Author: The Opportunity Agenda

While Americans grappled over the military’s contentious “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in court last week, the Argentine Senate passed a bill last Thursday legalizing gay marriage and allowing same-sex couples to adopt children.

Arguments for and against the don’t ask, don’t tell policy regarding LGBT members’ service in the military, began last week Tuesday in a California federal court. The original lawsuit questioning the constitutionality of the rule was filed in 2004 by the Log Cabin Republicans – a Republican group that supports gay rights.
According to the Log Cabin Republicans’ executive director, the group is arguing that don’t ask, don’t tell “violates constitutional protections of due process and freedom of speech.” Two service members who were discharged for their sexuality – a former Navy officer and Air Force major – are expected to testify in court.

As many news sources are reporting, this case puts the Obama administration and Justice Department in a strange situation. President Obama has made it clear that LGBT rights are on his agenda, and most politicians agree that a repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell is inevitably near. Now, with this lawsuit in court, the Justice Department is being forced to defend the very policy that Obama is pushing to rescind.

While the timing for this case, which was filed back in 2004, is tricky for the Justice Department, it is nonetheless an important step for LGBT rights in America. As it draws more attention to the military’s treatment of the LGBT community, hopefully Congress will feel the heat to act swiftly and dissolve don’t ask, don’t tell.

South of the equator, Argentina’s senate voted 33-27 to legalize same-sex marriage last week, making it the tenth country to do so. By legalizing marriage, and not just civil unions, same-sex couples will have the same rights as heterosexual couples, including child adoption.

For me, what is most striking about the Argentine Senate’s landmark decision is the fact that majority of the Argentine population is Catholic. Eighty percent of Argentineans are practicing Roman Catholic – a religion which historically opposes same-sex relationships.

It seems to me that America needs to take a hint from Argentina. If a country composed predominantly of Catholics can legalize same-sex marriage, why can’t our nation, which prides itself on separation of church and state, put religion aside and vote with people’s rights in mind?

At the Opportunity Agenda, we feel that opportunity requires a commitment to a core set of values, one of which is equality. To us, equality is both the absence of discrimination and the presence of fairness. While America is still many steps away from becoming a country that treats the LGBT community with the fairness and respect that all Americans deserve, the repealing of don’t ask, don’t tell will bring us one step closer to that goal of equality.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

In a victory yesterday, a judge’s ruling (PDF) will prevent some of the most contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law from going into effect.

One of the problematic provisions of the law, S.B. 1070, requires police officers to verify the immigration status (i.e., “check the papers”) of anyone stopped, detained, or arrested–even for traffic violations and other routine stops–when there is “reasonable suspicion” the person is undocumented.

As state and local governments, advocates, and activists have noted, this law promotes racial profiling. Singling out people based solely on stereotyping isn’t just wrong, it’s also bad policing, as law enforcement organizations have pointed out. Our communities need to focus on workable solutions that uphold our values and move us forward together. Fixing our immigration system the right way is about what kind of country we want to be. This law certainly illustrates what we don’t want to become.
As the spotlight on the Arizona law heats up, the growing chorus of voices opposed to the anti-immigrant measure is being matched in intensity by those supporting it. No fewer than twenty-two laws mimicking Arizona’s provisions are currently being considered across the country.

It is important to remember that anti-immigrant sentiment did not spring up overnight. If the law is ultimately struck down, there will still be those with a desire to vent their frustrations on those who have little power–those who, at the end of the day, want what all of us want: to contribute and participate fully in American economy and society.

The vitriol surrounding the debates on Arizona’s law can too-easily obscure the fact that, according to a public opinion poll (PDF) conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies, 57% of Americans support an immigration reform plan that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Once Americans are exposed to a brief description of that plan, that number rises to 78% in support of such reform. These numbers highlight what we have always known–that, in our country, the ideas and values that bring us together are stronger than those that divide us.

Instead of enforcement-only quick fixes, what we need are real workable solutions that reflect our national commitment to fair and dignified treatment, and that bring our country together.

