Dodgers Karma

I have been a Dodgers fan for over 25 years. Some of my favorite players were Piazza, Karros, Mondesi, Nomo, Kershaw, just to name a few. The one thing I have not been a fan of was, and is, the ownerships. Rupert Murdoch and the Fox people were bad. Trading [Mike] Piazza was one of the worst baseball moves of recent memory. Proving [Murdoch] does not deserve to be a Major League Baseball owner.

Then we get Frank McCourt. The underhanded nonsense that went on with the finances were sickening. For the record, he still owns the parking at the stadium, which is revolting. But, alas, it gets worse. The Guggenheim group buys the team fronted by Magic Johnson. Great business move. The problem is the fans (a.k.a. me) get left out.

Four long years of being shut out and not being able to watch my favorite team. Yes, I get to watch the Angels, but it is not the same. The Dodgers should win a World Series but only if Magic and Co. bring back our beloved team. I truly believe we lost game 7 due to karma.

Steven Lawrence
Santa Barbara

(Editor’s note: Funny enough, after the third inning of the 7th game of this year’s World Series, with the Astros ahead 5-0, I changed the channel to watch something else, realizing I didn’t really care who won. – J.B.)

Trump “Death Penalty” Comments

Rachel Maddow (MSNBC) and Chris Matthews (CNN) vented their righteous indignation about President Trump’s “death penalty” tweets regarding the ISIS terrorist murders (via “assault vehicle”) in New York City.

Their primary concern is that the Uzbeki native who arrived in America via the “Diversity Visa Lottery” program would not be able to receive a fair trial. 

I didn’t see Maddow or Matthews crying their famous crocodile tears for the eight innocent victims who were handed a death penalty just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Dale Lowdermilk
Santa Barbara

(Editor’s note: FYI, crocodile tears are extremely difficult to produce under the bright and hot lights of a television news studio. – J.B.)

An Immigration Plan

Much has been said about the future of the men and women that, having entered this country illegally as minors, are being temporary protected by a presidential executive order known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). The general opinion seems to indicate that a fair, humanitarian, but lawful permanent solution is needed to resolve the situation of approximately 800,000 of these individuals. On June 15, 2012, President Obama signed an Executive Order that initiated DACA. He chose this approach rather than submitting a proposal to Congress because he believed Congress would not support any version of DACA. This order covered all children who had entered the country illegally, whether brought by their parents or otherwise. According to immigration law, all these arrivals are candidates for deportation.

Some of these arrivals have been in the country for many years and are now adults who have spent most of their lives in the USA. These people constantly live with the fear of deportation back to their country of origin.

The DACA order is not a law, and recent evaluations by this administration and other legal organizations have found that DACA is unconstitutional. As a consequence, President Trump has given Congress six months to either make DACA lawful or the order will be null and void.

The strongest argument in favor of congressional support for DACA is a humanitarian one. The counter arguments are more diverse: The individuals protected by DACA entered the country illegally, are being protected by an unconstitutional edict, have benefited from free education and healthcare, and have been free to travel as if they were citizens. Even if some adults are currently paying taxes, the total amount paid is much less than what they have received in benefits. 

Congress is considering many topics that will have major impacts on the entire U.S. population – e.g., tax reform, healthcare, international trade – so it is not clear that it will take any action on the 800,000 DACA members within the next six months. The current administration has made it clear that DACA will expire without congressional action. 

The future of DACA members thus ranges from one extreme to another. Congress can pass a law granting total amnesty or can take no action, which could mean deportation.

In addition, President Trump has said that he will sign a bill passed by Congress that protects DACA members if it includes a long list of provisions for greater border security, including a border “wall.” A small group of Republicans in Congress have proposed a bill that includes a pathway to legalization for DACA members who arrived in the U.S. under age 16 and before June 15, 2012, if they meet the following eligibility requirements: 

Passing a criminal background check;

Paying off tax liabilities;

Submitting biometric data to the Department of Homeland Security; and

Signing a waiver that would revoke certain benefits if they violate status term.

DACA members seem to be offended by a number of President Trump’s border security requirements and especially the provision for a border wall. They don’t like the idea that they are being treated like chips in a game of political poker in which their victory would appear to make them responsible for drastic immigration measures, including the building of a barrier between countries.

A simpler solution may be a proposal that DACA members are given 6 to 12 months to resolve their eligibility for immigration and that they return to their home countries in the process. All that meet normal immigration standards and want to return to the U.S. should be given top priority, expedited applications for legal immigration. Those that choose to return to the U.S. could do so con la frente en alto, i.e., with the head held high, without having to hide and being viewed as responsible for drastic immigration provisions, including a border wall.

This humanitarian approach would allow DACA members to live with dignity in the U.S. without fear of deportation, and if they wish eventually to become U.S. citizens. This modest approach would likely require some congressional action and the president’s signature in order to survive challenges.

Albert Mercado
Santa Barbara

Mi Casa, Su Casa, Dorinda

Boy, the word got out and Casa Dorinda residents put their all into this Halloween event. Full-on decorations swaddled the walls and ceiling in the temporary dining room (renovations are underway), an elaborate buffet was piled upon the tables, and a jazz band knocked out upbeat tunes as costumed employees served costumed residents.

If this is “retirement,” where do I sign up?

Diana Starr Langley
Montecito

• 

• 

Thanks for the Upkeep

As a Santa Barbara county employee who frequents Butterfly Beach for routine cleanup and maintenance, I think it would be really nice for Montecito Journal to make a small remark and a “thank you” to Clint Orr. He builds really interesting driftwood art on the cliff, but more importantly, he takes time out of his day to trim the hedges and keep the steps down to the beach swept and clean. I think a little bit of surprise recognition would be really appreciated by him. 

You’re more than welcome to use the attached picture, if you’re inclined to do so.

Anonymous
Santa Barbara

Art for Art’s Sake

I love coming across things like this, just across the street from homes that are listed for sale for $37 and $19 million.

Dan Seibert
Santa Barbara

(Editor’s note: And we love that you keep sending us things like this. – J.B.)