Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration. Show all posts

Saturday, March 3, 2012

My Latest in Northside: You Gotta Have Science

My latest Common Knowledge column in Northside San Francisco:

COMMON KNOWLEDGE  
Turns Out, It Is Rocket Science
By John Zipperer 
It was inevitable that American politics would spoil that most pristine, beloved and genuine part of American culture: the annual blitz of Super Bowl commercials. Instead of being able to enjoy debating whether Volkswagen could outdo its Darth Vader commercial from last year (it didn’t), we were left with the news outlets arguing for many days about whether Chrysler’s “It’s halftime in America” commercial was intended to help President Obama’s reelection prospects. 
Such pointless debates always miss the bigger controversy. No it’s not why Clint Eastwood’s voice in the Chrysler ad sounds like Christian Bale’s Batman. The big controversy was around a commercial for U.S. Senate candidate Pete Hoekstra.

Friday, September 9, 2011

My Interview with Immigration Attorney Lavi Soloway

Lavi Soloway (photo by Klaus Enrique Photography)
There have been some momentous developments in the nation's immigration laws lately. After journalist Jose Antonio Vargas spoke at The Commonwealth Club (where I work) about his life as an undocumented immigrant, I talked with well-known immigration attorney Lavi Soloway about what it all means and where it might be heading.

Read it on The Commonwealth Club of California's blog

Monday, August 16, 2010

Eat, Pray, Love Author Elizabeth Gilbert to Lobby for LGBT Immigration Equality

When I lived in Chicago and tried explaining to friends the immigration difficulties gay couples had when one of them was foreign-born, more than one of them asked if my partner and I couldn't just get married or become registered domestic partners and that'd take care of it, right? Forget the fact that at that time – the late 1990s – there was not legal gay marriage anywhere in the United States. Even today, state-approved marriages mean nothing in federal law; in fact, I've heard of gay couples that list themselves as married on federal paperwork (customs forms, taxes, etc.) getting into big legal trouble because they're not considered to be married in the eyes of the theocracy – I mean, the federal government.

Don't judge my friends harshly for not knowing that; unless you're caught in that horrific space of worrying about having to move to another country or being separated from the one you love, you don't think about such things. And when you do have to deal with it, be prepared for a long fight. Get a really good lawyer. And kiss off any idea of being able to afford a home anytime soon.

So here's the scoop: A straight person can sponsor her foreign-born boyfriend for U.S. immigration purposes. The immigration authorities are known to be difficult even in those situations, because they have to deal with a lot of people who lie about being a couple just to get into the United States. But it is possible, doable, and legal.

Hell, here's a worse scoop: An American man can buy a wife from another country, and that passes muster with our federal government. They don't have to have children. They don't have to stay together for the rest of their lives. They don't even have to love each other. But a man who's been together with his boyfriend for years and who wants to be together with him for the rest of their lives is unable to sponsor his partner. Their relationship means nothing to the government.

So it's great to see that Eat, Pray, Love author Elizabeth Gilbert is reportedly going to Washington, D.C., to join the fight to end discrimination against gay and lesbian couples in U.S. immigration policy. She is doing so in support of a piece of legislation called the Uniting American Families Act, the sort of law that would make the Fox News crowd choke on their own bile, but which makes sensible people choke up with emotion because they know that real love and commitment is at stake.

Reports on Gilbert's actions include the note that she knows what she's speaking of, because her foreign-born partner was unable to stay in the United States. By "partner" they mean her Brazilian boyfriend. You have seen the movie, no?

If you're interested in learning more about immigration equality for all citizens, here are some resources:

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

What's the Matter with Arizona?

Forget Kansas. What the heck's the matter with Arizona?

The latest racial foolishness to come out of that state is a law that bans ethnic studies classes. Oh, wait, it doesn't ban all ethnic studies classes, just those that promote "ethnic chauvinism" and racial resentment toward whites (but not toward other racial groups?), advocate ethnic solidarity, and segregate students by race. And Huffington Post reports that the law, which the loopy governor signed into law, also outlaws classes that "promote the overthrow of the U.S. government."

Had a lot of classes advocating the overthrow of the government, do they in Arizona?

I doubt it.

Just as the state did with its recent (immoral and in all likelihood unconstitutional) law requiring anyone who looks possibly foreign to have their papers on them at all times, the state is once again taking a reasonable and important concern -- in the first case, our country's porous borders and incompetent immigration enforcement, in this new case, the popular affection for identity politics -- and turning it into a cruel and ignorant policy that will have more backlash than positive effect on the problem.

One doesn't have to support wide-open borders to oppose Arizona's documentation law. I don't support wide-open borders; every country has the right to determine who can enter. But I think Ronald Reagan had it right: We benefit greatly from a large influx of immigrants from all over the world; we benefit economically and intellectually. Let's let in large numbers through a legal process and control the borders. Fine.

One doesn't have to be infatuated with race-based group identity to oppose this new law, either. In fact, I have serious problems with universities running women's studies programs, gay and lesbian studies programs, and other such schools. Getting a degree in any of them is realistically (and intellectually) meaningless. But my criticism comes from my belief in the importance of a liberal education (one that is therefore diverse and self-critical) and the intellectual heritage of the Western Enlightenment, not because I don't think people should research, teach, and learn about such subjects. They should; just don't separate them into different academic tracks.

But I don't see the Arizona initiatives as having any of those shades of gray or complications. The Arizona laws look quite plainly like the legalization of racist attitudes, and the old guard of our political elite has broken down, unable to stamp down the crazies.

What we are seeing in Arizona (and, if you've been paying attention, in Virginia) is the continued re-entry at the top levels of political society of a group of people who for decades had not participated in politics. In the early decades of the previous century, the fundamentalist right-wing was on the defensive, its religious, racial, political, and global views laid bare for scorn as science and education spread. But they began re-entering politics, slowly at first, in the 1960s; it increased with the openly born-again Jimmy Carter's election, and it went into high gear with Ronald Reagan's presidency. It's peak -- or nadir -- was George W. Bush's presidency.

They have, I believe, warped people's understanding of Christianity itself, turning it into something its namesake would forsake. That is emblematic of what they are doing to American politics.

It's hard to believe that Arizona used to be a stronghold of flinty Western libertarianism, exemplified by the state's longtime Republican senator, Barry Goldwater. But Goldwater found himself increasingly on the outs with the bark-chewing religious right in his own party.

Goldwater famously (infamously, to his critics) told his party's convention in 1964, when he accepted the GOP nomination for president, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

That's a controversial statement, but one can interpret it as a strong-spined defense of traditional American independence and liberty. Unfortunately for Arizona, the Republican party, and the rest of this country, Arizonans are increasingly reinterpreting Goldwater's statement to mean, "Extremism in the defense of extremism is no vice."

But it is.