Arizona’s citizens’ frustration with a badly broken immigration system is understandable, even if their state’s response is the wrong one.  The court’s ruling is another sign, as if more were needed, that Congress must enact commonsense immigration reform that includes smarter border enforcement, accountability for employers and newcomers alike, and a realistic path for undocumented immigrants to work, pay all taxes, and become citizens.

Shirley Sherrod, as most of us know by now, is the Agriculture Department official vilified this week after a distorted video posted by right-wing blogger Andrew Breitbart went viral. When the facts were in, it was clear that Breitbart had engaged in an intentional and callous attempt to smear Ms. Sherrod, an African American, and the NAACP with a false charge of racism.

At first glance – and without the facts – Breitbart’s doctored tape seems to be credible, so much so that Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack asked for her resignation, and the NAACP quickly concurred with that decision – all in a span of just a few hours. But wait, let’s go to the whole tape, as Ms. Sherrod had urged. In it, we see the March 2010 meeting at which Ms. Sherrod described an incident that occurred 24 years ago, before she was an Agriculture official. Contrary to the viciously edited tape excerpts, Ms. Sherrod was really telling an admirable and uplifting story of redemption, respect, and racial justice. She had recounted how she had been called upon to help a white farmer save his farm at the same time that so many black farmers were losing. The unedited tape shows how she, the daughter of a man slain by a member of the Ku Klux Klan, America’s homegrown terrorists, had learned to overcome her initial misgivings and looked beyond race to treat all farmers – black and white – fairly.
For any reasonable person, the tape was that of an honorable, plain-speaking woman, remaining true to her core values of decency and fairness. In fact, while this whole incident was unfolding this week, the white farmer referred to in the tape has expressed sadness and outrage at the unjust way in which Ms. Sherrod was being treated, noting how she had saved his family farm. He considers her a friend.

Showing more grace under pressure than any of the other major players in this modern morality play, Ms. Sherrod’s actions this week reflected her character as indicated in the complete tape. When pressured to condemn the Obama administration – which really is the subtext of all the right-wing blogging typified by Andrew Breitbart – she refused the bait, saying simply that she still supports the administration but was disappointed in how she was treated. It was Ms. Sherrod who was "fair and balanced."

While the right-wing media have flip-flopped in a heartbeat from demanding her resignation to criticizing the administration for doing exactly what they had demanded, Ms. Sherrod continues to model what we as individuals and as a nation should be. Well done, Ms. Sherrod. Well done.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Farewell World Cup.

You will be sorely missed, although as as European I only have to wait two years instead of four to see my national team, Engalnd, once again spectacularly fail to deliver. Congratulations Spain, and moreover, congratulations to the many immigrants who put in jaw-dropping performances for their adopted countries, despite – in many instances – anti-immigrant rhetoric stirring political waters back home.

To name but a few: Jozy Altidore, born in Haiti, and Jose Torres, born in Mexico, both wore Team USA colors; Gael Fernandes, born in Cape Verde, scored a gamewinner for eventual champions Spain; and even the North Koreans fielded players born in South Korea and Japan.

This brief list doesn’t even touch upon the impact second-generation immigrants have had on sports culture. 11 of the 23 players in the German squad, who deftly secured third place in this World Cup, were the offspring of immigrant parents. At home, the country’s media was ablaze with opinion-makers coming out for and against comments made by Thilo Sarrazin, a board member at Deutsche Bundesbank, who said that immigrants from Turkey, the Middle East and Africa are making Germany "dumber".

Similarly, 15 of Team USA’s 23 members had at least one immigrant parent. Yet while immigration reform and the legislative battle over Arizona SB1070 was dividing communities and making headlines at home, the stars of soccer remained strangely silent. Although several Major League Baseball players, and the Move The Game campaign, have used their public visibility to defend immigrant rights, despite their legacy sportspersons have traditionally been minor league players in the conversation on immigration.

Honoring immigrants on the field, and building working relationships between advocates and sportspersons behind the scenes, could challenge unhelpful stereotypes and cement the benefits of cultural diversity in the public imagination.  Sports reach a wide, varied audience and, as German Football Association President Theo Zwanziger has acknowledged, celebrating immigrant sportsmen and women "shows the world that young people from immigrant backgrounds can be successful."

