Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
Monday, January 12,2004
EDITORIAL
Immigration
proposals
put Bush on
the left track
President Bush deserves at least tentative praise this
week for his recently proposed immigration policy — for
a bold political coup that strengthens his political stand
ing while probably improving the lives of people work
ing within America's borders.
Bush outlined his new program Wednesday, wherein
otherwise illegal immigrants could apply for temporary
three-year visas (with the probable option of a three-year
extension) and work in United States legally for that time.
After their tenure, those workers could apply for permanent
residency, although the system (rightfully) wouldn't grant
any preference to those in the new temporary worker pro
gram. If they do not, or don't qualify for Green Cards, they
would be required by law — presumably one better en
forced than current illegal immigration and work laws — to
return to their home country. Illegal immigrants who ap
plied to the system would need to prove that they were
working to remain in the country, a requirement that
should discourage a flood of illegal immigration.
Some conservatives complained that the provisions re
ward lawbreakers.
People who are here illegally — they need to be de
ported," Rep. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colo., argued. "Peo
ple who hire them need to be fined. If they keep doing it,
they need to be sent to jail. It's against the law."
Some liberals blasted the plan for not doing enough to
resolve illegal immigration issues. Either way, that the
plan is (predictably) coming under attack from both sides
of the Congressional aisle paints Bush as a moderate on a
sensitive issue in an election year, when wooing moderate
and swing votes is, by definition, critical.
The move could attract usually left-leaning Hispanic
voters, too, who comprise the largest and fastest-growing,
and therefore increasingly politically essential, minority
in the United States. In 2000, only 35 percent of Hispan
ics voted for Bush (compared to Vice President Al Gore's
65 percent).
Bush's goal, an administration official said, was to
"promote compassion" and to fix the "broken" immigra
tion-work system. And the system is very much broken:
An estimated 8 million undocumented immigrants —
most from Mexico — now live in America.
The White House program is similar to various pro
posals sitting in Congress.
A sage suggestion comes from Rep. Jim Kolbe, R-Ariz.,
who would allow (otherwise illegal) temporary workers
to take jobs, given that they were first posted on the In
ternet for 14 days so that U.S. citizens could get the first
chance to apply.
Such a provision is essential, too, to prevent an increase in
citizen unemployment and to satisfy the program's stated
goal of matching "willing workers with willing employers."
It's critical, too, that any immigration work program
that legalizes the presence of currently illegal immigrants
be combined with a more aggressive system of tracking
down and deporting illegal immigrants who choose not
to enter the system. Also, a determined assault — includ
ing harsher penalties — on businesses that continue to
hire illegal immigrants is needed.
Otherwise, the system would devolve into a three-tier
equivalent of the present, dysfunctional system: legal
workers, newly legal immigrant workers under the pro
gram and illegal immigrant workers who have little more
incentive to join the problem than they do now.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Brad Schmidt
Editor in Chief
Jan Tobias Montry
Managing Editor
Travis Willse
Editorial Editor
Jennifer Sudick
Freelance Editor
Ayisha Yahya
News Editor
Eric Layton Illustrator
Quick to judge
Last week, the judge in the Scott Peterson
case approved a change of venue motion
filed by Peterson's defense. He agreed that
Peterson couldn't receive a fair trial in
Modesto, Calif., where 39 percent of the
people polled believe Peterson is guilty and
61 percent are undecided.
Those statistics caught my attention. Be
fore the first word of the first opening argu
ment 39 percent of those asked believed this
man was a murderer. No "innocent until
proven guilty" for Peterson.
I confess that I think Scott Peterson killed
his wife. I haven't followed the case closely,
haven't watched a single in-depth television
program about the case and I haven't tried to
keep up with all the updates. I formed my
opinion from the snippets I've seen on CNN
and other channels, in the newspapers, and
on some of the Web sites I visit to keep up
with the changes in the world around me.
So, if I think Peterson is guilty, what's rny
problem? Well, there's a tiny voice in the
back of my head that keeps reminding me
that the only facts I have to base my conclu
sion on come from the media. And, while I
tend to argue on the side of journalistic in
tegrity, let's face it Reporters aren't asked to
swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth before they
file a story, and no one asks them to weigh
the prejudicial effect of what they are report
ing against its probative value.
But what if he didn't do it?
Peterson's jurors are going to listen to the
information that our laws deem admissible
in court. Facts presented to the jury will be
relevant the witnesses will be under oath
and will be subject to perjury charges for any
untruths and some information, where rel
evance is outweighed by the ability to incite
emotions and prejudice, will be excluded
from their consideration. If they decide; on
the basis of the evidence presented to them,
that Scott Peterson is not guilty beyond a rea
sonable doubt, I will trust their judgment If,
however, they conclude that he is guilty, I am
going to wonder if it was because of what
Jessica Cole-Hodgkinson
Huh? What? Really.
they heard in court or because of what they
heard in the media.
A bit of background for those of you who
have recently returned from Tibetan monas
teries and are unfamiliar with the case. In
Modesto lived a young man named Scott Pe
terson and his beautiful, pregnant wife, Lad.
On Christmas Eve; he went fishing and she
disappeared. Months later, her body and the
body of her unborn child were found washed
ashore. Her husband has been accused of
their murders. Those are the bare facts.
Of course; there are other facts we've been
told. For example, when he was arrested, Pe
terson was wearing a Van Dyke goatee and
had dyed his hair blond; Peterson's lawyer is
the same guy who represented Winona Ry
der in her shoplifting trial; and who would
n't want to know that while Lad was alive,
Peterson had an affair with Amber Frey? Did
I mention that nude pictures of Frey have
ended up on the Internet?
Those probably aren't relevant facts, but
they do influence the way I think about the
case. That these facts come from the same
news sources that I look to for information
on politics, the economy and the war on ter
rorism creates a false impression of their im
portance. Worse, because this information
comes from mainstream media, these facts
are easily transformed from irrelevant to sig
nificant. The process goes something like
this:
The news media report the blond hair
and the goatee; the news media report
things that are relevant; therefore, blond
hair and a goatee must be relevant; conclu
sion: Peterson is attempting to disguise
himself with blond hair and a goatee.
Or, the news media report that Peter
son's lawyer represented Winona Ryder;
the news media report things that are
important; therefore, the former clients
of Peterson's lawyer must be relevant;
conclusion: Peterson's lawyer defends
guilty clients.
Get the picture? Before long, instead of
thinking about facts, I just shortcut to what
ever conclusions I drew from the mere re
porting of the information. So now, Peterson
was wearing a disguise; his lawyer thinks he's
guilty and his nude mistress was probably
more sexually interesting to him than his
eight-months-pregnant wife
On the basis of this and information
much like it I've decided — though it is nei
ther reasonable rational nor remotely fair—
that Scott Peterson killed his wife. For his
sake and for the sake of our system of justice
I hope his jurors have more sense
Contact the columnist at
jessicacolehodgkinson@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
ONLINE POLL
Each week, the Emerald publishes the
results of the previous poll and the
coming week’s poll question.
Visit http://www.dailyemerald.com to
vote.
Last question: Snow?
Results: Forty-nine votes.
• I love it and want more: 57.1 percent
or 28 votes.
• That was fine and I’ve had enough:
26.5 percent or 13 votes.
• That was awful and I hate snow: 14.3
percent or seven votes.
• Don’t care: 2.0 percent or one vote.
This week: Does the city of Eugene
need a housing code?
Choices: Yes, it will be a benefit to
students; Yes, it’s the ethical thing to do;
No, it will force landlords to raise rent;
No, Eugene is fine without.