San Francisco grassroots progressive activist Van Jones.
Photo by Luke Thomas
By Chris Daly
September 9, 2009
Late Saturday night, Van Jones resigned his position as Special Adviser to President Obama on green jobs. Van’s resignation came hours after the Obama administration offered no support for Jones under an escalating smear campaign waged by Fox’s Glenn Beck and financed by big oil through Americans for Prosperity.
But this is by no means the political eulogy for one of the few grassroots progressives in the Obama administration or the progressive movement that helped elect Obama. It is, however, a call to action.
I first met Van in 1993 when we organized to stop then Mayor Frank Jordan’s “Matrix” program. Matrix was Jordan’s new police program targeting homeless people for crimes like camping and sleeping in the park. Matrix was at the fore of a national trend of criminalization of poor people. In San Francisco, a youthful group of activists joined together with homeless people and their long-time advocates to challenge Matrix. Under the banner of Mobilization to Stop the Scapegoating (MASS), the coalition launched street-level organizing, public education, and direct action that included documenting police sweeps of homeless encampments and a civil disobedience “Sleep-in” at the Mayor’s Pacific Heights mansion.
Fresh off San Francisco street mobilizations organized by Roots Against War (RAW) the previous summer and now with a Yale Law degree, Van was a steady and strategic leader in the campaign against Matrix. With tireless organizing, we were able to shift public opinion away from Jordan’s crackdown on homeless people, and even forced then-candidate for Mayor, Willie Brown, to come out against Matrix. Just as important, Van had begun to help build the next generation of grassroots activists in the Bay Area.
Van’s subsequent community efforts with Bay Area PoliceWatch and the Ella Baker Center, along with his political organizing in STORM, formed a very powerful political program. Harnessing youthful activism to provide service and care to those most afflicted by the criminal justice system, while overtly challenging the system that created that inequality in the first place (including a sharp critique on race and class), became a model for community organizing in the region. No doubt borrowed and updated for the times from the Black Panther Party’s “feed the people” philosophy; this model of organizing did not overly romanticize 1960’s revolutionaries. It did righteously speak to many people’s disenfranchisement from mainstream politics and desire for greater meaning in our communities.
And the model proved successful. Not only did the ranks of deep-rooted activists and community organizers swell around Jones, but also there were significant people’s victories. Van helped win a modicum of justice for the family of Aaron Williams, who was killed in custody by SF Police Officer Marc Andaya. Through a campaign of heightened pressure on the Police Commission, Andaya was fired. Through Books not Bars, Van helped block the development of a “super jail” to lock up Oakland’s youth.
Like all great organizers, Van’s contributions to San Francisco have gone far beyond his own work. In addition to the continuing work of the Ella Baker Center, People Organized to Win Employment Rights (POWER) carries on this model of organizing. Also, several of the early organizers of the Mission Anti-displacement Coalition (MAC), myself included, were influenced by Jones’ organizing. In fact, after nearly 9-years in elected office, my early work with Van Jones continues to influence my political philosophy and has helped me contribute to San Francisco’s progressive movement.
Given this and the fact that I’ve been on the receiving end of a pretty nasty (albeit local) smear campaign, I have really felt personally for Van in the last few weeks. Not that Van hasn’t made mistakes, and I’m not talking about calling certain Republicans “assholes” or signing a petition that could have been lifted from Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11.
In the middle of this decade, as Van shifted his focus from criminal justice to the environmental movement, he also shifted philosophy. Certainly that is fine. I know that many of us who have worked with Van in the past have developed a level of solidarity where we would support him whatever direction he chose. However, in his shifting philosophy, Van also took up an apologetic tone about some of his previous work and affiliations. It’s not just that this poses a bit of a problem for those of us in the Bay Area who have built significant political success on this previous work. (I, for one, am a three-time elected official that doesn’t shy away from my history of fighting tooth and nail against police brutality or even the term “socialist.”) It’s that when we back down or apologize for our work and beliefs, our political opponents smell weakness.