There is even proof that sports can make an impact: in the UK, football clubs haver long worked
individually and together on educational and zero-tolerance campaigns to stamp out racism. The name-calling that players still report suffering from when they play in mainland Europe has been virtually eradicated, and ongoing initiatives (like the Anti-Racism World Cup) continue to impact on the minds and manners of fans, players and the sports industry. These long-term and educational strategies go beyond simple sports diplomacy, which resulted in a sporting boycott of South Africa under apartheid and a very partial current sporting boycott of Arizona.

By working together, sportspersons, advocates, and the media have shown that they can secure a more inclusive and equal environment that reaches far beyond the playing field. If sports can change the conversation on race, then why not immigration?

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Call me late to the party, but I heard what has apparently become the song of the summer, Billionaire,” for the first time this past weekend.  Actually, I heard it three times this weekend, including twice in situations where I had no choice but to actually sit and listen to all the lyrics.

The Travie McCoy single, currently number five on Billboard’s Hot 100 chart, is a paean to the type of high-flying, me-first greed that brought us such classics as The Economic Collapse of 2008 and The $3 Billion and Counting BP Oil Spill That Could Have Been Prevented by a $500,000 Acoustic Trigger.  And, in this crucial moment, with our economy on a tipping point between continued, albeit slow, recovery, and slipping back into recession, this catchy ditty promotes the precise values we DON’T need.

To be fair, McCoy’s song does include a few vague suggestions that he would use his new found wealth for something other than pure selfishness and hedonism–the admittedly clever lyric, “I’d probably visit where Katrina hit, and damn sure do a lot more than FEMA did,” stand out–but, in context of the entire song, it rings decidedly hollow.  And, even that lyric, slightly less offensive than the entirety of the song, advances the notion that unaccountable, ultra-wealthy individuals should supplant the role of government in providing basic security for Americans.

Now, it would be easy to write “Billionaire” off as a pop song, and leave it at that, but the reality is that artists, and pop culture particularly, have a powerful role in moving hearts and minds and defining the public dialogue.  Songs like Sly and the Family Stone’s “Everyday People,” Pete Seeger’s “Little Boxes,” and Bob Marley’s “Small Axe,” are just three examples of pop songs that maintain their relevance, and their ability to evoke powerful feelings, even today.  They prompt a reconsideration of deeply held assumptions, providing an individual with a map to better understanding their own life as well as the lives of others.  If “Billionaire” can be included alongside these classics, and I believe, unfortunately, that it must be, then the song is downright dangerous.  By helping to prioritize excess over values like community and compassion, it is laying the groundwork for the financial collapse of 2038.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

Some opinions that have been overlooked by the media in the last couple of weeks:

• According to an AP/Gfk poll (PDF), 49% of Americans believe that police crackdowns on undocumented or illegal immigrants unfairly target Hispanics

•The same poll found that 79% of Americans believe that it is somewhat, very or extremely likely that police in Arizona will wind up stopping and questioning Hispanics who are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants as they try to enforce this law and 65% considers this a serious problem.
•A poll by Quinnipiac University found that 45% of Americans believe that Arizona’s new immigration law will lead to discrimination against Hispanics.

The question is then: Why do the media report that half of Americans support this law despite the overwhelming belief that the Arizona law will lead to discrimination?

A recent bipartisan survey sponsored by America’s Voice Education Fund and conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies of 800 registered voters nationwide might have an answer. The results showed that 78% of all voters supported comprehensive immigration reform, but more importantly 84% of those who supported the Arizona law also (!) support comprehensive immigration reform. 

A quick look at some of the polling outcomes confirm the support for comprehensive immigration reform

•According to a CNN/Opinion Research Cooperation poll, 77% of voters supports “creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the United States for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes.”

•According to an AP/Gfk poll (PDF), 59% favor “providing a legal way for illegal immigrants already in the United States to become U.S. citizens?"

•According to a CBS/New York Times poll, 64% of voters agree that “illegal immigrants who are currently working in the U.S… should be allowed to stay in their jobs and to eventually apply for U.S. citizenship, or they should be allowed to stay in their jobs only as guest workers.” 

