Robert Altman’s “Nashville” begins with two points:

1. All of us are deeply involved in politics, whether we know it or not and whether we like it or not.

2. We can do something about it.

The diversity of discontent over immigration screams for systemic reform.

Border security is a focus. Republican presidential candidates have talked about walls, virtual barriers and electrified fences. President Barack Obama joked about a moat filled with alligators.

Experts have long suggested that high walls simply create business for longer ladders, cleverly hidden tunnels or different smuggling routes. Absolute border security seems impossible or obscenely expensive. Perhaps policy should seek border integrity.

Reports show that border crossings are down, but the U.S. will spend approximately $11.5 billion this year on Customs and Border Protection. Wise reform would lend logic to the spending.

Simplifying legal immigration and allowing needed workers to come here would reduce undocumented crossings. This would free border personnel and infrastructure to concentrate on addressing drug cartel activity and other serious criminal and security threats.

Jobs have long been contentious in the immigration debate. Some people argue that immigrants take jobs from Americans. Others argue that immigrants fill jobs Americans will not do.

In a recent working paper, economist George Borjas wrote, “In the United States, immigration has increased the size of specific groups, such as high school dropouts and workers with post-college degrees.” This complexity has not often been found in the debate; however, proposals by Utah Congressmen Mike Lee and Jason Chaffetz indicate that could be changing.

Compounding the complexity is that undocumented immigrants are more likely to be high school dropouts. These immigrants often work in agriculture, construction and hospitality. Native workers would not easily replace them.

Let’s face these facts: some industries need foreign-born workers. Current immigration laws do not allow for an adequate legal supply of these workers.

Federal inaction has tempted states to infringe on the federal authority over immigration. Alabama, Arizona, Georgia and other states have passed enforcement-only laws. Though the federal courts have enjoined many parts of those laws, economic figures and anecdotes suggest that business activity in those states has suffered.

Utah is a curious case. A supposedly immigrant-friendly law was coupled with an enforcement-only law.

The Utah guest worker program HB116 was sponsored by Rep. Bill Wright, R-Holden, a dairy farmer who knows firsthand the difficulty of finding capable and loyal employees among the documented.

HB116 is by all accounts unconstitutional. Though HB116 is slated for implementation in July 2013, few expect it to go into effect, certainly not without a costly legal battle.

The Utah enforcement-only law HB497 was implemented on May 10. It was stopped later that day in federal court. Subsequent hearings have been postponed several times. Federal officials visited Utah on Tuesday to consider whether to join the lawsuit against HB497.

Paradoxically, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff must defend HB497 after having opposed it during the legislative session. Immigration twists people in that way.

Although the diversity of discontent over immigration makes reform difficult, continued inattention and inaction at the Congressional level ill serve us.

FOOL
Substance abuse.

–Aden Ross, 2011

At about the same time, ‘Amerika,’ was given its world premiere by Plan-B Theatre in 2006, Aden Ross had already begun work on a farcical mashup drawing from a dozen or so Shakespearean characters that was inspired, in part, by her deep anger with the Bush administration and frustration at the president’s chronic penchant for malapropisms.

While ‘Amerika’ was a highly successful theatrical manifesto that zeroes in on the dangers of a nation’s ruling class whose abuses of power manage to escape the public’s constant vigilance, ‘Lady Macbeth’ would capitalize upon the subversive potential of blatant absurdity.
‘And as with any human condition Shakespeare tackled in his work, he was absolute genius for showing the timelessness of political ineptitude,’ explains Ross.

‘However, admittedly, my original versions of the play also were more diatribe than true comedy,’ she admits, adding that there probably were too many Bush-like malapropisms which made the play seem more dated than what she intended. The play had been workshopped as part of the Utah Shakespeare Festival’s New American Playwrights Project and last spring as part of Plan-B’s Script-in-Hand series.

Plan-B’s world premiere of ‘Lady Macbeth,’ which begins Thursday, Oct. 27, now promises to be a riotously funny mashup of Shakespeare and the contemporary inanity of American politics that delivers the appropriately subversive polemical punch.

Audience members will immediately get gems such as ‘budget defecations’ and ‘evolution vs. cretinism,’ reminding them of Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin who have taken malapropisms to yet even lower levels than what was imaginable during the Bush years.

They’ll think instantaneously about the current crop of candidates for the Republican presidential nomination when they hear Lady Macbeth say, ‘Remember what you wrote for my campaign speech: “Trust is founded on ignorance.”’ And, the Fool corrects her: ‘Trust. Will founder. On ignorance.’

And, as Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Beast reminds us how Rick Perry is Bush without the conscience or sophistication, Ross’ script has evolved from its formative days during the Bush years into a satirical romp that forces an eye-opening perspective about upon the audience member wondering just how to make sense of the American political enterprise. Never bilious or cruel, the satire easily invites the audience to feel becoming comfortable and confident not only with Shakespeare but also with recognizing and challenging the inauthentic and sly reinventions politicians try to pass off consistently on to the public.

Set in the Scottish court and the nearby forest, the play incorporates an impressive roster of Shakespeare characters and references: Lady Macbeth, the court fool, Iago, Portia, Gertrude, Malvolio, Ophelia, and Othello. In Ross’ hand, some characters such as Iago, Ophelia, and Malvolio get customized treatment.