As Glenn Beck and Americans for Prosperity fired up their sleaze machine, I think they felt like they had a target that they could take out. Much has already been written about the lack of defense of Van from the Obama administration and about progressives being late to counter Beck on Jones. This is clearly the case. But I think equally as damning has been progressives’ proclivity to deference under the guise of “coalition-building.” As the right becomes increasingly strident in their attacks, progressives need to be equally strident in our program.
We can’t afford to apologize for our beliefs. It’s time for us to ramp up our organizing. This includes both providing a vocal counter to the merchants of hate (visit Color of Change for more direction) and demanding bold and progressive action from President Obama. Van Jones’ own words ring truer now than ever, “Not only is Barack Obama not going to be able to save you- [we] are going to have to save Barack Obama.”
After Jones’ resignation, Ian Kim (a District 6 resident and all-around good guy) set up a Facebook page to support Van. In just 2 days, over 5000 people signed up highlighting the progressive energy out there. It’s time for progressives to harness that energy and direct it to win real reform on the national level, including healthcare reform with a robust public option.
Meanwhile, we have to get back to the grindstone locally. The Glenn Becks aren’t just targeting individual progressives on the national stage; they are moving their agenda on issues like the environment, healthcare, labor, gay rights, and the environment. Right now, San Francisco is at the forefront of the immigrant rights struggle. Last month, Supervisor David Campos, together with immigrant rights advocates, introduced a proposal to provide juveniles who are undocumented due process. This progressive proposal that represents the best of San Francisco values isn’t just opposed by Fox News pundits – it’s opposed by the “liberal” San Francisco Chronicle. And Democrat Gavin Newsom has already resorted to dirty tricks to defeat it. SF progressives should redouble our efforts on this issue and build the next generation of activists, as we engage nationally.
The Hunger Site
September 23, 2009 at 10:23 am
The Right in Washington attacked Van Jones for thinking independently in ways that didn’t follow their line. The Left in the Bay Area now attacks Van Jones for thinking independently in ways that don’t follow their line.
Let’s stand up to the group-think of all the sects. Let’s make politics safe for independent thinking.
Otherwise, we perpetuate stupidity while the planet sinks under the weight of human folly.
September 20, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Van Jones now says that he feels nothing but love for the Obama Administration. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/16/van-jones-breaks-silence_n_289256.html
This is such a pernicious stance, uncritical of Obama’s escalation of his many wars on the non-European world, that I’m no longer interested in Van Jones’s leadership. He is probably the best candidate Oakland could have in next year’s mayoral election, and he could probably win running as a Green, Hip Hop, or even Pirate Party candidate at this point, but that’s not a campaign I’d volunteer to work on.
September 18, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Marc,
You say:
“the feds say that we’re not supposed to allow the cultivation, sale and distribution of marijuana. … but … each level of government has latitude to prioritize their expenditures of resources.”
I support the full legalization of marijuana. However, until that happens, it’s wrong to hand over poor and at-risk neighborhoods to the drug thugs. And it’s outrageous to do so in the name of progressive politics.
You say:
“the SFPD and DA and juvenile authorities did not hold Ramos when they could have for legitimate reasons other than his immigration status”
The SFPD and the DA failed in dealing with Edwin Ramos. David Campos’ flawed legislation will not correct those failures.
You say:
“punishing all undocumented workers for their mere immigration status rather than their conviction of a crime is the same thing as punishing all gay men because some spread HIV.”
It is illegal to remain in this country after entering it illegally. It is not illegal to be infected with HIV.
AIDS is not a crime.
Since the beginning of the AIDS epidemic in 1981, I have lost about 100 friends and acquaintances to the disease. You are insulting their memory by implying that AIDS is a crime.
You say:
“There are ample tools available short of referral to the feds for deportation to advance public safety while respecting local political sentiment on immigration and youth.”