How is it possible that individuals who support the SB1070 also favor comprehensive immigration reform? Perhaps what Americans are really supporting is not the Arizona bill specifically, but action on immigration in general.

Public opinion polls (PDF) confirm this explanation. 53% of voters prefer a comprehensive national solution to a version of Arizona’s law in their own state. In addition, 52% support the Arizona Immigration law only because they believe that the federal government has failed to solve the problem. 

In other words, what the public really supports is immediate federal action on immigration reform.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

A coalition of over 150 social justice and public interest groups has come together to call for job creation and investment in opportunity, including for the country’s hardest hit communities. They’ll launch their call in a march on Washington October 2, 2010. It’s the right call at the right time.

The Washington Post reported  this week that a coalition of over 150 social justice and public  interest groups has come together to call for job creation and  investment in opportunity, including for the country’s hardest hit  communities.  They’ll launch their call in a march on Washington October  2, 2010.  It’s the right call at the right time.
With 15 million Americans out of work, and tens of millions more  underemployed or living paycheck to paycheck, restoring economic  security through job creation has to be America’s top priority.  And  given that unemployment among African Americans and Latinos is hovering  around 15%, there must be attention to ensuring equal opportunity and an  economy that works for all of our nation’s communities.

There is broad economic consensus that the Recovery Act and related  initiatives have brought us back from the brink of another Great  Depression.  But the scope of the problem we face requires additional,  more focused solutions.  Many of those solutions are readily at hand,  like the Local Jobs for America Act, which would create 1 million jobs  this year, including in communities with the highest levels of  joblessness.

The voices in Congress who have halted investment in jobs, as well as  in unemployment benefits and support to struggling states, have focused  on the deficit.  That concern is real, but misplaced.  Economists  across the ideological spectrum agree that we should prioritize public  investment in job creation today, while putting in place a longer-term  strategy for debt reduction.  Indeed, putting Americans back to work is  crucial to the economic growth and revenue we’ll need to close the  deficit.

As thousands of Americans prepare to march for jobs and opportunity  on October 2nd, they have our national interest, our shared values, and  the spirit of American ingenuity and problem solving on their side.   Let’s hope the White House and congressional leadership are there with  them as well.

Read more at The Opportunity Agenda website.

On Tuesday, July 6, 2010, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona to invalidate, and stop the enforcement of, S.B. 1070 (as amended by H.B. 2162).

The United States, suing on behalf of itself, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State, challenged Arizona’s new law and argued that:

1. The Arizona law, as a whole, is invalid because it sets forth a state-level immigration policy that interferes with the federal government’s preeminent authority to administer and enforce immigration laws; and

2. Sections 2-6 of the Arizona law are invalid because each section either conflicts with, or undermines, established Congressional objectives, federal enforcement and policy priorities, and/or existing federal laws and Constitutional principles.

Of particular note are the following arguments by the United States:

    • In administering federal immigration laws, the federal government must carefully balance the often-competing objectives of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. S.B. 1070, however, pursues only one goal–attrition–and ignores the other objectives that Congress established for the immigration system.
    • S.B. 1070 fails in furthering our goals of national law enforcement. It will impose counterproductive burdens on federal immigration enforcement agencies, and it will divert resources and attention from those people that the federal government has targeted as its top enforcement priority.
    • The Arizona law will result in detentions and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who either do not have, or do not carry, identification documents.
    • The law conflicts and interferes with longstanding federal laws which govern the registration, smuggling, and employment of undocumented immigrants.
    • S.B. 1070 altogether ignores humanitarian concerns, including protections under federal law for people who have a well-founded fear of future persecution (people seeking asylum) or people who have been the victim of a natural disaster.
    • The law has already interfered, and will continue to interfere, with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries.
    • Although states may exercise their police power in ways that have an incidental or indirect effect on undocumented immigrants, and the federal government welcomes cooperative efforts by states to aid in the enforcement of national immigration laws, a state may not supplant federal immigration laws or enforce its laws in a way that interferes with the existing federal immigration scheme.

Primary Legal Bases for the Complaint:

    • The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that federal laws and treaties are "the supreme Law of the Land."
    • The Dormant Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which forbids certain state regulations attempting to discourage or otherwise restrict the movement of people between states.

