Lately in the news, we’ve been hearing a lot of point-counterpoint talk about immigration. Most of the talk’s been centered around Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, the controversial law that’s recently had its key provisions blocked through a preliminary injunction.
(If you’re wondering where I stand on all this, read my post, “Thoughts on SB1070.” If you don’t want to read a 1500-word post, I’ll summarize: I don’t like SB1070. And while I think the injunction is a good thing, I don’t know if I’d call it a victory. There’s still a long way to go before this law is thrown out and seen for what it truly is: abhorrent and disgusting racial-based legislation.)
Anyway, my thoughts on SB1070 notwithstanding, in these various sound bites that seem to dominate the news cycles these days, the point (or counterpoint) side is someone from what seems to be an immigration think tank. Read some of these names: Federation for American Immigration Reform (with the acronym FAIR), The Coalition for the Future American Worker, NumbersUSA, Immigration Reform Law Institute, the Center for Immigration Studies, and so on.
On the surface, these seem like legitimate organizations that might be useful policy think tanks. Certainly, the organization’s names must be somewhat legitimate, right?
No. It’s far from that. All are anti-immigration advocates. The Federation for American Immigration Reform is far from fair. The “future American worker” is White. NumbersUSA is spawned from FAIR. The Immigration Reform Law Institute helped to write SB1070. In fact, most of these organizations are spawned from John Tanton, a known white nationalist and known to have connections to neo-Nazis.
Something I’ve learned from doing research ever since I was in primary school was to evaluate one’s sources. The same still applies to today. When you hear a sound bite with an “expert” from a legitimate-sounding organization, check up on that organization. Yes, the name might sound like it’s a useful organization, but you have to dig deeper and find out about the organization. Since the news organizations won’t do that for you (lest they be charged with media bias if they did!), you’ll have to do it on your own.
Or so said William Tecumseh Sherman, a General for the Union Army during the American Civil War in the late 19th century. It’s been an apt quote through the ages, and one that really comes into play at the moment.
Much has been made about the 90+ thousand pages of documents leaked about American involvement in Afghanistan and the geopolitical struggle in the region. Jon Stewart (of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart) weighs in on this. Readers and viewers be advised, this contains strong language:
If ever there was a reason to support the troops, it would be to get them out of Afghanistan. We’re fighting alongside an Afghan army that could, quite frankly, care less about their safety and security. We’re fighting against a well-financed insurgency that might even be financed by the Pakistani government, which is in turn financed by us. We’re also fighting history: nobody has ever won a war in the eastern mountains of Afghanistan.
This war will not be won by military prowess alone. It will take a lot of well-choreographed diplomacy. Throwing money at Afghanistan (and Iraq) will not solve the problem.
I am a pacifist but there are times when even I believe that war is necessary. As Scripture says, “There is a time for war and a time for peace.” We’re past the time for war. Now is the time for peace.
Last night, around 9.45pm, one of the rubber retaining dams that contains Tempe Town Lake catastrophically failed emptying the lake into the downstream Salt River. The lake, which opened in 1999, was created by damming up a two-mile stretch of the Salt River and filling it up with water.
Listen to the press conference held this morning:
style="position:absolute; left:0;top:0;"
CLASSID="CLSID:6BF52A52-394A-11d3-B153-00C04F79FAA6"
type="application/x-oleobject">
Nick Bastian, the owner of the ever-popular RailLife.com, has some interesting pictures from today’s press conference that feature the now-drained Tempe Town Lake.
It’ll be interesting to see how the recovery takes place. We shall see!
It’s been a few weeks now since SB1070 has been signed into law. Unless you’ve been living in a cave for the past few weeks, you know all the fallout that’s happened from around the state and across the nation. It hasn’t been pretty. There have been calls to boycott Arizona, and some state and city legislatures have introduced measures to boycott Arizona.
