Every so often, I pass along a petition that I think readers might want to sign or that focuses on an issue that’s worth a few moments of consideration.

This one focuses on an anti-immigration bill that’s on the table in Mississippi; it comes to me from my friend Miguel Centellas and will be delivered to the Mississippi State House, the Mississippi State Senate, and Governor Phil Bryant:

Please oppose the proposed anti-immigration bill (HB-488). Although illegal immigration is a legitimate problem, it should be resolved at the national level.

In the meantime, bills such as the proposed HB-488 are likely to have more negative effects on the state than benefits. For example, despite a very small population of undocumented immigrants in Mississippi, economists estimate that they provide more than 11% of the state’s tax revenue. Any draconian approach to “solve” a minor problem in this state will almost certainly lead to a significant drop in state revenues, requiring further economic sacrifices for residents.

Additionally, the proposed bill would not only unnecessarily target Hispanic residents (or anyone who looks “foreign” or “different”), it will also do so in ways that will increase bureaucratic red tape and slow down day-to-day operations in the state, costing the state in lost economic opportunities.

The proposed bill should be carefully studied, in light of the disastrous consequences of a similar bill to Alabama’s economy. Even if the moral consequences of a law that clearly targets minorities (and will therefore affect citizens and legal residents, by treating them as second-class citizens and objects of legalized discrimination) do not persuade you, then the stark economic consequences of such a law should.

Do the right thing for Mississippi. Oppose this legislation.

Do you have to be from Mississippi to sign? You do not.

Simply click here and add your name if you’re so inclined.

Have thoughts on the bill, the petition, or on immigration issues more generally? Feel free to send them my way.

A constitutional amendment facing voters in Mississippi on Nov. 8, and similar initiatives brewing in half a dozen other states including Florida and Ohio, would declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person, effectively branding abortion and some forms of birth control as murder.

[…]

Dr. Randall S. Hines , a fertility specialist in Jackson working against Proposition 26 with the group Mississippians for Healthy Families, said that the amendment reflects “biological ignorance.” Most fertilized eggs, he said, do not implant in the uterus or develop further.

“Once you recognize that the majority of fertilized eggs don’t become people, then you recognize how absurd this amendment is,” Dr. Hines said. He fears severe unintended consequences for doctors and women dealing with ectopic or other dangerous pregnancies and for in vitro fertility treatments.

But, really, when has “biological ignorance” ever been a problem for people?

I’ve written fairly extensively on the topic of personhood — especially in relation to the abortion and euthanasia debates — here, here, and here. If you take a moment to read these three posts, I think you’ll see that they highlight the fundamental philosophical problem with Mississippi’s proposed redefinition of personhood, to say nothing of the myriad practical problems — intended an unintended — that this initiative poses for all sorts of people.

About a week ago, in the wake of the GOP debate where a (presumably) pro-life crowd cheered for Rick Perry’s execution record, I wondered about what it really meant to be pro-life in this country and I pointed to the example of the family of a murder victim in Mississippi:

They argue that the death penalty violates the core tenets of their religion and they argue that it is bound up with societal injustices that have deep roots in our history. Public and non-public reasons are being employed here, and you can take your pick as to which you find to be compelling. But even if you aren’t convinced by either one of the arguments they make, you have to agree that this is what a pro-life position looks like.

Now, in case you were wondering what the answer to my question about how the prosecutor would choose to act, after having been asked by the victim’s family not to seek the death penalty against the alleged killer:

A 19-year-old Mississippi man was charged with capital murder Tuesday in the death of an African-American man who died after allegedly being beaten by a group of white teens and run over by a truck, authorities said.

Deryl Paul Dedmon, 19, of Brandon, Mississippi was also charged by a grand jury with hate-crime enhancement in the murder of James Craig Anderson, said Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith.

I’m just guessing, of course, but I’ll bet this District Attorney likely identifies as pro-life … though it seems clear to me that he doesn’t quite understands what that means. He would do well to spend some time speaking with the victim’s family.

I’ve taken a few swipes at the so-called pro-life crowd over the past couple of weeks, mostly as a result of statements by the candidates and the behavior of audience members at the two most recent GOP debates. My argument has been, I think, fairly straightforward: If you say that you hold human life to be sacred, for whatever reason, then you can’t also cheer about people’s deaths — even if they’re people you don’t like or with whom you don’t identify, like criminals or the uninsured.

Now, from Mississippi, we have a stark contrast:

The family of an African-American man who died after allegedly being beaten by a group of white teens and run over by a truck is asking state and federal officials not to seek the death penalty in the case.

Relatives of James Craig Anderson, who died shortly after receiving his injuries on June 26, sent a letter with their request to the prosecutor in the case, Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith.

“We ask that you not seek the death penalty for anyone involved in James’ murder,” the letter states; the letter is signed by Barbara Anderson Young, James Craig Anderson’s sister who is in charge of, and speaks for, his estate.

The letter states that the family is opposed to the death penalty partly for religious convictions.

“Our opposition to the death penalty is deeply rooted in our religious faith, a faith that was central in James’ life as well,” the letter states. But the family goes on to explain that there is another reason for their opposition, one that is tied to Mississippi’s racial past.

“We also oppose the death penalty because it historically has been used in Mississippi and the South primarily against people of color for killing whites,” the letter states. “Executing James’ killers will not help to balance the scales. But sparing them may help to spark a dialogue that one day will lead to the elimination of capital punishment.”

This family is pro-life.

They argue that the death penalty violates the core tenets of their religion and they argue that it is bound up with societal injustices that have deep roots in our history. Public and non-public reasons are being employed here, and you can take your pick as to which you find to be compelling. But even if you aren’t convinced by either one of the arguments they make, you have to agree that this is what a pro-life position looks like.

Now … what do you suppose the prosecutor will do?