> Has this demand for open borders or unrestricted "illegal" immigration been raised in the Hispanic community, ie. by representative Hispanic organizations?
>
> If not, should their programs which fall short of these objectives - ie. limited "only" to amnesty for undocumented workers and other immigration reforms - be supported, and US leftists encouraged to join immigrant right marchers? Or should the mass demonstrations of recent years have been boycotted by the US left and leafletted from the sidelines for "having made their demands too reasonable"?
Why do you think that the groups in marches and movements must articulate the same program? Why the insistence on unity? That's just silly to me. The difference between movements and networks on one hand and parties on the other is not merely formal. Movements are, or should be, capable of articulating a multiplicity of demands, even ones that are seemingly contradictory. It's parties that require univocal demands, not movements.
Your assumption that the "mass demonstrations" of 2006 had a singular policy makes your questions problematic, which is to say irrelevant. Yes, some Hispanic organizations* saw citizenship and recognition as *the* aim of the demonstrations, but those sort of mainstream civil-society groups were just one faction in the movement, and a not very influential one at that. There were other groups with different kinds of politics, ones that implied an open borders policy even if it wasn't articulated in those terms, or, better yet, articulated politics that acted as if borders are open.
*I notice you never ask the relevant questions about these organizations: who do they represent? who appointed them? for whom are they representative?