In all the madness, I’ve been trying to figure out what SB1070 means for me, my community, and greater Arizona. I believe that SB1070 is misguided and does nothing to solve the true issue at hand, immigration reform. I firmly believe that SB1070 was passed because we’ve let fear drive the conversation instead of reasoned, rational debate. As Emerson said, “Fear always springs from ignorance.”
It’s been hard putting words to how I feel. I understand the frustration on the parts of those who support this law. The Federal government has definitely let us all down in passing any sort of immigration reform. I hope that Arizona’s passing of this misguided law is a wake-up call to the Federal government to start a new dialog on immigration. Unfortunately, seeing how this is an election year, I’m not holding my breath that a humane, sensible, and comprehensive immigration policy will be passed as candidates will pander to their ever-increasingly polarized sides.
I know that it’s all too easy to say that the law will only impact those who aren’t legally in this country. I believe that this will impact everyone. It has only raised the already-heightened sense of fear in the community. Those who support the law have publicly squirmed when they try to come up with criteria besides skin color of what an “illegal immigrant” might look like. We have a sheriff that goes on media blitzes to brag about how many undocumented immigrants he and his office have apprehended. Laws like SB1070 will only further enable him to do that.
I’m not writing this to downplay the issue of undocumented immigration in Arizona. It is a big deal. For too long, it seems like we’ve let this issue slide because there was enough resources to help immigrants and because we recognized the positive effects they’ve had on the economy. Only now are we realizing that operatives of drug cartels are operating in the local schools. Now that Arizona’s economy is in a nosedive, the state legislature and a somewhat silent citizenry are scapegoating the immigrant community for these problems. It’s their fault that Arizona is losing money. It’s their fault that crime is on the rise. It’s not our fault, it’s their fault.
It seems like an excuse to pass this law is the increased border violence, drug transportation, and its localized crime. If this is the case, why was there not an element in the law deploying the Arizona Army National Guard to the border area to defend against this criminal element? Why are we focusing on people who are here already instead of stopping the real threat to our safety and security? The framers of this bill have said that we want safer communities and that this will help mitigate the criminal element inherent in immigration. So why, then, are we focusing on those who have innocently set up their lives here to escape the violence and bloodshed in their homeland instead of those committing the violence and bloodshed?
One has to understand that it is a small percentage of the total immigrant population that is giving everyone a bad name. The media and its unchecked commentators are quick to highlight on a few stories that prove their points. We were spoon-fed stories about a southern Arizona rancher allegedly being murdered by an immigrant yet evidence is now emerging that an American citizen is the alleged suspect. We hear of a rise in crime, but that crime is usually localized and insider crime that is tied to smuggling. It’s not random. As Dean Nicholas Knisely+ of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral wrote in an essay on this very topic, “There are some very bad people coming across the border. There are also many people desperate to find work coming across as well, because the crushing poverty in their home communities makes [it] impossible to feed and care for their families.”
There have been many parallels drawn that connect Arizona to Nazi Germany. As an Arizonan, I’m offended. Nobody likes their home state compared to a brutal régime that systematically killed millions of Jews. Yet that does not mean that I’m oblivious to these parallels. Those who support this law say that those who are here with the appropriate paperwork have nothing to hide. But this now means that entire groups of people will now have to carry with them the appropriate papers to show that they are either citizens or immigrants in the country legally.
I’ve been convinced that SB1070 will never actually go into effect because there are a multitude of legal challenges and injunctions that will be filed against it. I hope this is the case. I’m a proud Arizonan and I don’t like that my home state, the state in which I was born, is the butt end of jokes. The Arizona in which I live is open, welcoming, and tolerant of other peoples. The Arizona that is unfortunately being portrayed to the media is a xenophobic, old, and rancorous state.
For those who care about this state, we’ve been let down. We’ve been let down by a state legislature that passes policies blaming one group of citizens for the state’s troubles. We’ve been let down by politicians that put their careers before their constituents. We’ve been let down by a federal government that has neglected to address immigration reform thus enabling states to pass draconian laws such as these. We’ve been let down by the media that is using opinions as the basis for facts and not vice versa.