The storyline goes: Lady Macbeth and her sister, Queen Gertrude of Denmark, have both been widowed recently under suspicious circumstances. Meanwhile, Iago is wandering Birnam Wood in disguise, where he meets Portia, also in disguise; together they spy on Othello, a sexy soldier of fortune whose ship has just been wrecked on the shores of Scotland. Malvolio and Ophelia, members of Gertrude’s court, add to the confusion of mistaken identities, cross-dressing, and separated twins.

One of Ross’ most marvelous elements is ‘Wicked Leaks,’ a play within a play written by the rational Fool. This sets the stage for some of the play’s wittiest moments such as the following:

OTHELLO
[Disgust re: the upcoming play.]
We should be mobilizing for war, not watching a bunch of eunuchs playing dress-up.

OPHELIA
You can learn a lot from the theater.

GERTRUDE [To OPHELIA.]
Soldiers don’t deal in nuance and latent meanings.

OTHELLO
You can’t be latent and be a soldier.

The script demonstrates that Ross, who spent 25 years teaching Shakespeare before deciding to devote her work full time as a playwright and author, sees the value of practicality in creating a fresh perspective of relevance and contemporaneity in appreciating Shakespeare. As easy it is to target the bungling, awkward articulations of Bush, it is more significant to remember that his handlers and political advisers manipulated him because he could not think independently about the most pressing matters of national interest. Indeed, we should know more about Shakespeare, history, culture, and philosophical ethics, but we also need to avoid cultural elitism if we want to challenge the by-products of false consciousness that taint our societies and communities.

Directed by Jerry Rapier, the production features a larger-than-normal cast common for Plan-B plays. The cast includes Kirt Bateman (Malvolio), Joe Debevc (Othello), April Fossen (Gertrude), Tracie Merrill (Portia), Lauren Noll (Ophelia), Jay Perry (Iago), Michelle Peterson (Lady Macbeth) and Jason Tatom (Fool).

Rounding out production duties are Cheryl Ann Cluff (Sound), Curtis Kidd (props), Phillip R. Lowe (costumes), Jesse Portillo (lighting) and Randy Rasmussen (set). Jennifer Freed will serve as stage manager.

The run goes through Nov. 6. Performances will be Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays at 8 p.m.; Saturdays at 4 p.m., and Sundays at 2 p.m. Tickets are $20 and $10 for students. For more information, call 801-355-ARTS or visit here.

The production also received a grant from the Cultural Vision Fund.

* * * * * *

HB116 has legal problems that proponents want to ignore.

HB116 reads under 63G-12-202(3):

‘the department shall implement the program the sooner of:
(a) 120 days after the day on which the governor finds that the state has the one or more federal waivers, exemptions, or authorizations needed to implement the program, or
(b) July 1, 2013.’

The textual analysis is easy: the state work permits under the program would be implemented 120 days after Governor Gary Herbert finds or negotiates federal approval.

Herbert and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff have talked with the federal government. The question is this: “Will the federal government let Utah issue work permits?”

The federal government has not approved the Utah scheme, which was from the beginning a political game for positioning and image.

The Salt Lake Tribune reports today that State Senator Curt Bramble, R-Provo, has proposed changes to eligibility for the state work permit. Bramble should save his time and that of Utahns. The state work permit part of HB116 remains unconstitutional.

Here is the applicable federal law, 8 United States Code1324a:

‘Section 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens

(a) Making employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful

(1) In general

It is unlawful for a person or other entity-

(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment, or…’

State laws that contradict this law violate the Supremacy Clause: they are unconstitutional. Immigration law does not allow for experimentation with state work permits.

In speaking in support of SB288, the so-called Utah Compact bill that included state work permits, Bramble said: ‘This may be nothing more than a resolution on steroids for the federal government.’ While inventive in the use of steroids, Bramble should have greater respect for the Constitution.

There is no ‘Utah solution’ on immigration. The package of Utah laws masquerading as such mostly amounted to a confusing, contradictory and unconstitutional mess of uncoordinated policies.

The pressure of the legislative race for a comprehensive approach on immigration was intense, but the race should never have been run. Constitutional warnings were clear and unmistakable.

Should HB116 be repealed? Given that it is unconstitutional and unworkable, the better question is this: ‘Should anyone care?’

In a grand-scale orchestration of statecraft and stagecraft, Patrick Tillman, the former Arizona Cardinals athlete who left a lucrative career to join the Afghanistan war in 2002 and killed by fratricide two years later, was transformed into an avatar. As a result, this national ‘production’ made it ultimately difficult for some people to distinguish between the real and the imagined, between the earnest hopes and fantasized fears of conflict and vindication, and between pragmatic and idealized perceptions about social interactions and relationships.

Wisely so, Amir Bar-Lev’s masterful documentary – ‘The Tillman Story’ – opens up a worthy dialogue that also should not be framed as a battle between hawks and doves or between atheists and religious adherents. Moreover, the film’s open-ended architecture astutely avoids ascribing blame to one specific group of people for covering up the details behind Tillman’s death in Afghanistan seven years ago. Indeed, a monumental cast of governmental officials, military leaders, journalists, talk-show hosts, celebrity pundits, public relations ‘spin doctors,’ and savvy, opportunistic marketers contributed substantially to making this ‘production’ a reality.

‘The film’s fine point really emerges as a tug of war where one’s human qualities can be inflated to such a grandiose point that they become a statue on a pedestal, so far out of reach from the rest of us that we don’t even have to aspire to them,’ Bar-Lev says in an interview with The Selective Echo. ‘I wanted to depict Pat precisely as how his family and closest friends knew him with accessible traits of character.’