They didn’t work in the case of the Bologna family.
September 17, 2009 at 1:52 pm
As soon as he gets home, Van’s first priority should be putting his own house in order. GREENFORALL needs to take a strong public stand against the racist Newsom/Lennar Urban Renewal of BVHP, and Leno’s gift of state park land to the developers for the construction of high-end condos. About the only public stand taken by GREENFORALL on these issues has been Phaedra Ellis-Lamikins standing behind Newsom as he shilled for the “UN” Global Greenwashing Center.
September 17, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Arthur, the feds say that we’re not supposed to allow the cultivation, sale and distribution of marijuana. The feds say a lot of things are against the law, or required by law, but until they’ve got the legal and, more importantly, administrative muscle to make reality conform with those laws, each level of government has latitude to prioritize their expenditures of resources.
The arguments about Ramos are as ill placed as the case is a wake up call. Precursors to deadly violence should be taken seriously by the SFPD, such as posession of a weapon, assault and battery and the like. The fact is that the SFPD and DA and juvenile authorities did not hold Ramos when they could have for legitimate reasons other than his immigration status.
I’ll repeat that punishing all undocumented workers for their mere immigration status rather than their conviction of a crime is the same thing as punishing all gay men because some spread HIV. There are ample tools available short of referral to the feds for deportation to advance public safety while respecting local political sentiment on immigration and youth.
-marc
September 16, 2009 at 11:51 am
I’m far more disturbed by hip hop musician Michael Franti’s Global Ambassadorship for CARE than by Glenn Beck’s idiotic attack on Van Jones. Liberals have all risen up to protest Glenn Beck, but, just last weekend, Michael Franti turned out the usual crowd for his Co-optation of the Peaceful concert and daylong CARE forum. Sunday’s Franti/CARE forum at the Herbst, featured appearances by Jennifer Siebel Newsom, and, a representative of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The next day, Monday, September 14th, U.S. Marines poured into Southern Somalia, following more than $40 million in munitions and weapons that Obama introduced into that country in May, after receiving a UN exemption to a 12 year arms embargo. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/09/10/arming_somalia.
Somalians continue to fill the Kenyan refugee camp that CARE manages, with a U.S. government contract. Though CARE is commonly thought to be an aid organization, and, though it furthers that misunderstanding by requesting and banking donations, CARE is, most fundamentally, a government contractor, with a long list of multinational corporate alliances, http://www.care.org/partnerships/corporate.asp.
Managing refugees consequent to US aggression, and, in U.S. strategic interest, is one of CARE’s specialties, and CARE already has a long ugly track record in Somalia.
Glenn Beck’s attacks on Van Jones, and Obama, are stupid and disgusting, but easily understood as racism within the American liberal context.
However, Glenn Beck, and all the other American racists finding new voice since the Obama election, also distract from Obama’s wars, which are deeply racist because they proceed along the 500 plus year trajectory of European conquest. Obama’s wars confuse American liberals, because Obama himself is African American, as is Michael Franti, his collaborator in false peace prophecy.
September 16, 2009 at 8:38 am
Marc,
You say:
“It is always easier for courts to command that government cease doing something than to command that it do something.”
If David Campos’ measure passes, the courts will command that it not be enforced on the grounds that it violates both state and federal law.
Campos doesn’t care.
You say:
“Had the SFPD and District Attorney kept Ramos in custody after his initial arrest for violent activity, irrespective of his immigration status, the Bologna family would be alive today.”
True. Just as the Bologna family would be alive today if Edwin Ramos had been reported to the feds, as required by law.
Nobody is proposing a measure that would require the SFPD and D.A. to release immigrants who are accused of felonies.
But David Campos is proposing a measure that would require the city to harbor accused immigrant felons, exempt from federal laws.
How absurd can you get?
You say:
“The cure for dysfunction at the SFPD and DA’s office is not collective punishment against all undocumented youth.”