I’ve publicly debated on this blog whether or not I’ll stay in Arizona once I’ve finished my Master’s degree. I think that now is the time that I should stay here and fight to change Arizona to be the Arizona in which I want to live. The quotation by Mohandas Gandhi is increasingly pertinent: “We need to be the change we wish to see in the world.”
We need change. Desperately. But that change has to be relevant, humane, sensible, and comprehensive.
First up, some housekeeping: You’ll note that on the left side of my blog there are some terms of use and commenting policies. I’ve been lenient with enforcing them in the past days but that’s ending now. In the heat of the recent ASASUD election events, people in positions of authority have left comments using aliases. (As the blog administrator, I can see your email addresses, so I know who you are. I’m not going to out you, though.) But this isn’t going to slide any longer. To establish an ethic of transparency and to lend credibility to all who comment, any comments left using aliases will not be approved and posted. Period.
Second, at no time have I ever been affiliated with the Andres Cano and Vaughn Hillyard campaign. I was, am, and will be an independent student at ASU. My two preceding posts on this issue were written on my own accord with no influence from any members of Mr. Cano’s and Mr. Hillyard’s campaign. My original endorsement post, penned 30 March 2010, was written because I chose to write down and outline the reasons why I would vote for Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard, exercising my First Amendment rights and also to fill a gap in original material on this blog. Had I known that my endorsement would have been of significant detriment to their campaign leading to their disqualification, I would not have written it. My follow-up post on the disqualification of Mr. Cano and Mr. Hillyard, penned 8 April 2010, was written because I felt there were serious flaws in the the last-minute disqualification of that ticket and why they should be seated since they won a majority of the popular vote.
Never did I think that I’d end up in the middle of an elections kerfuffle.
In being at ASU, I had hoped to keep a low profile (well, as much as possible) and ruffle as few feathers as possible. If you haven’t been living in a cave over the past 48 hours, you know what’s been going on with the recent ASASUD elections-gate. If you have been living in a cave and have no idea what’s been going on, click here for the Downtown Devil‘s coverage.
The thing that I find fascinating is that my blog post wherein I endorsed one ticket instead of another was chalked up as one of the three strikes against that ticket. Newspapers and other media outlets endorse candidates. For example, then-Senator Barack Obama lauded that he was endorsed by The New York Times to be this country’s 44th President. Senator John McCain did the same with the endorsement of his hometown newspaper, The Arizona Republic. Candidates laud that they have been endorsed by public safety, education, or public service workers’ unions all the time. Why should student government candidates not be able to do the same thing?
I’m not going to mention the double standard that applies to current ASASUD officers in publicly endorsing candidates. Tania Mendes is the current President of ASASUD, and on 26 March, she posted the following to the “LAST CHANCE TO VOTE Vasquez & Abercrombie for ASASUD” Facebook group page’s wall (see for yourself in the screen capture below):
"I wish you both all the best. You guys have done a great job this year by taking ASASUD to another level. Thank you for not just talking the talk but walking the walk. I applaud you for your involvement commitment and enthusiasm for ASASUD. Win it all!!!" -ASASUD president Tania Mendes (click image for larger version)
But no, I’m not going to mention that. Nor am I going to be shallow and mention that Ms. Mendes, a journalism major, fails to include appropriate punctuation. And I’m not also going to mention that the other ticket’s Facebook group page, “Vote Andres & Vaughn for ASASUD!,” didn’t feature any such high-level endorsements. Nor am I going to mention that one can’t have it both ways.