Presented by the SLC Film Center, the film will be screened in four free, public presentations around Utah, all at 7 p.m.: Monday, May 23, in Ogden, Pleasant Valley Library (5568 S Adams Avenue Parkway); Tuesday. May 24, in Salt Lake City, The City Library auditorium, Wednesday, May 25 in Logan, Logan Arthouse and Cinema (795 N. Main Street), and Friday, May 27, in St. George, Dolores Doré Eccles Fine Arts Center (225 S. 700 E).

Bar-Lev will participate in a public discussion following the film screening at all four venues. The film debuted at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival and has been screened many times across the nation and overseas.

Of the thousands who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, Tillman undoubtedly was covered far more extensively than any other casualty. However, Bar-Lev’s film makes it clear that despite the iconic status bestowed upon Tillman, who was just 27 when he was killed, we can, at best, only partially understand the athlete-turned-Army Ranger’s story.

He certainly would have resisted the glory-making process as he made it clear on his enlistment papers that he did not want a military funeral. However, in the film, we learn that officials tried unsuccessfully to make the case with family members for Tillman to be buried with full military honors at Arlington National Cemetery.

In fact, viewers will be quite surprised to see how little Tillman actually figures in the film, which is narrated by actor Josh Brolin. Using just a few minutes of a handful of biographical anecdotes, Bar-Lev says, ‘I learned a lot about how a little can go a long way and that I didn’t need to dissect the man.’

There are no substantial recollections from his college or professional teammates. However, there is a touching clip with one of Tillman’s former coaches who respects keeping whatever discussions he had with the athlete private.

Bar-Lev knew that there was a tendency even among those who knew him to create a ‘Paul Bunyan’-style narrative. ‘We would ask family certain things that we heard about Pat – for example, what he liked to read or that he was never without a book,’ Bar-Lev says. ‘It’s true that he liked to read but he didn’t always have a book with him.’ It is ironic that some writers have perpetuated some elements of the myth by repeatedly emphasizing just a handful of reading choices such as religious texts from Islam and Mormonism as well as writings by critical theorist Noam Chomsky.

Likewise, Bar-Lev found that family members had barely heard of some neighbors and others who claimed they had been close friends or colleagues with Pat.

In making the film, Bar-Lev took many of his open-ended cues from the family and was deeply respectful and sensitive about maintaining the right emotional distance with regard to the family’s grief and privacy. The family members are articulate about their own belief systems grounded in a clear yet intellectually flexible sense of ethics driven not by political, religious, or ideological dogma but by their self-awareness of character and morality.

Marie, Tillman’s widow, today chairs a foundation that provides support for veterans, active service members, and their dependents. Mary ‘Dannie,’ Tillman’s mother, is a teacher who takes on the Herculean task of sifting through huge notebooks of files and transcripts to find the truth behind her son’s death. One can safely assume that Tillman and his brothers fully inculcated their sense of independent, self-reliant thinking as embodied in their father, Pat, Sr., an attorney.

The film has a clip from Tillman’s televised funeral with Rich, the youngest brother, going to the podium with a glass of beer in hand, who essentially gives the middle finger to the scripted production of patriotism and piety. He says bluntly, ‘Pat isn’t with God. He’s fucking dead.’

There also is an intriguing audio clip of a military investigator who says the family is committed to finding a culprit for Tillman’s death because the family does not believe in the religious concepts of an afterlife.

Bar-Lev deeply respects the family’s natural authenticity and genuine convictions. ‘While it’s not in the film, Marie [Tillman’s widow] commented that by putting people on a pedestal, it lets the rest of us off the hook,’ Bar-Lev explains. ‘And, it’s a sharp point. All of us were talking about collective sacrifice after 9/11 and Pat decided shortly afterward to enlist. While we profess to admire Pat, we feel intimidated but we won’t admit that. It allows us to excuse the fact and falsely reassures the lip service we give to the idea of collective sacrifice.’

For the family, Pat is a personal hero not the lionized figure that took on cartoon-like proportions. Near the end of the 95-minute film, Tillman’s mother articulates the film’s most profound sentiments:

‘When I talk about Pat – and everybody is sort of on the same page, at least, you know, the family. That when you talk about Pat, he’s sort of like sitting in the room with you. … I can conjure his face; I can conjure his laughter. You know, he just had this quality to him that he so loved life – and he would want us to, you know, move on, move forward. I feel like, at least I’ve done what I can for him. And now, it’s just the idea of just kind of moving on – and just kind of bringing him with us, sort of.’

And, that perhaps is the best one can hope for. Regrettably, the family’s efforts to get to the truth reached a dead end at the 2007 Congressional hearing where former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other high-ranking military officials danced gingerly enough around the questions of committee members to avoid any real consequential threat of incrimination. While a handful of clips from the hearing are shown, Bar-Lev leads up to the anticlimactic event with a thorough, well-paced accounting of the investigation and elements of the cover-up.

By far, the most compelling testimony comes from Bryan O’Neal, a fellow Army Ranger who was the last person to see Tillman alive and who provides the most damning information about the cover-up. O’Neal, who converted to the Mormon faith in his teens, joined the U.S. Army after graduating in 2003 from high school in Page, Arizona. The young man, who had played soccer and ran track during high school, was thrilled to find out that he would be in a platoon with Tillman.