Harboring accused immigrant felons from federal law is not collective punishment of undocumented youth.
If they can provide documentation, they will not be deported. And if prosecutors fail to prove the felony charges in court, the accused will be acquitted.
It’s called the rule of law.
David Campos is a lawyer. He should know all this already. Under the circumstances, we have to question his legal competence.
September 15, 2009 at 12:12 pm
It is always easier for courts to command that government cease doing something than to command that it do something.
Had the SFPD and District Attorney kept Ramos in custody after his initial arrest for violent activity, irrespective of his immigration status, the Bologna family would be alive today.
The cure for dysfunction at the SFPD and DA’s office is not collective punishment against all undocumented youth.
-marc
September 14, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Here’s an update, just in:
A federal judge ruled today that the surviving members of the Bologna family can sue the city for negligence for failing to report Edwin Ramos to federal authorities.
Edwin Ramos is an illegal immigrant accused of murdering the three family members. The city had harbored Ramos from federal authorities under its former sanctuary policy. That policy protected young illegal immigrants from the feds if the immigrants were suspected of committing felonies. After the murders happened, the city rescinded the policy.
As we all know, David Campos, with enthusiastic support from Chris Daly, wants the Board of Supes to bring back the discredited policy.
The whole city will be watching as the Bologna family’s suit unfolds in court, and as David Campos tries to convince the board to revive the old policy in the name of progressive politics.
I predict that the scene will mark a major transition of the city into a post-progressive era.
September 14, 2009 at 7:06 pm
In a post above, marc asks:
“Who would have standing to sue and would a court order be of consequence to the City.”
David Campos’ measure, if passed, will put the SFPD in an impossible situation. It will require the police, as a matter of official city policy, to harbor illegal immigrants from federal purview, which is a federal crime.
My guess is that the SFPD, acting through the City Attorney, will immediately ask the courts for injunctive relief. The City Attorney has already issued a preliminary opinion that is unfavorable to Campos’ measure.
The likely result is that the courts will immediately put Campos’ measure on suspension until a final ruling is made, which will strike down the measure. Once the measure is struck down, it will be null and void. No one will observe it, on penalty of being in contempt of court.
Not that any of this matters to Campos.
September 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm
I don’t think that anyone claims that Campos’ legislation does not clash with federal law. The question is what, if anything, will be done about it. Who would have standing to sue and would a court order be of consequence to the City.
-marc
September 14, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Beg your pardon, I meant to say Valerie Jarrett.
September 14, 2009 at 4:11 pm
They’re sharpening their sights on Valerie Jones now, I’d guess.
September 13, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Marc,
You say:
“Campos’ legislation engages in a give and take on balancing the special rights youth enjoy before the law and the issue of immigration status.â€
Campos’ measure violates both federal and state law.
You say:
“the Emancipation Proclamation overrode state laws that enabled slavery and that the 13,14 and 15th amendments cemented in the victorious positionâ€
The Emancipation Proclamation was an edict issued by Abraham Lincoln as commander in chief of the U.S. Army. It applied to all areas that had seceded from the U.S. (the Confederacy) and which the U.S. Army had succeeded in putting under martial law in the course of a war.
The amendments that came later were approved as part of the constitutional process.
David Campos’ measure falls under neither category.
You say:
“The question is whether local authorities are required to do the heavy lifting that is the province of the federal government if there are other issues which counterbalance that obligation.â€
The Board of Supes cannot nullify state and federal laws.
You say:
“analogies to the emancipation proclamation or the US Civil War are far fetched.â€
Then why did you bring up the Emancipation Proclamation?
You say:
“Hopefully SFPD’s new chief will clean house of the POA which insists upon engaging in a dysfunctional relationship with whatever DA is in office at any given time.â€
I heard the SFPD’s new chief address the supes. He said he would not make an issue of the undocumented status of immigrants per se.
