Field can be soapbox, too

So who will be the Jackie Robinson of the All-Star Game? Who will be the player willing to step forward and take a stand on matters not entirely related to baseball itself, but rather to how we ought to live together in society? A year ago, the nation readied to target Arizona. Campaigns were organized to strip its claim to the All-Star Game because the Legislature had passed a tough immigration law, now mimicked by four other states. Many tried to persuade Major League Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig to move the game. And, yet, the 2011 All-Star lineups will take Chase Field on Tuesday night.

It’s not a bad outcome. Too often, boycotts are mounted with unrealistic and romanticized hopes of what they can accomplish. The showcase game of our national pastime – or “beisbol” to so many of the game’s most talented players – is a perfect stage from which to make some incisive points about immigration and prejudice. Even without moving the game.

Nearly 30 percent of Major League Baseball’s players are Latino. They’re Cuban, Venezuelan, Dominican and Mexican, many adding a hyphenated “American” as a label, too.

So let’s watch beisbol. And talk and think.

Let’s hear the injured Albert Pujols do an interview where he asks Congress to halt the state-by-state tinkering with immigration law by doing its job and passing long-term solutions. Let’s listen to a player speaking accented English articulate how the issue allows people with unsavory views of immigrants in general to be cloaked with a facade of respectability.

Modern players have an opportunity for impact, just as Robinson did in his era.

Some will adamantly assert that this is different. They’ll say Robinson breaking the color barrier was a necessary move in social progress. To that I say, it’s easy to be on the morally right side of segregation in 2011.

But in 1947, when Robinson first suited up for the Dodgers, an awful lot of people didn’t want him around. And their disgust at his presence in their whites-only world was backed up by the rule of law.

Yes, the circumstances differ. (The major one being this: Robinson could only play, not speak his mind. For a black man of his time, speaking out could be deadly.) But I see similarities in Congress’ gutless inaction, flanked by the over- reaching zeal of states like Arizona. And the immigrant issue ultimately boils down to the question of how to integrate people the majority population views with disfavor.

For decades, Congress has refused to alter visa policies to allow legal entry to workers our economy needs, looking the other way as employers recruited illegal labor. And now all of a sudden we wonder how 11 million people came to be living in our midst, many of whom have started families and are raising legal U.S.-born children. Some in Arizona and elsewhere are latching to the idea of stripping citizenship from those so-called anchor babies, too.

Bear in mind that, as originally intended, the Arizona law would have chased around legal immigrants and U.S.-born citizens who bear a resemblance by name or skin tone to the unwanted immigrants. It’s all tied up in lawsuits now, stymied by an injunction and court battles.

But Arizona isn’t backing down. Gov. Jan Brewer vows she’ll take her law to the U.S. Supreme Court.

That’s the “keeping them in their place” spirit that many African-Americans recognize from the civil rights struggle. Painful memories allow them to see the folly of Arizona’s law, which obliges police to question anyone they thought might be an illegal immigrant. Given the demographic realities of Arizona, that would target all Latinos in the state, most of whom are legally present, if not U.S. citizens.

As it happens, I oppose illegal immigration. Anyone with an iota of common sense does. It’s horrible situation for citizens, for businesses, for communities, for immigrants, for everyone.

But how can we solve it in a constructive, effective and fair way? That’s the dilemma.

Play ball … beisbol.