In the film, he describes Tillman’s final moments in detail that deeply rocks the agenda-setting narrative so many others had meticulously crafted around the dead Army Ranger:

‘”Oh, God, please, if you can help us out of this situation … you know, I’ll be very grateful … and I’ll do what I can to repay you for this debt that I will owe you.”And, I remember Pat saying, “O’Neal, quit praying. You know, God is not the one to help you now. This is reality, this is what we need to focus on. I don’t want you to go into some la-la land … not pay attention and then get killed.”’

‘I was actually grateful for him to say that. I was really trying to put my focus somewhere else and not keep it here.

‘Pat, he saved my life. All of a sudden, they started shooting at us again … and I just remember Pat, you know, yelling his name. “I’m Pat Tillman. I’m Pat fucking Tillman, why are you shooting at me.”’

After the incident, O’Neal was put through utter humiliation and crises of self-confidence. Shuffled constantly from one meaningless desk job to another, he began drinking heavily, was ostracized socially, and temporarily left his faith. Today, O’Neal is married and even has rejoined the faith.

Bar-Lev’s film convincingly shows just how much we immerse ourselves in a media environment brimming with films, television series, and promotional campaigns that tout their ‘realistic’ virtues. The sanitizing, stunt-driven aspects of war coverage are shown in brief clips that firmly establish the context, stretching to the first Gulf War in 1991.

Viewers will take particular note of a clip showing Jessica Lynch in Iraq, who became an instant hero-celebrity in 2003 for being the first American POW [and woman] to be rescued since World War II. The military-embedded videographer cues Lynch, who is lying on a stretcher, to smile for her family back home – a scene splashed across every news broadcast in the United States.

Of course, at the same 2007 hearing where the Tillman cover-up is discussed, Lynch testified that she never fired her weapon and that she was knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed, details far more mundane than the narrative military officials had concocted.

Bar-Lev’s selection of Neil Young’s music is as instructive. Young’s masterful capacity to sustain an appropriate sense of detachment in his art reminds us of living in the shadows as ordinary Americans, who still recognize that the details and circumstances of our lives do not need to be splashed everywhere, especially when our public and private personae today are blurred in every conceivable form of digital and social media.

And, at a time when the death of Osama bin Laden is still fresh in the public’s mind, Bar-Lev says, ‘We could benefit as a country from sobriety. We’re at war because there is a part of our psyche that is tickled by war and which craves conflict.’

Clearly emphasizing that the film is neither pro-war nor anti-war, he adds, ‘We can understand much more by treating the complexities of war with respect and gravity and not by cloaking them in Hollywood clichés.’ Indeed, we can regain our awareness of issues and events from our history that have been submerged so deeply so as not to intrude upon the popularized imaginations immortalized in a sanitized and escapist form of jingoism and cultural entertainment.

Bar-Lev, whose credits include two other feature-length documentaries (‘Fighter, 2000’; ‘My Kid Could Paint That,’ 2007), is working on a fictional feature-length film about Jerry Garcia. Additionally, he is working on a new media interactive edition of ‘The Tillman Story’ that includes an interface so that viewers can pause the film and navigate to outtakes as well as documents pertaining to the investigation. They also will be able to enter into forum conversations in social media platforms as well as explore related and ancillary articles dealing with the subject.

For more information about screenings, see here.

The language sounds nice and falsely soothes those who fail to deconstruct the freedom-talk rhetoric which really turns out to share little in substance with real principles of freedom. Furthermore, remove the nonimplementable HB 116 from the mix and we’re left with Sandstrom’s Arizona-lite enforcement bill, which, too, was enacted by the Utah Legislature. Then what’s the difference?

This has been nothing more than a game for the political and public relations benefit being reaped by state officials and church leaders. Meanwhile, some of those who would be most directly impacted by this legislation have become innocent victims of fraud because of falsely represented hopes. People’s lives should never be part of a dangerously misinformed political or public relations gamble.

Now, for Alvarez’s commentary:

The politics of immigration have been ugly, but nobody should support policy that reduces human beings to mere economic actors. Creating second-class residents and workers is socially ruinous policy that sets society back. HB116, the state guest worker program, would do precisely that.

HB116 has a legal problem that proponents, including the LDS Church, want to ignore.

The first rule of legal analysis is this: read the law. Apparently, Utah Governor Gary Herbert and Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff cannot bother with this mundane task. Both have claimed that state work permits created under HB116 will not be implemented for two years or until July 1, 2013.

HB116 reads under 63G-12-202(3):

“the department shall implement the program the sooner of: (a) 120 days after the day on which the governor finds that the state has the one or more federal waivers, exemptions, or authorizations needed to implement the program, or (b) July 1, 2013.”

The textual analysis is not difficult: the state work permits under the program would be implemented 120 days after Herbert finds or negotiates federal approval.

Herbert and Shurtleff claim to have talked with the federal government. The question is this: “Will the federal government let Utah issue work permits?”

Herbert, Shurtleff and others should come clean: the federal government has not approved the Utah scheme, which was from the beginning a political game for positioning and image.

Federal law applies. Here is part of the United States Code (8 USC 1324a):

“Section 1324a. Unlawful employment of aliens

(a) Making employment of unauthorized aliens unlawful

(1) In general

It is unlawful for a person or other entity-

(A) to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3) of this section) with respect to such employment, or”

Utah proposals that contradicted this law were unconstitutional, and immigration law did not allow for experimentation with state work permits.

