Los Suns speak out

Steve Nash has long been one of my favorite players, not just because he is a rare type of point guard who makes everyone he plays with better, but because he is not afraid to speak his progressive political mind.

So this statement about the Arizona law shouldn’t surprise anyone:

“I think the law is very misguided. I think it is unfortunately to the detriment of our society and our civil liberties and I think it is very important for us to stand up for things we believe in,” Nash said of the bill. “I think the law obviously can target opportunities for racial profiling. Things we don’t want to see and don’t need to see in 2010.”

So yes, as Markos Moulitsas said in a Tweet, Go Los Suns.

Stupidity and hatred in Arizona

Paul Rosenberg sums up the incredible stupidity, viciousness and hate behind the immigration “reform” signed into law by Arizona’s temporary governor the other day. This law is just plain stupid and evil.

The good, the bad and the ugly


The immigration plan outlined by Janet Napolitano yesterday at the Center for American Progress can best be summed up by the title of a Sergio Leone spaghetti western: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The plan is good in that it creates a pathway toward legalization for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants currently in the United States and focuses most of the law-enforcement efforts on employers who use undocumented workers and the coyotes who smuggle them into the country.

The bad is the specifics of the pathway, which include requiring

illegal immigrants who hope to gain legal status … to register, pay fines and all taxes they owe, pass a criminal background check and learn English.

This raises the question of what kind of fines and whether they will act as an impediment toward bringing the undocumented out of the shadows.

The American Immigration Council calls for a relatively simple process that could include small fines and avoids onerous requirements and other rules designed to minimize the number of people who can be legalized. It has offered a blueprint that seems to make sense. Basically, it includes:

  1. Covering as many people as possible, which “makes sense from a humanitarian perspective” and gives the program its best chance of succeeding.
  2. Creating a “straightforward process that measures prospective, rather than retrospective, eligibility” and does not include “overly onerous, politically motivated initial requirements.” This “will maximize the likelihood of success,” the organization says.
  3. Avoid large fines and focus on “Basic proof of identity and a criminal background check(s).”
  4. Minimize the impulse to punish people. There is likely to be considerable political pressure to impose high fines, require people to leave the country before applying, limit the ability to bring in immediate family, or complete other requirements in exchange for legal status. While these measures sound tough, they are counterproductive. In order to achieve the broadest possible legalization, the eligibility criteria and evidentiary standards must be achievable by a maximum number of people.

  5. Focus on “integration into the community and a commitment to becoming a lawful permanent resident.”
  6. Upon registration, applicants should be a on a path that leads to a green card, provided they meet specified criteria. The criteria that most seem to measure commitment—paying taxes, learning English, working hard or going to school, staying out of trouble—can be built into the requirements for successful completion of the program, but the trade off must be legal status that can eventually lead to citizenship. Without the promise of a green card, legalization is nothing more than an expanded temporary worker program, running the risk of creating a second-class citizen with the right to work, but with no incentives to put down roots and no opportunity to remain lawfully. Newly legalized immigrants must not be granted a distinctive status that singles them out from other legal immigrants, inviting discrimination and abuse.

And then there is the ugly — the continued heavy focus on enforcement and the “fence,” which she praised and which the administration does not appear ready or willing to abandon.

Accident of fate and dysfunction

I can just see the comments we’re going to get on this story — ugly, racist comments that always seem to end up being appended to anything we write about the issue of immigration.

But that would be unfair to the undocumented immigrants who now face longterm incarceration and deportation — all because they were involved in a car accident on the N.J. Turnpike caused by an elderly driver heading the wrong way.

The accident just points out something that one of the lawyers I interviewed back in May — I believe it was Princeton attorney Roger Martindell: That the smallest quirk of fate can have terrible consequences for the undocumented.

I know nothing about the men traveling in the truck that was hit on the Turnpike, but three are now in the county lockup and two have escaped back into the shadows — a sad ending that was completely out of their control.

I know they were not supposed to be here. But they are and they were just minding their business and now face the brunt of what our dysfunctional immigration system has to offer. It just points up the arbitrary and completely inhumane manner in which the system functions — treating men and women whose only crime was wanting to improve their lives as if they were the most hardened of criminals.

Do unto immigrants as you’d want them to do unto you

The subject of immigration tends to bring out the worst in the people who respond to our stories on line. The level of xenophobic vitriol is truly breathtaking — and scary, revealing a dark undercurrent that seems ready to boil to the surface.

So when we ran an editorial this week supporting an immigration reform bill that would allow judges during deportation hearings to consider the impact on citizen children, I was ready for the worst.

After all, a story on a vigil scheduled for next week at St. Anthony of Padua R.C. Church generated quite a lot of hateful responses.

The editorial elicited its share of ugly comments, as well — but this comment from someone identifying him/herself as Koleary sums up the more humane sentiments and gives me hope:

I think Catholics all need to ask ourselves. Who would we have been in the story of the nativity? Would we have been the innkeeper who turned Mary away?

I think this pretty succinctly sums up the question we all should be asking — even those of us, like myself, who are not Catholic or even Christian. This is a question of humane treatment of our fellow human beings. Shouldn’t we treat them as we’d wish ourselves to be treated?