I was not–and still am not–affiliated with any of the candidates for ASASUD student president. I chose one side instead of another, and I chose to outline the reasons I voted for them on my blog and publicly endorse them. I do not hold any position of elected or appointed student leadership anywhere. On 4 February 2010, I stepped down from the only position of formal student leadership I ever held whilst at ASU, the President of BLAST’D, the Barrett Honors College Leadership and Service Team at the Downtown Phoenix campus. (If I were still in that position, I would have never publicly endorsed a candidate. I would have voted and encouraged others to do the same.) Presently, though, my only perceived conflict of interest might be that I am employed by the College of Public Programs; however, it is clearly noted on my blog that my opinions are my own and not those of ASU or any of its affiliated institutions. I own my blog, ASU does not. I exclusively control my blog’s content, ASU does not.
The big thing is that people assume things and don’t read everything. After my endorsement blog post, I received an email from the ASASUD Elections Committee saying that “many students at the downtown campus [sic] found the title of your blog post…misleading” and that they “feel it implies that ASASUD Executive Board and Senate both support the Andres and Vaughn Campaign.” There’s one problem to their argument: it clearly shows that they didn’t read the post. The first person is employed throughout, meaning that these are my opinions and nobody else’s. Upon prodding the Elections Committee, “many students” turned out to be seven students.
I’m sorry, but seven people’s confusion–perceived or otherwise–doesn’t merit me to rename anything. That’s just the way it goes.
When I post something, I spill everything. You don’t have to read between the lines because I’ve given you the stuff between the lines. To the chagrin of my colleagues and friends, I’m rather detailed in my correspondence. (My former BLAST’D colleagues will agree with me!) I’m a believer in getting the word out correctly the first time so that no additional correspondence is needed. It’s just who I am. I don’t leave room for interpretation because it’s usually misinterpretation.
That’s enough from me. Barring anything even more unusual happening, this is my last post on this subject.
[source: Corey Schubert, media manager, ASU College of Public Programs] ASU will host a Civil Rights Forum featuring Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, and internationally recognized civil rights leader Raul Yzaguirre, from 10 to 11:45 a.m. Friday, April 2, at the A.E. England Building at Civic Space Park.
The forum, hosted by ASU’s Center for Community Development and Civil Rights, offers an intimate dialogue on contemporary civil rights. The event will feature an interactive question-and-answer session in which guests can engage with the panel to lend their voice in shaping a national debate.
“The Civil Rights Forum is an opportunity for the community to lend its voice to a broader national discussion of today’s civil rights issues,” says Raul Yzaguirre, executive director of ASU’s Center for Community Development and Civil Rights. “We look forward to a stimulating conversation on what the future of civil liberties will look like on both the local and national fronts.”
The forum is the eighth in a lecture series featuring the nation’s most widely recognized figures in contemporary civil rights issues.
Romero took the helm of the ACLU, the nation’s premier defender of liberty and individual freedom, just four days before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Shortly afterward, the ACLU launched its national Safe and Free campaign to protect basic freedoms during a time of crisis. Under Romero’s leadership, the ACLU gained court victories on the Patriot Act, filed landmark litigation on the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. custody, and filed the first successful legal challenge to the Bush administration’s illegal NSA spying program.
Romero is the ACLU’s sixth executive director, and the first Latino and openly gay man to serve in that capacity. In 2005, Romero was named one of Time Magazine’s 25 Most Influential Hispanics in America, and has received dozens of public service awards and an honorary doctorate from the City University of New York School of Law.
Raul Yzaguirre was nominated by President Obama in December 2009 to serve as U.S. ambassador to the Dominican Republic. He established the Center for Community Development & Civil Rights in ASU’s College of Public Programs. Among the Center’s many offerings is the American Dream Academy, which is dedicated to advancing education for youth. The Center also addresses the Latino male education gap, offers civil rights dialogue and education, and uses research and education to advance financial knowledge in underserved populations. Yzaguirre served as president and chief executive officer for National Council of La Raza from 1974 to 2004, growing it into the preeminent Hispanic policy organization in the United States.
Additional Panelists include Matthew Whitaker, Ph.D., associate professor of history in ASU’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences; and Kathie Gummere, attorney focusing on lesbian and gay legal and political issues.