However, he said that if any were suspected of committing felonies, he would not give them a pass.
Campos would give them a pass. That’s the big issue here.
The supes will approve Campos’ measure, and then the courts will strike it down.
As a lawyer, Campos already knows the final outcome. But as a politician, he wants to score rhetorical points anyway.
Is this leadership?
September 13, 2009 at 8:02 am
Nobody is talking about seceding or about challenging federal laws that grant anyone full civil rights. Just like Healthy San Francisco touches on federal law that regulates insurance and health care, Campos’ legislation engages in a give and take on balancing the special rights youth enjoy before the law and the issue of immigration status.
If I remember, the Emancipation Proclamation overrode state laws that enabled slavery and that the 13,14 and 15th amendments cemented in the victorious position. In this case, a federal law, which should be enforced by federal authorities, is at issue. The question is whether local authorities are required to do the heavy lifting that is the province of the federal government if there are other issues which counterbalance that obligation.
I don’t believe that anyone is suggesting that San Francisco secede from California or California secede from the US on this, so analogies to the emancipation proclamation or the US Civil War are far fetched.
The reasonable protections would involve the SFPD and the District Attorney doing their job and keeping suspects in custody rather than releasing them to perpetrate again. Hopefully SFPD’s new chief will clean house of the POA which insists upon engaging in a dysfunctional relationship with whatever DA is in office at any given time. Until then, the cops don’t have to really do their jobs, avoiding conflict to make it home safely to the suburbs every night so that they can collect those magnificent pensions, pensions that the Bologna family will never know because the cops and DA dropped the ball.
-marc
September 13, 2009 at 2:52 am
Tami — All I can say is “wow,” that’s an amazing post of yours. You seem to have the credulity of a born again Christian.
September 12, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Marc –
You say:
“The law takes an exceptional view of minors, where they are privileged over adults in all sorts of ways.â€
Minors have no privilege to be in this country illegally.
You say:
“Because they are young and presumed innocent.â€
If they are here illegally, they get no special credit if they are suspected of committing felonies, contrary to the intent of David Campos.
You say:
“one does not presume all undocumented immigrants are gang members just because some are.â€
True, but the government should take reasonable steps to protect the public from the some who are.
You say:
“So the answer to their family tragedy [the murder of three members of the Bologna family] is collective punishment to visit tragedy on a whole host of famlies?â€
The answer is to take reasonable steps to reduce the likelihood of such things happening again.
You say:
“Our constitution ostensibly guarantees extraordinary protections to those accused of crimes.â€
It also provides for protecting the common good.
You say:
“State laws guarantee extraordinary protections to youth.â€
But not the privilege of being here illegally.
You say:
“Those guarantees are sacrosanct and should not be subject to the whims of hysterical federal legislation where we have the resources to do something about it locally.â€
Local government does not have the power to trump federal laws on immigration.
We had a Civil War in this country over the question of state sovereignty. The states lost.
State sovereignty has gone with the wind.
September 12, 2009 at 9:28 am
Arthur,
“David Camps says the SFPD show carve out a privileged exception to this process for undocumented immigrants who young and suspected of committing felonies.
Such a privileged exception makes no sense at all.”
Of course it does. The law takes an exceptional view of minors, where they are privileged over adults in all sorts of ways. It makes perfect sense that an approach to due process and the presumption of innocence track existing, special legal standards applied to youth.
“Why is it rational to carve out a privileged exception for those who are suspected of committing felonies?”
Because they are young and presumed innocent.
“And at the same time that Mexican drug cartels are muscling their way into youthful street gangs in American cities.
If this is rational, then pepper is sweet.”
Yes, some are peppers that are sweet just like some immigrants are gang members. Just because some peppers are hot does not mean that one forgoes all peppers, just as one does not presume all undocumented immigrants are gang members just because some are.
“When the supes debate Campos’ measure, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Bologna family come down to City Hall to testify.”
