Thanks for laying the situation out very clearly. I can imagine the turmoil up there around this issue. I like that the school is taking a stand against a very discriminatory law. I think illegal immigrants need to be brought out of the darkness and given some sort of life. They are everywhere and part of our world. Immigration under Obama would change dramatically like everything else if it can get on the table and worked out. But it is an explosive issue. Just like anything else that is important. The idea of Palin expounding about the sports aspect of it all and offering to raise money shows just where her head is. Off the mark. sigh.

zanelle--I tried to stay as calm as possible in writing this. Never a good thing when a debate begins with a politician saying we ought to keep politics out of this, then declaring, "Them's fightin' words."

the near in suburbs surrounding Chicago have changed quite a bit since I was there more than 30 years ago. I took a couple of classes at Morton Junior College, now changed to Morton College and it represented the community demographic. It still does, but it is nearly all Hispanic and the classes are mostly geared to remedial work to do the things that the high schools could not. My good friend teaches English and Literature there, well, he teaches one Lit class and the rest are middle school equivalent remedial writing classes. It's no longer a stepping stone to transfer to a 4 year school as it was generations ago, but in spite of that it is indeed serving the needs of the community--the needs have evolved into what they are today.

So, how do you honor the community you serve in a decision to not attend a tournament in AZ? What goes into that decision? I'm not convinced that any student that goes to AZ for the tournament would ever even be asked to provide documents let alone be in danger of being deported...the outcry and fall off from that would drown out the current sturm and drang. There won't be a unanimous decision on it, lots of people will be unhappy. But the leaders/decision makers have to get as close to doing the right thing as they can. A consensus decision is often misunderstood--consensus meaning that sometimes it's something that some have to live with in spite of their preferences.

There is too much prejudice and hatred, with too little acknowledgement of history in how we have evolved as a country in all of this, and it's part and parcel of the political divisions and hatreds in our polarized society. People screaming about the costs of social services used, with no mention of what good the immigrants, both legal and illegal provide--they pay taxes that provide for society's infrastructure, they pay federal taxes. There have been studies on what they pay vs what the cost of services they use. It's just too easy to make claims without knowing or having the correct data. The rallying cry of "they're taking our jobs" is just a hollow thing, as if there would be even a percentage of Americans, regardless of their ethnicity, that would lie prone on a machine all day long harvesting lettuces in intolerable heat.

You've raised some interesting thoughts Jimmy, and I appreciate your calm approach to it. I don't have a clue on the best path for the most in this, but my sense is that the Arizona laws go against the very nature of what our country has been in the past and what it ought to be. My own father was an immigrant, though I don't have a clue if he was legal or not.

Thanks for how you've done this.

An outstanding piece as usual, Brother Jim. Will you be attending the school board meeting Monday night? What time is the meeting? I think we may see all sorts of television crews and equipment clogging up St. Johns Ave, Vine Ave, etc...

Apparently that part of Chicagoland has changed more dramatically than I knew. My own alma mater, Proviso East, was unrecognizable to me when I returned to Maywood several years ago.
Anyway, now that I know that Highland Park has such a large Latino population, I am intrigued by this dilemma they are facing. Jimmy, I pray the reason the High School gave was actually the reason, but I tend to agree with your suspicion of that. Why wouldn't they just let the thing play out and allow the team to go? Each parent of each team member knows whether or not they are documented. If they aren't and the parents were afraid to risk it, they would have to make the individual decision to pull their player from the roster. IMHO, that's where the responsibility lies. It leaves the school administration completely out of it.

Lezlie

One of my college roommates qualified for the 1980 summer Olympics in Moscow and didn't get to go because of U.S. boycott.

For many years, my family has held a spring-break reunion in Arizona to watch spring training baseball and bake the cold out of our bones. My kids have, independent from us, drafted a letter to all the teams that train in Arizona, explaining why we won't be coming. I know that's a different activity, and a decision they've made on their own, but my general impression of their peers is that bright, informed kids are pretty idealistic. When parents start shouting, "This isn't fair to my kid," they ought to be thinking about other kids, in Arizona, who would love to have this as their worst problem.

I'm interested in how the Los Angeles economic boycott will relate to electrical utilities, because a lot of California's power comes from Arizona.

It's very hard to get people to think at such a 'high level' as to the impacts of what one small decision can make. When precedence is set, it becomes district wide, and impacts all future decisions (and players). I believe the school board is doing the right thing. The only people turning this political are the politicians.

Arizona? I'm just not sure about any longer...

Damn, go Highland Park!!

Not going makes sense to me, especially when they can go to a different tournament. It's also a preventative measure in case there is an undocumented player next year.

I was surprised by Zorn's column also. I'm glad High Lonesome brought up the 1980 Olympics, so I don't have to mention it.

While I think the odds are remote that any of the girls would need to prove citizenship, I have no faith in the AZ legislature and Governor. They felt completely justified in banning ethnic studies classes. How difficult is it to imagine them passing a law requiring proof of citizenship to participate in any athletic tournament?

Let the team go to Florida. Take them to Disney World afterward. What else could the team do in AZ? Play golf with the old, xenophobic, white lawmakers who passed these laws?

bbd--There is a reason Arizona is a sought-after destination for sporting events. It's wonderful and they have invested in facilities that help make it so.