In speaking in support of SB288, the so-called Utah Compact bill that included work permits, Senator Curt Bramble, R-Provo, said: “This may be nothing more than a resolution on steroids for the federal government.” While inventive in the use of steroids, Sen. Bramble should have greater respect for the Constitution.

There is no “Utah solution” on immigration. The package of Utah laws masquerading as such mostly amounts to a confusing, contradictory and unconstitutional mess of uncoordinated policies.

The pressure of the legislative race for a comprehensive approach on immigration was intense, but the race should never have been run. Constitutional warnings were clear and unmistakable.

Immigration reform is needed, but it must be federal. Policies should respect the dignity of all human beings.

As with virtually every issue of any significance in today’s political discourse, the rhetorical attacks concerning environmentalism on both sides of the aisle unconditionally oppose every sense of moderation. That said, there is no question in my mind that the ethical basis for addressing our most serious issue – the yet-to-be understood effects of climate change and humankind’s impact – has been firmly established.

However, what I find profoundly disappointing is that so many activists are more insistent on inflating their self-importance and in adopting a sanctimonious public pose than in laying out the ethical justification for the effective types of nonviolent civil disobedience, which would highlight the urgency and compel the public to poke vigorously their policymakers to address the issue.

And, that brings us to the case of the just-convicted Salt Lake City activist – Tim DeChristopher. In the past week, we’ve been treated to the all-too-frustratingly familiar and predictable media circus surrounding the young man’s trial. While there were lots of symbolic platitudes along with the celebrity exhortations canonizing DeChristopher as the heir-apparent to the titans of nonviolent civil disobedience, not one person including the star of the sideshow managed an articulate peroration which examines the issue through a desperately needed ethical lens.

Clearing through all of the useless psychobabble and political claptrap surrounding the trial, let’s clarify a few things. Regardless of his intentions, DeChristopher did commit a crime: Title 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 and Title 43 U.S.C. Section 1212 make it a crime for any person knowingly and willfully to make to any department or agency of the United States any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations as to any matter within its jurisdiction. The young man acted impulsively and rashly.

While it’s highly tempting to romanticize the ‘monkey-wrencher’ in the vein that the late author Edward Abbey did in his 1975 book, there should never have been any doubt in DeChristopher’s college-educated mind that this criminal act would be futile and that its potential consequences would not make such an act worthwhile. In it sheer impotence, DeChristopher’s act on that December 2008 day did nothing more than perhaps add to the already robust counter-attacking arsenal of the brownlashing wing which tries to stall any environmental corrective action.

Actually, there have been several significant instances of eye-opening nonviolent disobedience involving well-known names such as NASA scientist James Hansen and author Bill McKibben. Both experts on climate change, they have led highly effective protests targeting the coal industry. The fact that such individuals are willing to do more than research, conduct scientific inquiries, and share results in books and in the peer-reviewed scientific community underscores just how much a responsible and ethical discussion should be framed on an issue with such unprecedented far-reaching consequences.

DeChristopher’s conviction yesterday presents a good moment of opportunity for him to mature and to contemplate how this discussion should be taking place in our metaphorical ‘public square’ in Utah and throughout the West. And, it could go potentially a long way toward helping the environmental activist community find its most effective identity.

This is the impetus suggested by philosopher John Rawls’ quote that is featured at the top of this commentary. His most important book – A Theory of Justice – is a must-read for DeChristopher and his colleagues. It should be mandatory for every American because Rawls outlines an elegant path for how we go about finding the proper balance between ego and community and for cultivating the longer-game view that builds consensus and dignity without forfeiting the desire and right to economic freedom and prosperity. It is a good context for restoring sanity to our damaged political discourse. Be forewarned, though. Rawls is not an easy read on first appearance.

The most important lesson I’ve learned in working with my tremendously intelligent and gifted colleague Mark Alvarez on the issue of immigration reform involves the challenge of advancing a pragmatic, informed position in a hugely dysfunctional political landscape. It takes extraordinary self-discipline to contain anger and frustration upon hearing statements that are so blatantly wrong in content and ideology.

However, we are not limited in our legal options especially if we do not let laziness and complacency divert us from channeling our indignation into productive citizenship. It starts with education. One of the most far-reaching campaigns an ethically responsible environmental activist could do is to create awareness and educational programs that reverse the alarming declines in scientific literacy and rebuild critical thinking skills in our young students.

Obviously, these are not the ‘sexy’ tactics that will get the same type of media coverage for which many self-appointed defenders of the nature and the environment literally salivate over in trying to advance their own often unconditional agendas. Fortifying education and awareness can produce a generation of informed citizens who are better equipped to coordinate their activities amid a network of diverse media platforms and political institutions. Furthermore, they will challenge the entrenched ignorance that drives our current ‘public square’ discussions and they will be better able to deconstruct the usual rhetoric, which heavily pollutes our American discourse.

While I believe the DeChristopher verdict was the right call, I hope that the sentence which will be handed down in June is reasonable. The young man strikes me as earnest and passionate but immature and still insufficiently seasoned to navigate the channels of media publicity and attention. I cringed repeatedly whenever references to Gandhi, King, or Rosa Parks were mentioned or when the importance of this trial was inappropriately exaggerated. Perspective and context do matter.