So the answer to their family tragedy is collective punishment to visit tragedy on a whole host of famlies?
“But making life easier for those accused of felonies is not an improvement. Except for the international drug cartels.”
One more time. Our constitution ostensibly guarantees extraordinary protections to those accused of crimes. State laws guarantee extraordinary protections to youth. Those guarantees are sacrosanct and should not be subject to the whims of hysterical federal legislation where we have the resources to do something about it locally.
-marc
September 12, 2009 at 8:39 am
Marc,
Thanks for continuing this dialogue in a rational manner. Below are some responses to your latest post above.
You say:
“Campos’ legislation would prevent the SFPD from referring individuals to the federal authorities until after they were convicted of or confessed to a crime.”
Right you are. And that’s the problem.
The SFPD is required to report ALL immigrants whom it encounters, and who lack documentation, to the feds. It doesn’t matter whether they are suspected of committing felonies or not. After the feds step in, a hearing is held on the documentation question, in accordance with the due process of law.
David Camps says the SFPD show carve out a privileged exception to this process for undocumented immigrants who young and suspected of committing felonies.
Such a privileged exception makes no sense at all.
You say:
“Yes, this is contrary to federal law, but it is quite rational. You happen to disagree politically with the rationales, but they are legitimate.”
Why is it rational to carve out a privileged exception for those who are suspected of committing felonies?
And at the same time that Mexican drug cartels are muscling their way into youthful street gangs in American cities.
If this is rational, then pepper is sweet.
You say:
“For someone who views himself as a man of letters, this [referring to the Bologna family] is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. This is the same logic that would have all people with AIDS quarantined.”
The person accused of murdering three members of the Bologna family is an undocumented young immigrant. Under Campos’ proposed law, the police would be forbidden to report him to the feds.
Where is the logic of this?
When the supes debate Campos’ measure, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Bologna family come down to City Hall to testify.
Will you stand up and accuse them of scraping the bottom of the barrel?
Will Tami stand up and accuse them of being bigots?
You say:
“just as for every nativist demanding immigration restrictions, there are communities and economic sectors that rely upon undocumented workers to provide cheap labor to do the jobs that most white Americans will not.”
Immigration policy should be intelligent and balanced. Letting everyone in unconditionally, fails this test. So does narrow exclusiveness.
You say:
“Why does the US government provide special exemptions to immigration controls to highly educated south Asian computer engineers irrespective of the condition of the domestic labor market for those services?”
The answer to flaws in immigration policy is not to carve out special benefits for people accused of committing felonies.
You say:
“cracking down on ‘illegal immigration’ would cause food prices to rise to the extent that there would probably be riots in American cities.”
The nation’s immigration policies could certainly be improved.
But making life easier for those accused of felonies is not an improvement. Except for the international drug cartels.
September 12, 2009 at 7:52 am
Arthur,
“However, David Campos’ measure would forbid local authorities from making such referrals in a crucial circumstance – namely, if the undocumented immigrants are young and accused of a felony.”
This is not true. Campos’ legislation would prevent the SFPD from referring individuals to the federal authorities until after they were convicted of or confessed to a crime.
Yes, this is contrary to federal law, but it is quite rational. You happen to disagree politically with the rationales, but they are legitimate.
“I believe the surviving members of the Bologna family would agree with me on this point.”
For someone who views himself as a man of letters, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. This is the same logic that would have all people with AIDS quarantined.
One of the more attractive features of American federalism is that there is a constant give and take between the levels and branches of government. This discussion on immigration is part of that, just as for every nativist demanding immigration restrictions, there are communities and economic sectors that rely upon undocumented workers to provide cheap labor to do the jobs that most white Americans will not.
The more critical issue of immigration reform is legal immigration. Why does the US government provide special exemptions to immigration controls to highly educated south Asian computer engineers irrespective of the condition of the domestic labor market for those services?
