On May 1, American immigration activists -- angered by federal legislation that would criminalize illegal immigrants and fortify the border between the United States and Mexico -- organized a "Day Without Immigrants." Hundreds of thousands of mostly Hispanic immigrants skipped work and took to the streets in a nationwide boycott that shut down farms, factories and restaurants. Rallies were held throughout the country, with roughly 1 million immigrants assembling in major cities including Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.

An estimated eleven to 12 million illegal immigrants live and work in the US out of a total national population of 298 million. Debate over immigration legislation has been ongoing for several weeks in the US Senate. Various legal models have been proposed, ranging from an amnesty for illegal aliens that would be conditional on payment of a $1,000 fine plus taxes to guaranteed citizenship for those who have already lived in the US for several years. The debate has divided both the Republican and Democratic parties, and it has led to unusual alliances between immigrant activists and members of the US business community. Entire sectors of the US economy depend on cheap labor from across the borders. Nonetheless, many -- including California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, himself an immigrant from Austria -- fear that legalizing immigrants would plunge the country into "anarchy." While initially speaking out in support of a conditional amnesty, President George W. Bush has largely kept out of the debate in recent weeks.

German papers on Tuesday feature several features and editorials on the "Day Without an Immigrant," most of them characterized by a skeptical, "wait-and-see" attitude. While noting the economic clout that illegal aliens undeniably have in the US, commentators agree that the outcome of the ongoing legislative debate over a possible amnesty is still uncertain.

"Some supporters of illegal immigrants in the US are already euphorically calling this first of May the day of the Great American Boycott, the day that immigrants showed the nation how dependent on them it is," begins an editorial in Germany's center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung. The commentator immediately cautions against such euphoria, pointing out that many illegal immigrants were hesitant to participate in boycotts and rallies because they were "afraid to lose their jobs." The cause of the US's illegal aliens will be best advanced not by dramatic shows of force but rather by winning the "fight for public sympathy," the paper argues. Whether this fight for sympathy will be successful depends on the extent to which the US public is willing to forgive illegal aliens for breaking the law, the commentator argues. He adds that what illegal aliens have working in their favor is the fact that "Americans have a strong sense of fairness." According to the commentator, many US citizens believe that "whoever has come to their country to work hard and build a life for themselves ought to have the chance to do so." If, however, illegal immigrants lose public sympathy, this will give the right-wing of the Republican Party the opportunity to push through laws that fortify the country's borders even more, thereby worsening rather than improving the situation of those who took to the streets on Monday.

The left-wing Die Tageszeitung offers similar skepticism. "Whether the USA's new immigrant movement will become a genuine civil rights movement remains to be seen," the commentator writes, adding that "one thing was already undeniable before the national boycott: the economic clout that migrants from Latin America dispose of." Yet Monday's "show of force" might well have the effect of inspiring fear rather than sympathy, thereby contributing to what the commentator sees as growing anti-immigrant sentiment. "In America, the land of immigrants par excellence, calls for closing off the borders and deporting illegal aliens are becoming more open," the paper writes. Ultimately, the commentator suggests, such resentment of immigrants is a by-product of the current US administration's rhetoric of national security: "US President Bush is reaping the fruits of the fear he has sown by his 'war on terror' and his evocations of omnipresent danger. The US public is deeply insecure, and it's threatening to punish none other than those whom it should be thanking for its booming economy and cheap services."

-- Max Henninger, 11:40 am, CET

Dealing With Iran, The Country That Doesn't Exist

A report issued on Friday by the International Atomic Energy Commission confirmed what much of the international community has long treated as commonplace: that Iran, which has refused to abandon its nuclear program and announced on April 11 that it had successfully enriched uranium, is in defiance of the United Nations Security Council. Iran was given 30 days by the Security Council to stop pursuing its nuclear program, but has failed to comply. Javad Zarif, the Iranian ambassador to the UN, has argued that the Security Council has no business asking his country to abandon uranium enrichment. And he claims that Iran's nuclear program is intended for civilian and not military use. The Bush administration is pushing for further diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran, possibly in the form of sanctions.

The issue has received significant attention in the German business press this week, with commentators speculating on the likelihood of a US-led military intervention in Iran, as well as about the political obstacles to such an intervention and possible diplomatic alternatives.

An editorial in the business daily Handelsblatt begins by stating the obvious, namely that "an escalation of the Iran conflict seems almost inevitable." The commentator immediately warns against comparing this escalation to that of 2002 and 2003, which preceded the US invasion of Iraq, noting that "three years after the Iraq war, the parameters in the Middle East have shifted significantly." With terrorism on the rise "from Beirut to Riad," a military confrontation between the US and Iran could well end up being the catalyst that "connects the various sites of unrest to create a single large war zone," the commentator argues. "Keeping the military option on the table" is well and good, he adds, "but using it would be anything but wise." The commentator is confident that the US administration will not act rashly, but has doubts about the reliability of China and the Russian Federation: "One has to wonder whether they really share the West's conviction that Iran constitutes a nuclear threat." He suggests that Russian and Chinese business interests provide only a partial explanation of this phenomenon; ultimately, it is a question of "deep-seated injuries that promote anti-American reflexes" -- injuries aggravated by recent Western criticism of both Moscow and Beijing, and which have to be overcome, the commentator argues, in order to create a clear anti-Iranian "consensus" within the United Nations.

The Financial Times Deutschland approaches the issue in a more light-hearted way. "Iran Doesn't Exist!" announces a half-serious column on the daily's editorial page. The column reports on the existence of a "Delegation for Relations with Iran" that operates within the European Parliament and recently devoted itself to the question of whether Iran should henceforth be referred to as the "Islamic Republic of Iran" in diplomatic communications. Not only has the Iranian government requested that EU diplomats use the official name of the country, but they even recently returned an EU resolution that failed to conform to this expectation. The commentator makes light of German Green politician Angelika Beer, the chairwoman of the EU Delegation, by suggesting her calls for improving relations with Iran by arranging for more frequent diplomatic visits to Tehran may have something to do with "frequent flyer miles." The reply from Tehran? That no such visits would be accepted until the country's official name is respected -- something the European Parliament has voted against, with the ballot being swayed by "Christian parties who won't stand for the Islamization of the name of Iran." In other words, "the flights can be cancelled."