For that reason, I’d like to offer further reading for others who reference the Mahatma within the context of an incomplete appreciation for how he achieved such great success in the practice of nonviolent civil disobedience. Ian Desai explains why in this fascinating article which can be read in its entirety here. However, I did want to highlight this quote:

‘The real magic of the Mahatma was not a trick of popular charisma, but in fact a deft ability to recruit, manage, and inspire a team of talented individuals who worked tirelessly in his service. Gandhi himself was one of the few people to recognize how this phenomenon worked. “With each day I realize more and more that my mahatmaship, which is a mere adornment, depends on others. I have shone with the glory borrowed from my innumerable co-workers,” he wrote in 1928 in Navajivan.’

Indeed, this is good advice for all of us seeking to be the pragmatic stewards of our environment and of our communities. The stakes are too high to do otherwise.

This blog has been hammering away for months at the unwise process state legislators have undertaken in the mistaken hope that they can effect immigration reform in a constitutionally legitimate manner. In the legislative review note that is being attached to SB 60 (the Robles-Mero proposal), that point is now evidently made. Every journalist who covers the immigration debate should read the publicly available note carefully. It provides the essential background a good reporter needs to ask the right questions.

It’s worth quoting directly from a section of the note:

‘When a state regulates in the area of immigration, the issue arises of whether the state action is preempted by federal law. To determine whether preemption exists, courts generally examine whether the state regulation fails at least one of three tests: Is it preempted because of a conflict with federal law? Is it preempted because federal law has so occupied the field that states are not allowed to regulate in the area? Is there an express preemption of state action?

‘The bill addresses areas also addressed by federal law such as accessing and disclosing immigration information. Significantly, this bill provides a means by which a person may employ an unauthorized alien in this state if the unauthorized alien is issued a state permit, and the bill imposes state specific penalties for hiring an unauthorized alien without a permit. Federal law, in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324a, makes it unlawful to hire, recruit,or refer for a fee, an alien for employment in the United States knowing that the alien is an unauthorized alien. This section further provides that “The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.”

‘The bill requires the governor to seek waivers that would authorize the state program. Although federal law contains measures to allow cooperation between the federal government and a state, the INA and related regulations do not have an express process to provide a waiver that grants states authority to related to state laws in areas that are governed by federal law. In the absence of an effective waiver recognized as valid by the courts, under current law, there is a high probability that a court would find that portions of this bill are preempted by federal law as applied through the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States.‘

The reason for highlighting this reference is explained in the following, a reprint of a post from December 2010:

More than six weeks ago, The Selective Echo took aim at two editorials – one by The Deseret News and by KSL – which represent the failure of responsible journalism to frame opinions in the proper perspective of accuracy and truthfulness. I agree with my colleague Mark Alvarez, who has regularly corresponded on this blog about immigration reform, that these editorials plainly represent motivations driven not by the earnest focus for journalistic accuracy and professionalism but by trading in their core credibility for Utah-based PR efforts to prop up ill-conceived and unconstitutional state solutions for immigration problems. The first half of the following represents my comments followed by those of Mark Alvarez.

In disturbingly increasing frequency, the editorial boards at media institutions across the nation are discarding cardinal journalistic rules that once dictated that any informed responsible editorial paid first and foremost attention to facts and the accuracy of those statements. Unfortunately, recent editorials in The Deseret News and KSL which proclaim their support for seriously misguided piecemeal solutions to immigration problems exemplify just how editors have become careless with facts. It suggests an emerging pattern where facts can be printed with no concerns about their nature. Simply, editorials can be based on facts that are incorrect, incomplete, uncorroborated, and selectively redacted.

I’ll leave it to Mark Alvarez (below) to raise the specific and significant lapses in factual accuracy that are evident in editorials such as these. However, let me raise a broader issue that should concern every media consumer. The potential consequences of being wrong in an editorial as opposed to a news article are far more extensive because of the impact upon the public discourse when it comes to deciding how issues are judged. Here, facts are used to persuade but what if those facts are wrong?

The rule always has been that an editor publicly admits the error and prints (or broadcasts) the correction to it. Regrettably, that will not be the case here. Sure, letters may be written to the editor that may be printed long after the urgent momentum to reconcile the error has lapsed. Also, editors will leave it to essentially uninformed readers to decide on their own who is more credible. And, for those leveraging the PR efforts to sway public opinion and buzz for their politically and selfishly motivated efforts that will do nothing whatsoever to rectify immigration problems, they’ll be happy to know that editors will not bother to admit their errors or correct them in a prominent manner.

This is not good journalism. And, it misleads deeply. Reader, beware.

Now to Mark Alvarez:

In a recent editorial, The Deseret News made an analogy between state efforts at welfare reform and the possibility of a state effort at immigration reform. However well intentioned in advocating humane treatment of undocumented immigrants, the Deseret News suggestion of a “Utah solution” on immigration is misinformed.

There is a specific federal law prohibiting the unlawful employment of unauthorized aliens: Title 8 United States Code Section 1324a. A state-level work permit would directly contradict this law and essentially make the state-produced document fraudulent.

While some people have talked about waivers or federal approval, the federal executive branch and the President cannot authorize a violation of federal law without corresponding action by Congress. In practice, only a federal solution could provide a “Utah solution.” The tail does not wag the dog.

Welfare reform waivers were available under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. This allowed the executive branch to waive specific provisions of the act within states for welfare experiments or demonstration projects to reduce welfare recipiency, ease transitions into the labor market for welfare clients, or otherwise advance the objectives of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.

Welfare reform waivers made sense on policy and administrative grounds, as federal administrative functions could be handled through state agencies. The same does not hold true for work permits that are handled exclusively by the federal government. Immigration reform is different from welfare reform.

