This is perhaps not surprising given the economic situation of this Western group and their historical tradition of political activism (this group was integral in the formation of the early California labor unions). The Eastern group, perhaps on account of their rapid social advancement, showed a smaller amount of political activism; professional conservatism or political ambivalence concerning the Marcos government seems to be the norm.8
In addition to these geographic, educational, and income differences, there was a generational divide. The second
wave of immigrants, commonly referred to as “old-timers” (an accurate characterization, since many of them had
arrived in the early part of the twentieth century as farmworkers), had lived in the United States for so long
that most had lost touch with and interest in the homeland. In contrast, the third wave consisted primarily of a
youthful generation who had experienced the fervent anti-Marcos student activism that had roiled Manila's
streets and universities even before martial law. The most active among them formed the core of the “leftist”
U.S. anti–martial law groups, first and foremost among which was the Katipunan Ng Mga Demokratikong Pilipino
(KDP), based in Oakland, California. The KDP viewed the “centrist” MFP exile leadership as representative of an
oligarchic class that was partly responsible for the problems in the homeland. Hence a class as well as an
ideological divide complicated the dynamics of a population that the exiles sought to win over to their side.
Other observers pointed to the regional and linguistic origins of the immigrants. Stereotypes and prejudices were
common among the northern Ilocanos, the southern Visayans, and the central Tagalogs—the three main Philippine
language and provincial groups. To various degrees, this colored their political views. For example, Marcos was
an Ilocano, so it was no surprise that he remained the beloved son among Ilocano Filipino immigrants throughout
the martial law years. As James P. Allen of California State University noted:
Thus the [Filipino] immigrants have created not just one but a set of ethnic subsocieties. These subsocieties
form a fluid rather than a rigid structure, but some do have distinguishing locational characteristics. With
differences based on region of origin and social distinctions between those who received their academic training
in the United States and those trained in the Philippines, between the college educated and the kitchen and
cannery workers, between the old, single farm workers and the young navy recruits, between activist students and
those who are comfortably established, it is evident that the social structure and spatial patterns of the
American people are being elaborated in no simple way.9
Because it was difficult to bridge these divides, the exile opposition faced a number of organizing challenges.
Over the span of the three immigration waves, no one unifying, encompassing issue had galvanized Filipinos in the
United States. True, the fight against racial discrimination had brought them together with other Asians, as well
as blacks and Hispanics, to take part in nationwide campaigns. But as a single issue that consumed only
Filipinos, nothing has surpassed the imposition of martial law. The appeal of issues such as the licensing of
foreign-trained professionals (doctors, pharmacists, dentists) and, more recently, the awarding of World War II
benefits to Filipino veterans who fought with the Americans in the Philippines was much too narrow to unify the
fragmented communities. Martial law, on the other hand, affected everyone, in that it touched family and friends
back home. And as Marcos functionaries mounted campaigns to win over Filipinos in the U.S., they had to reach out
far and wide. On their heels, the exile opposition targeted the very same audiences. There were no divides in
this contest to win hearts and minds.