For more information, see the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof.

For more visit The Opportunity Agenda website.

Joined by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, media mogul Rupert Murdoch appeared on Fox News recently to discuss his support for immigration reform in America. The two are members of the recently created Partnership for a New American Economy, a coalition of high profile businessmen and politicians advocating for comprehensive immigration reform.

Prominent members of the partnership include the CEOs of Hewlett-Packard, Walt Disney Co., Marriot International and Boeing. The mayors of San Antonio, Phoenix, Philadelphia and Los Angeles are also part of the group.
In the Fox interview, Bloomberg and Murdoch, who is the CEO of News Corp., made the argument that immigrants are vital in maintaining the U.S. as an economically competitive country. “You’ve got to recognize there are millions of bright, intelligent people around the world that want to come to America and live the American dream,” Murdoch said. “I think we can show to the public the benefits of having migrants and the jobs that go with them.”

Bloomberg, mayor of the city that welcomed millions of America’s first foreign settlers, is a public supporter of more open immigration policy. After his 2009 reelection, Bloomberg vowed to make immigration reform a top issue for his third term as mayor.

On the topic of undocumented immigrants, Bloomberg was once quoted for saying, “In fact, we do the stupidest thing, we give them educations and then don’t give them green cards.”

For me, the most puzzling aspect of this new partnership is how Murdoch’s position on immigration contrasts so strongly with what Fox News broadcasts on television, despite Fox’s being a direct subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corp. The very news channel he oversees invariably broadcasts a conservative outlook on American immigration that conflicts head-on with the entire agenda of Partnership for a New American Economy.

The explanation for Murdoch’s attitude towards immigration may lie in the fact that Murdoch isn’t an American native. Murdoch was born in Australia, but gained American citizenship in 1985, largely in part to further his American business ventures.

The partnership’s argument that immigration is vital to a growing economy is an interesting line of reasoning, and hopefully it will add some fresh breath into this debate. Although all eyes right now are on the candidates for November’s senate election, it’s always important to understand where this nation’s influential business leaders stand on the issues.

For more from The Opportunity Agenda visit our website.

Last week, President Obama delivered a major speech in which he called on Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Reactions to the speech among progressive blogs are mixed: the speech was "everything we’ve come to expect of him," says Teresa Puente at ChicagoNow, because it was well written and delivered, but short on concrete details. For example, the speech did not offer any new details about the Justice Department’s upcoming lawsuit over Arizona’s S.B. 1070. The Rev. Jesse Jackson was more enthusiastic about the speech, however, calling it "a high moment of vision" on the Huffington Post.

Over at The Daily Beast, Bryan Curtis wonders why Obama chose to run with immigration reform now, after very little action on the issue for most of his presidency thus far. Curtis comes up with a few reasons: Obama’s recent meeting with a group of immigration activists, his steadily decreasing approval rate among Hispanics, and the mass defection of Latinos from the Republican party, most likely due to the party’s increasingly hard-line stance on immigration. The full article is worth a read.

And what’s the GOP’s response to Obama’s push? So far, it seems like more of the same. There’s the "amnesty" line: former radio host J. D. Hayworth, John McCain’s opponent in the Arizona Republican Senate primary, said that the speech advocated for "amnesty, pure and simple." There’s the "pandering" line: Senator Orrin Hatch accused Obama of "pandering to Hispanics" by "pretending [to do] something about immigration." And there’s the "distraction" line: Laura Ingraham, guest-hosting The O’Reilly Factor, accused Obama of stirring up divisive issues like immigration in order to detract from the failing economy.

Finally, a light note: liberals and poets alike were glad to see Obama end his speech with a quote from poet and activist Emma Lazarus’ most famous sonnet, "The New Colossus." As it turns out, though, Obama actually misquoted the poem: the poem reads "Give me your tired, your poor, / your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," not "to be free." To be fair, though, the President was the editor-in-chief of the Harvard Law Review, not the Harvard Literary Review.

A full transcript of Obama’s speech is available here.

For more from The Opportunity Agenda, visit our website.