Frustration over federal inaction concerning immigration is understandable. However, it should not lead to disregard for the U.S. Constitution and journalistic ethics. Veracity and verification still mean something.

The Deseret News, KSL, and every other Utah media outlet should review their editorial position on immigration and instruct its editorial board to open the books more on an important issue.

However, these criticism also apply to any proposed omnibus legislation that would seek to reconcile conflicting differences among the numerous bills that have been offered for consideration by the state Legislature.

The legislature’s intentions should disturb any responsible advocate for immigration reform who knows that any change must be predicated on an objective, accurate review of what is constitutionally possible and appropriate. State Sen. Curt Bramble is planning to push ahead despite the plain factual evidence that a Robles-Mero work permit or any other piece of proposed legislation violates fundamental preemptive doctrine in the U.S. Constitution.

Politically-fueled anger and frustration at Congress’ failure to enact immigration reform are not legitimate excuses to ignore the wise limits and carefully cultivated balance of powers that are at the heart of the U.S. Constitution, arguably among the most stable documents of governance ever drafted in our human history.

As socially ruinous as state-initiated immigration reform proposals appear, every reasonable Utah citizen and voter should be alarmed at the egregious irresponsibility our state legislators have undertaken in this effort. Every legislator took an oath that compels them to uphold the highest and supreme laws not only of this state but also of this nation.

Furthermore, our collective alarm should be extended to those who present themselves as advocates of responsible reform. Even as members of the Utah Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association know that virtually any state proposal would fail U.S. Constitution tests, the specter of political intimidation is enough to get so-called lawyer advocates to back the Robles-Mero proposal just for the sake of ensuring Sandstrom’s initiative doesn’t pass. Just recently, Alvarez, who had received an award for his pro bono work from the Utah Minority Bar Association (which, incidentally, has expressed reservations about the Robles-Mero proposal), reminded his colleagues that when legislators and others start attacking the Constitution, lawyers should be willing to speak out in defense of the Constitution.

Do not be fooled. Utah legislators, select editorial boards (Deseret News, KSL), Paul Mero, some business groups, and high-profile media personalities are slyly positioning this effort as a way of showing that Utah can trump Arizona with a Utah Compact which appears innocently admirable on paper but really is a dangerous pretext to socially ruinous policy that will be inevitably challenged in the federal courts, all at great expenses of money and resources. In Utah, immigration reform has become a smokescreen for blatant political opportunism that benefits only a handful of people anxious to build their profile in a state which has enormous potential for economic growth and political clout.

Many people know of Arizona’s nativist law and the legal challenges it faces. However, a new report by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama indicates why every state, municipality, and town in this nation should think twice before plunging into immigration reform. In summary:

The towns that passed nativist laws in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Texas and Nebraska, along with the state of Arizona, have spent millions of dollars to defend them in court, and almost every judicial decision so far has gone against them. One community, faced with skyrocketing legal costs, had to raise property taxes, and another was forced to cut personnel and special events and even outsource its library. Only one had even a small part of its ordinance upheld in the courts.

Furthermore, the report provides evidence of escalating racial tensions, which, in turn, compromise the opportunities to reverse course and return to sanity. This is why these efforts have been characterized at The Selective Echo as socially ruinous.

This is not a matter of partisanship. I offer a quote by Federal Judge Jane Boyle in Texas (in fact, a Bush appointee):

‘Indeed, we can imagine the slippery slope, if you will, if every local and state government enacted laws purporting to determine that even though the federal government was permitting the person to reside in the country generally, the person could not stay in their bounds. If every city and state enacted and enforced such laws and then began deporting people to other cities and states, the federal government’s control over decisions relating to immigration would be effectively eviscerated because the people it was allowing to stay in the United States would eventually have nowhere to live.’

Let’s stop before we go down the wrong path.

Now for Mark Alvarez’s words:

Don’t let Utah become Arizona!

We do not need one voice. We do not need ten voices. We need ten thousand voices. Every voice counts—in many languages.

No hace falta una voz. No hacen falta diez voces. Hacen falta diez mil voces. Cada voz cuenta.

This building might look like the U.S. Capitol, but it is the wrong place for immigration reform. We need federal action, not state distraction.

Don’t let Utah become Arizona!

The Supreme Court is clear: immigration authority is federal. Political frustration and anger, no matter how deep, do not change that. The U.S. Constitution’s enduring and wise strength is how it reminds us to avoid the temptation to take political shortcuts that do not benefit the will of the people.

Don’t let Utah become Arizona!

Let’s not be fooled by political rhetoric. A Utah work permit violates federal law, Title 8 United States Code Section 1324a. Honest facts trump false hope. There is no waiver. Not for cheap labor. Not for political ambition.

Don’t let Utah become Arizona!

Witch-hunt enforcement policies are cruel. They are unconstitutional. In Arizona, the court stopped them. Here, we must stop them.

Don’t let Utah become Arizona!

Immigration should never be an issue of “them versus us.” It is about all of us. At our best, we see clearly how a good society should include good people.

Recently, I interviewed an undocumented student. She is from Mexico but has spent most of her life here in Utah. Belinda called herself a hybrid. We are all hybrids. It is the American nature. We should celebrate that nature.

The Utah history encyclopedia suggests that everyone who has come here from elsewhere is, in a sense, an immigrant. Immigrants bring initiative, energy and determination.

Celebrate the undocumented student who succeeds in school. Keep instate tuition.