According to professor Norm Matloff of UC Davis: “The National Science Foundation, a key government agency, actually advocated the use of the H-1B program as a means of holding down PhD salaries, by flooding the job market with foreign students. The NSF added that the stagnation of salaries would push domestic students away from PhD study, which is exactly what has happened. Former Fed chair Alan Greenspan has also explicitly advocated the use of H-1B to hold down tech salaries.”
http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~matloff/h1b.html
Frankly, with the US Government doing all it can to squeeze the middle class to death, cracking down on “illegal immigration” would cause food prices to rise to the extent that there would probably be riots in American cities.
-marc
September 12, 2009 at 7:49 am
While I agree with some of Jones’ viewpoints, his appointment to Obama’s administration was political patronage, nothing more. His departure will not hurt the adminstration, other than to disappoint progressives. He brought nothing to the table, his job had no accountability or responsibility. His is better off continuing to be a professional political advocate – that is what he is.
September 11, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Tami,
I appreciate the vigor of the arguments you made above. I have some questions, however, about their logic.
You say:
“We are living on land stolen from the American Indian/Native American people.”
Then why don’t you set a personal example of what you preach, turn your apartment over to an Indian family, and leave?
You say:
“Mexicans did not cross the border, the border crossed them.”
True. Does that mean there should be no limits on immigration from Mexico as a result?
You say:
“N. American policies cause the miserable conditions in their native lands that compel them to come here.”
What about the Mexican drug cartels that are muscling into gangs in the U.S., torturing and murdering people? Should we invite them in and let them do whatever they want?
You say:
“As narrow minded bigots, none of you can credibly speak to the feelings, beliefs and cultural pride held by immigrants.”
So anyone who dares to disagree with any of your views is a narrow-minded bigot?
Isn’t that a rather narrow-minded attitude?
You say:
“I appreciate Marc’s intellectual and factual based arguments.”
So do I. However, there are some holes in his arguments, as noted in posts above.
You say:
“… we should welcome other people, with their rich cultures, beautiful languages and think in terms of expanding our horizons.”
Agreed.
But does that mean we should let everyone come here from everywhere with no restrictions at all?
Wouldn’t that approach cause some problems, even for the people who are coming here?
You say:
“I condemn the so-called ‘criminal justice’ system that is a profit based, punitive industry rather than a therapeutic, caring and restorative institution.”
Do you believe it is wrong for the D.A. to prosecute Edwin Ramos for the murder of three members of the Bologna family?
You say:
“Most people who commit crimes, including Edwin Ramos, have had hard lives…”
Are you saying he should be given a pass for murdering three people because he had a hard life?
Do you think the survivors of the Bologna family would agree with you? Haven’t they had a hard life, too?
You say:
“I appreciate Daly’s stance and Campos has the moral authority to do what he is doing.”
Is it right for David Campos to violate his oath of office, which requires him to uphold the laws of the land?
September 11, 2009 at 8:24 pm
marc,
I see that some issues are still outstanding in this discussion. On the other hand, we do agree on some things.
You say:
“Undocumented individuals cannot be deported without due process that ascertains the legitimacy of government claims on their status.”
Agreed!
When local authorities come across immigrants who, they believe, are undocumented, the local authorities hand them over to federal authorities. These, in turn, hold hearings on the matter, including judicial proceedings if warranted.
If the hearings determine that the supposedly undocumented immigrants are in fact documented, the immigrants are released. This is the due process of law.
However, David Campos’ measure would forbid local authorities from making such referrals in a crucial circumstance – namely, if the undocumented immigrants are young and accused of a felony.
This exception is both irrational and contrary to federal law.
You say:
“The question at hand is whether San Francisco should refer individuals who the SFPD ASSUMES to be undocumented to federal authorities when those individuals are taken into custody under suspicion of a crime.”
The SFPD is required by both state and federal law to turn over to federal authorities any immigrants they suspect of being illegal.
Federal authorities then hold hearings on the matter, as noted above, in accordance with the due process of law.