I did consider whether my position was unfair to the tourney sponsors and the state. It's tempting to assume a position is safe simply because Sarah Palin is on the other side. The law takes effect in June or July, and perhaps after a few months, there might not be such concern in other states about visiting. Officials here have to make these decisions now in order to seal a spot in the tourney. It may be true that a girl in a sporting event wouldn't have a problem. But local officials here, it seems to me, are assumed by critics to be acting without regard to the team, and I felt someone needed to take their side. Did they really want to make a splash and make a political statement? Or did they have reasonable concerns for the safety of the students?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Aunt Suz--The meeting has beeen moved from its normal location to the the auditorium at Deerfield High School, I assume to accommodate heightened interest. It's at 7:30 Monday night and, yes, I plan to attend.

L--Highland Park does not have a large Latino population, but the school district encompasses Highwood to the north, which does. The total in the district is about ten percent. I can't read minds, but it seems reasonable to me that they would be concerned about sending a message to prospective team members by accepting the invite.

High Lonesome--I enjoyed a spring training trip to Arizona myself, in 2006, following the White Sox World Series Championship. A terrific and inexpensive trip for a baseball fan. Kudos to your kids for standing on principle. Seems most of the threats of boycott are not vindictive in nature, but instead hope to be pursuasive. Members of the Legislature were taken by surprise when it became clear the law might hurt their tourism industry. Is it possible they can re-draft the law, giving cops the tools they need to fight crime without scaring the bejeezus out of folks in the other 49 states?

Sparking--I've been there a few times have great affection for the place, and respect for the folks I've encountered. I know there are legitimate concerns about crime associated with human smuggling, safe houses popping up in the burbs with nasty-ass guard dogs in the yard 24, seven. I think we can cut through the noise and get to the heart of the matter. Call me a dreamer, but I like to believe this country is still capable of addressing its problems without turning on each other.

Julie--Not sure if you are referring to the administrators or the athletes, but allow me to give the latter their props for an outstanding season.

Bellwether--Some of the coverage on Fox may have left the impression that this was a continuation of the season which was somehow cut off by the admin. Not so. It's a holiday tourney, for next year's team, and they'll go somewhere else.

stim--Thanks for checking in. I'm sure they'll have a fine time. Best case scenario might be that Arizona relents before the law takes effect.

Jimmy, I think that's possible as long as they don't fall prey to the polarization that seems so prevalent these days. If the Arizona legislature can believe that those who oppose the law don't want lawlessness, maybe they can fix it. If they and their supporters instead take refuge in saying that opponents don't care about all the negative consequences of uncontrolled immigration, they don't have much incentive, other than the economic threat, to refine their legislation, and if they hold up the economic repercussions as the inevitable backlash that strikes anyone who tries to enforce any standards at all, the boycotts will fail.

The best possibility is that the federal government will step up to the plate and let Arizona off the hook.

this team member is not going to be questioned unless she is doing something illegal
why are you not up in arms about thousands of American victims of violent crime of poor immigrants?
thousands who have lost good jobs and businesses to slave labor of the undomcumented here?
we have had millions flooding in here for years, we have been tolerant

do you think the carrying capacity of this country is infinite?

QED, unfortunately.

A matter of clarification, please. As I understand it, the Arizona law mandated that LOCAL law enforcement make the judgment who to stop, but that they must stop someone they feel may be undocumented. If that is the case, (I am not sure) then the decision whether to detain in not necessarily rational, and depends on the agenda of the local enforcement officer, which may be as much political and publicity seeking as it is rational. In that case I would not be sanguine that someone on the team would not be stopped.

Your instincts are good, Jim, don't waffle.

"Show me your papers" is a line from a fascist state, not the USA.

Monte

Interesting. This shows the ever-widening problems with the AZ law. I think going to the FL tournament was a wise compromise. I support boycotting AZ until they figure out that this is America, not a police state.

Kathy--To take on all your questions would be another post entirely. One of the points I tried to make is this: Do we want public schools in the immigration enforcement business? The status quo here is we do not. Arizona's law gave pause to educators in another state as to whether they would have to cross that line in order to participate in the tournament. I remain irritated that commentators in Chicago and elsewhere seemed to find this disctinction irrelevant. I do not.

Monte--The law states police are required to ask for proof of citizenship "where reasonable suspicion exists" that the person is here illegally. If they leave the law as is, they may quell fears by using it for its strictly stated purpose. Say cops pull over a truck and in back are a dozen folks with bags of clothes and no identification. Fairly reasonable to assume they are being brought in illegally. As I mentioned before, there are reports of safe houses in the cities and suburbs. Cops act on a tip see a truck pull up and twenty people pile out the back and into the house. These would probably be seen by others around the country as police acting within the law to stop a crime.

Since the law hasn't taken effect yet, people are free to use their imaginations to see cops hassling every Hispanic they see for ID. We can't know how the law will be applied until it passes. Since the decision here has to be made now, or soon, I can understand school officials taking a pass on the trip.

Lea--The shock of Arizona officials surprises me. The state has a huge tourism industry. I have to believe there was opposition in some quarters. Haven't seen any polling on the law within the state. It would be interesting to see if support has remained steady.

yeah, I, too, am shocked at AZ's "shock".

AND...a friend was in last week from Phoenix, and he was pleading for a more tolerant view. He cited some friends of his who are gay (why this is a selling point, I'm unsure, but I've now heard it thrice) and whose small business - a shop in a tourist shopping arena - might well be sunk by the potential loss of shoppers. And I said, Am I supposed to help support your (gay) friends (vs. just any shopowner) or am I supposed to ask them to stand with me, even if it's against their interests, fiscally, against what is obviously discriminatory behavior, condoned in practice?

This whole thing is so exasperating, and divisive. Which may, indeed, be the point. Erosion, ya know....