Los Suns

It's not very often that you find an athlete or an organization that takes a stand on a social issue anymore. Most team owners don't want to take the chance of offending a potential ticket buyer, and today's athletes are more likely to be self-centered and focused on their next buck. Sure, there are many athletes and franchises that do wonderful, non-controversial work in local communities and abroad. But when was the last time you heard of either standing up for or against a local, state, or federal policy?

This hasn't always been the case. During the Civil Rights movement you had Jackie Robinson, Jim Brown, Bill Russell, and Muhammad Ali who were willing to challenge their government and their sport in an effort to push towards a true equality not only for the black athlete, but for African-Americans at large.

Unfortunately, the sacrifices made by these athletes and others have been largely taken for granted in the era of the "me first" sports star. Too often, today's top athletes are only available for innocuous and cliched comments that avoid any potential for backlash. Of course, there are plenty of star athletes that get themselves into trouble with their words and their deeds. People like Terrell Owens, Ben Roethlisberger and such. But I'm not talking about those that exhibit loutish behavior, I'm referring to those willing to take a stand for something greater than their own self interest.

People like Steve Nash and Robert Sarver of the Phoenix Suns.

In protest of the execrable new immigration bill that was signed into law by Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010, the Phoenix Suns became "Los Suns" for their playoff game on Cinco De Mayo versus the San Antonio Spurs. Sarver, the team's owner, wanted to show solidarity with the Latino-American citizens of his state and decided to have new jerseys made for the club that said "Los Suns" on the front. The face of the franchise, point guard Steve Nash, has made his feelings about the new law clear as well. In an interview this week with Tony Kornheiser, Nash was asked what he thought of the new law. He plainly stated that he was "against it" and felt that it did not represent the state of Arizona or the country as a whole very well at all.

I suppose this may not seem like that big of a deal. So they changed the name on their uniform and a guy said he was "against it." However, this awful law is thus far very popular in the state of Arizona and even polls well nationally. Therefore, taking a stand against this law creates the potential for very real discomfort for Sarver and Nash. And for this act of courage they should be commended.

As I mentioned before, this is a pretty popular law right now. So, I guess I ought to state why I--like Nash and Sarver--am against it too.

Basically, this law states that Arizona police officers must stop anyone they "suspect" of being an illegal immigrant. During this stop, the individual would be required to produce proof of citizenship. If proof cannot be shown, the individual can be arrested and held until proof is given.

So why is that so bad? I'll tell ya why. What in the hell does "suspicious" mean!? Well, I think I know what it means. It means Mexican, Hispanic, Latino, or more simply put: Brown people. Does anyone really think the police will be stopping white folks and asking them for their papers? Considering that 1/3 of Arizona's population is made up of legal Hispanic-American citizens, the potential for harassment is off the charts. Ask them for their papers? This was a very popular sentence in Nazi Germany. Now, we'll be doing the same thing here. Great.

Now, I know that Arizona has a big problem with illegal immigration. The border control is porous, and the influx of undocumented workers can depress wages for legal citizens. Plus, there is a hot bed of violence that is coming through border towns due to the Mexican drug trade. Obviously, the state of Arizona has a right to be concerned and frustrated. And I don't blame the Governor and the state legislature for wanting to address the problem. However, this law doesn't do that. Not even close.

Ask yourself: Why do so many Mexican citizens cross the border to come to America? They do so at great risk of deportation, or even loss of life. So, once again, why do they come here? First off, their country is very poor with an alarmingly high underemployment rate of 25%. By far, most illegal aliens come here for work. For the want of a better life for themselves and their families. Obviously, coming here without going through proper immigration channels is wrong. But, if the situation were reversed, and the USA had no jobs (yes, I know it's tough right now, but we ain't Mexico) and Mexico did, how many of us would not do the same? Would we not cross a border if it meant feeding ourselves and our family? As I said before, I'm not trying to excuse illegal immigration. But I do think it's important to try and understand it.

What I don't understand though is how a law that cracks down only on the immigrant will be effective. If most of the illegals are coming here for work, shouldn't we be going after those that are knowingly hiring undocumented workers? These employers that hire illegals (mostly in agriculture and construction) are making out like bandits. They get to pay these workers below the legally mandated minimum wage, they pay no benefits or taxes on them, and they can treat them like shit if they choose to because what recourse does the undocumented worker have? So, yes, the non-citizen that crosses the border is at fault for doing so, but aren't we, who provide a market for their services, at greater fault? These bastards that want cheap, untaxed labor with no legal obligations toward the worker are among the lowest of the low in my book. And this law makes no great effort to address them.

Even if we could round up all the illegal aliens in Arizona and the rest of the country (impossible, but for the sake of argument) and shipped them back home, wouldn't they just come back? If they were willing to risk life and limb to get here in the first place what is going to stop their return if there are still employers willing to hire them? I think we know the answer.

I also think we know the answer as to why this law does not address these employers. In short, those people vote and illegal aliens don't. This chickenshit law was created by chickenshit politicians who want to please their base but not lose any votes. However, I believe they are in for a rude awakening.

The republican led Governorship and state house is taking a very short-sighted view with this law. If 1/3 of your constituency is Hispanic and growing at the fastest rate of any minority in the country, well, it doesn't take a genius to see what the future political fortunes of the controlling party will be. As well, what will be the financial impact on the state's tourism business? Already, several businesses have cancelled conventions in the Phoenix area. And if you are an American of Latino descent, are you going to go anywhere near the state? I doubt the supporters of this law gave that possibility much thought.

Not to mention, where are all the strict constitutionalists at on this one? Where are all those folks who show up to rallies with tea bags hanging from their hats shouting about freedom, liberty, and government overreach? How can they support a law that allows an individual to be stopped for being "suspicious" without ever defining what "suspicious" means? Do they only want liberty and freedom to apply to their klan, er, clan?

And here's another point that we may not want to admit: We actually need many of these illegals to come here and work. Can you imagine what the price of produce would rise to if we actually paid a living wage to the pickers? Does anyone out there really want to pay $8.00 for a tomato? This could be resolved by instituting a robust guest worker program and a path to citizenship for those already here. Which of course, is not reflected in the law either.

As far as the drug trade issue goes--well, it's practically the same issue. Why are Mexican drug cartels bringing drugs into the U.S.? Because we'll buy them. If there were no demand for their product, don't you think they would just go somewhere else?

Basically, what we have here is a law that is vague, unconstitutional, racist, and ineffective. It has been created to make certain people feel like something is being done, when in reality the only thing that is likely to change all that much is the level of harassment and lawsuits against the police force. Hell, did you know that it is written in the law that if a citizen feels the police are not making enough stops then they can sue their police force? That means law enforcement will be getting it from both ends. If they stop too many people, they'll get sued for harassment by those they detain, and if some "concerned" citizen feels they aren't racially profiling enough, well, then they can be sued for that too. Talk about a no-win situation.

Maybe the citizens and politicians of Arizona will feel good that we are going after "them," or "those people." However, the fact is "they" aren't the problem. They are only doing what anyone in their situation would do. No. The problem is us. And until "us" is willing to deal with our own desires for cheap labor and illicit drugs, we will just keep spinning in circles, never addressing the real issue.

I imagine these same politicians will point to the overall popularity of the law as a defense. But sometimes, what is popular is not the same as what is right. This would be one of those times. Even the owner of a sports team and a "dumb jock" can see that. I wonder, why can't we?

Sumo-Pop
May 7, 2010