday march to city hall.

He reasoned that because harsh anti-immigration laws could criminalize employers as much as their undocumented workers, business owners have an equal interest in beating back such legislation.

The L.A. branch of the Central American Resource Center, or Carecen, is planning a march to begin in the mid-afternoon on May 1.

Carecen’s Stephanie Kotin urged those who want to express themselves “in a positive way” to join her organization’s procession, “in which we will be accompanied by Cardinal Mahony.” EFE im/dr

Sounds like he really ‘cares’ about these people. What’s this ‘we’ he speaks of, in ‘sacrifice’? Does he really mean: ‘we’? Or does he really mean ‘he’?

What this guy is saying is it’s ok by him if the poor illegal immigrants he supposedly speaks for lose their jobs. Already I see flaming self-interest in such a cavalier attitude to SOMEONE ELSE’S paycheck. And surprise, surprise, he’s the one who seeks to gain political power through this strike. He assures his own foot soldiers by saying ‘everybody gotta sacrifice.’

Oh yeah? I’d like to know what he plans to sacrifice! Would he skip out on a final exam ahead of graduation to do this? Why do I think not?

This guy is obviously immoral. He makes no provisions for those who could lose their jobs over this demonstration, but fully expects them to just go do it. In fact, he volunteers them for it.

Does he not understand that even from the immigrants’ point of view, this is not in the immigrants’ interest?

Now compare and contrast: You notice from the article that the bishop and the authentic activists for the poor, people who have led real struggles over real grievances, like Dolores Huerta, don’t want poor immigrants to lose their jobs just to make a political point. For one thing, they know how hard it is for an illegal immigrant, or even a documented one, to just get a job!

Not this hotheaded would-be commissar. Dollars to donuts he owns a Che t-shirt. I can just see that t-shirt in his closet, or rather, probably wadded up on his floor with half-eaten sandwiches.

Let me tell him something: with that attitude, this strike is not going to succeed. It’s just not gonna happen. Nobody follows a “leader” like that. Already I can hear the air coming out of this movement. It’s a shame, I was not entirely h9stile to it. It was illegal people seeking to be legal and lawful, not a totally wrong thing.

But people, especially very poor people, are not fooled easy by would-be politicians.

Anyone who says the end justifies the means and too bad about your lost job is no democratic revolutionary, but could well be a tyrant in the making.

As Eric Hoffer once said: anyone who would sacrifice a generation to achieve a political end is the ENEMY OF MANKIND.

Eric was right.

Has this UCLA dork learned nothing from the 20th century?