The forum is among the highlights of a daylong community event, “Action, Advocacy and Arts,” focusing on the power of community at the Downtown Phoenix campus. Other activities on April 2 include the 5th Urban Gallery Exhibition from 6 to 9 p.m., celebrating the arts and community as ASU joins the Artlink First Friday Art Walk to showcase mixed media works on display at University Center, 411 N. Central Ave.
Admission is free and tickets are not required. For information, visit http://copp.asu.edu/aaa.
We here in the Dean’s Office are supportive of the endeavours of our colleagues and will shamelessly promote them to our friends, family, and blog readers.
This is one of those shameless promotions, and this is for a good cause. (Double win!) Elizabeth Apodaca, the events coordinator for the College of Public Programs, is organizing an interesting event called Guys who Give. Basically, it’s a bachelor auction whose proceeds benefit the Leukaemia & Lymphoma Society. See the poster:
(In full disclosure: I’m not up for auction. This is definitely a good thing.)
One of the more interesting things about Facebook is that it has a space for its users to fill in their religious and political beliefs. What’s even more fascinating is that people can put in different web addresses for those fields instead of the usual identifiers or political parties.
I’ll level up and be perfectly honest here: my political beliefs tend to lie left of center. I voted for the then Senator Barack Obama in the 2008 elections. (My current opinions on him, though, are irrelevant to this post. Though a recent post by Paul Krugman did resonate with me.) I believe that there is an appropriate role for government in our daily lives.
The other thing in which I believe is that although we may disagree on an issue, that doesn’t mean that we have to be any less civil toward others. Too often, society unfairly casts its members into different buckets—this or that, white or black, conservative or liberal, and so on—that for the many people who don’t share that polarized worldview, it’s disheartening. What happened to people engaging in debate? I don’t mean superficial chatter like what’s found on the 24-hour cable news channels; I mean meaningful debate that takes place in the public square.
What doesn’t really need debate is the fact that the federal Congress has low approval ratings. Rather than coming together and effecting meaningful change for their constituents, the House and the Senate squabble over trifle and pure minutiae. Debate in the House and Senate have devolved into talking points instead of consensus.
That leads me to the whole website thing I talked about earlier. I don’t list my political viewpoints as most people; instead, my political viewpoints are “http://www.bettertogether.org/”.
You see, I’m all about community building. I’m all about generating social capital in communities. I’m currently reading Robert D. Putnam’s book Bowling Alone, and the current level of social capital in this country is astounding low. Dr. Putnam’s thesis is that people don’t interact with each other as much as previous generations and that is leading to social decline.
It’s certainly leading to a decline in how people interact with each other. I’m prepared to argue that this is why this society is becoming increasingly polarized. People watch political commentary disguised as news (and that commentary is usually from one side of the spectrum, not all) and begin to identify with what’s being said there. When we read blogs and other Internet sources, they’re also from one side of the spectrum. (I’ll confess; I’m guilty of this.)
And that’s where the title of this post comes into play. Meet me in the middle. I’m sure that we both want the same ends but our different means make it seem like we want completely different things. Almost all of the most-polarizing issues—healthcare reform, climate change, the role of government in our lives, etc.—have some middle ground.
Maybe we need a new way of thinking. Instead of healthcare reform, let’s focus on effecting meaningful change in individual health. Instead of debating whether climate change is real, let’s focus on protecting our natural resources. Instead of debating “big government” vs. “limited government,” let’s look at how government can be more efficient. And so on.
Debating contemporary challenges with antiquated thinking won’t work. The challenges before us require meaningful debate and consensus from everyone.
So meet me in the middle. This is where I’ll be.
-Edward Jensen
UPDATE (20 March 2010): Peter Sagal, the host of NPR’s ever-funny weekly quiz show Wait Wait…Don’t Tell Me!, chimed in on his blog. Read it here.
(In full disclosure: I’m not up for auction. This is definitely a good thing.)