Celebrate workers, especially those who do hard work that others won’t or don’t do. It is wrong to pit documented workers against undocumented workers for political gain. Protect workers’ rights.

Celebrate those with accents. Offer help to those who seek to learn English.

Celebrate people and families who come here to strive for their dreams, for the life, liberty and happiness of our founding values.

Celebrate the Constitution.

Celebrate human beings.

Celebrate every voice.

Don’t let Utah become Arizona!

Below is Brandon’s recap. Photos are courtesy of Rick Pollock.

Matthew Bennett’s new short play, ‘This Is Now’ is a fitting way to mark an important milestone in Equality Utah’s public mission. The play featured the past and present stages in a father-and-son relationship where issues of equality and justice, including the right of same-sex marriage, are explored in the most personal territory possible. Bennett’s play masterfully showcased the importance of support and understanding for both sides, especially in those relationships closest to us.

Bennett’s play, once again, reinforces the fantastic capacity of the creative arts to communicate messages that ring sympathetically and empathetically with the audience. And, while it was commissioned for an anniversary celebration of Equality Utah, the play also fits precisely into Plan-B Theatre’s own 20th anniversary season-long celebration. Next month, the company will premiere Bennett’s ‘Mesa Verde’ which explores the relationship between estranged sisters in their quest for hope and healing. And, in the spring, Eric Samuelsen’s ‘Borderlands’ explores a diversified realm of Mormon culture and true identities in relationships.

‘This Is Now’ epitomizes the symbiosis of two important community institutions whose missions ultimately converge in shaping the public discussions we have about these issues. Plan-B’s productions leave the territory open ended so that the conversation continues long after the theater has gone dark. For Equality Utah, the artistic expressions provide empowering and revealing cues to help shape and position their messages that are beginning to pierce through the intolerant, non-affirming noise often found when issues of gay rights and human justice are debated in Utah.

Since 2001, Equality Utah has grown steadily to become the state’s largest organization dedicated to securing equal rights for all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientations and identities. The organization counts many other community groups among its partners, including Plan-B, sthe Human Rights Education Center and the Utah chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, just to name a few.

Equality Utah’s mission undoubtedly has become broad, raising the profile of awareness for aspects including bias crimes, HIV/AIDS healthcare, marriage/partner recognition, non-discrimination, parenting and family, racial and economic justice, transgender and youth services. Most recently, it has set in motion the platform for a statewide trend of nondiscrimination ordinances being enacted in the state’s largest cities and important centers of population and economic activity.

For more information about Equality Utah see here, and for Plan-B, see here.

In disturbingly increasing frequency, the editorial boards at media institutions across the nation are discarding cardinal journalistic rules that once dictated that any informed responsible editorial paid first and foremost attention to facts and the accuracy of those statements. Unfortunately, recent editorials in The Deseret News and KSL which proclaim their support for seriously misguided piecemeal solutions to immigration problems exemplify just how editors have become careless with facts. It suggests an emerging pattern where facts can be printed with no concerns about their nature. Simply, editorials can be based on facts that are incorrect, incomplete, uncorroborated, and selectively redacted.

I’ll leave it to Mark Alvarez (below) to raise the specific and significant lapses in factual accuracy that are evident in editorials such as these. However, let me raise a broader issue that should concern every media consumer. The potential consequences of being wrong in an editorial as opposed to a news article are far more extensive because of the impact upon the public discourse when it comes to deciding how issues are judged. Here, facts are used to persuade but what if those facts are wrong?

The rule always has been that an editor publicly admits the error and prints (or broadcasts) the correction to it. Regrettably, that will not be the case here. Sure, letters may be written to the editor that may be printed long after the urgent momentum to reconcile the error has lapsed. Also, editors will leave it to essentially uninformed readers to decide on their own who is more credible. And, for those leveraging the PR efforts to sway public opinion and buzz for their politically and selfishly motivated efforts that will do nothing whatsoever to rectify immigration problems, they’ll be happy to know that editors will not bother to admit their errors or correct them in a prominent manner.

This is not good journalism. And, it misleads deeply. Reader, beware.

Now to Mark Alvarez:

In a recent editorial, The Deseret News made an analogy between state efforts at welfare reform and the possibility of a state effort at immigration reform. However well intentioned in advocating humane treatment of undocumented immigrants, the Deseret News suggestion of a “Utah solution” on immigration is misinformed.

There is a specific federal law prohibiting the unlawful employment of unauthorized aliens: Title 8 United States Code Section 1324a. A state-level work permit would directly contradict this law and essentially make the state-produced document fraudulent.

While some people have talked about waivers or federal approval, the federal executive branch and the President cannot authorize a violation of federal law without corresponding action by Congress. In practice, only a federal solution could provide a “Utah solution.” The tail does not wag the dog.

Welfare reform waivers were available under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. This allowed the executive branch to waive specific provisions of the act within states for welfare experiments or demonstration projects to reduce welfare recipiency, ease transitions into the labor market for welfare clients, or otherwise advance the objectives of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program.

Welfare reform waivers made sense on policy and administrative grounds, as federal administrative functions could be handled through state agencies. The same does not hold true for work permits that are handled exclusively by the federal government. Immigration reform is different from welfare reform.

Frustration over federal inaction concerning immigration is understandable. However, it should not lead to disregard for the U.S. Constitution and journalistic ethics. Veracity and verification still mean something.

The Deseret News, KSL, and every other Utah media outlet should review their editorial position on immigration and instruct its editorial board to open the books more on an important issue.