Campos’ measure violates these state and federal laws. It will never stand up in court.
You say:
“I believe that San Franciscans agree that if someone is undocumented and unfairly charged with a crime they end up to have not committed, that event alone should not result in their deportation …”
Could be. However, federal and state laws say that immigrants who are here illegally must leave the country, regardless of whether they are suspected of having committed felonies or not.
I myself believe that local authorities should show some flexibility and humanitarianism in dealing with apparently illegal immigrants, even if we have to outmaneuver the Feds from time to time in an informal way.
On the other hand, however, I do not believe in putting public safety at risk. If an illegal immigrant is suspected of committing a felony, I, for one, am no longer willing to have the locals violate federal and state laws on behalf of such a person.
I believe the surviving members of the Bologna family would agree with me on this point.
September 11, 2009 at 7:58 pm
From the attack on Van Jones I learned that:
• Republicans are very sensitive and do not like being called a%#holes.
• I will try to remember to call them corporate-bought hypocrites as they can’t object to any truthful characterization.
• Stay away from petitions-changed after signed, but even if it wasn’t- questioning the integrity and ethics of the most corrupt, murderous regime in recent US history.
• That it is more important to deny justice to an innocent man, than to find and convict the real killer.
• That to entertain the thought that any system other than capitalism may improve the lives of the masses is indeed an act of evil.
Van Jones has been instrumental and inspirational in areas of police accountability, education over incarceration, etc.
I hope he runs for Governor, like Julian Davis suggested!
As for the immigration issue.
I do NOT WANT THE BLOOD of juveniles on my conscience.
I will quadruple my efforts to ensure that Campos’ legislation passes!
The “illegal” immigrants came over on the Mayflower, remember! We are living on land stolen from the American Indian/Native American people.
Mexicans did not cross the border, the border crossed them.
I challenge any one of the bigots to show me one country where the undocumented folks originate from that has not been relentlessly exploited by the greed of the US corporations and the US government.
N. American policies cause the miserable conditions in their native lands that compel them to come here.
Trust me, they would not be coming here if centuries of pillaging had not occurred, robbing them of their valuable resources that transformed them from wealthy nations to impoverished nations.
I speak Spanish, two of my children are from a Latino immigrant, trust me, immigrants LOVE their homelands and are only here because of US manufactured conditions of desperation in their homelands.
As narrow minded bigots, none of you can credibly speak to the feelings, beliefs and cultural pride held by immigrants.
I appreciate Marc’s intellectual and factual based arguments.
He makes a well-reasoned and compelling argument.
I’m the emo one as my daughter calls me,
We are supposed to be a great nation, of IMMIGRANTS, we should welcome other people, with their rich cultures, beautiful languages and think in terms of expanding our horizons. But no, bigots are closed minded, superficial and boring people and want everyone else to be just like them.
I do NOT condone criminal conduct but I condemn the so-called “criminal justice” system that is a profit based, punitive industry rather than a therapeutic, caring and restorative institution. Most people who commit crimes, including Edwin Ramos, have had hard lives, either filled with abuse, neglect, lack of education, mental illness, substance abuse; they deserve to be rehabilitated.
I appreciate Daly’s stance and Campos has the moral authority to do what he is doing.
September 11, 2009 at 3:30 pm
First off, my claims all derive from my layperson’s knowledge of US Constitutional and statute law, not international law.
“Second, deporting a person who is ALREADY ASSUMED to be here illegally is not a denial of either due process or the equal protection of the laws.”
Wrong. Undocumented individuals cannot be deported without due process that ascertains the legitimacy of government claims on their status.
The question at hand is whether San Francisco should refer individuals who the SFPD ASSUMES to be undocumented to federal authorities when those individuals are taken into custody under suspicion of a crime.
I believe that San Franciscans agree that if someone is undocumented and unfairly charged with a crime they end up to have not committed, that event alone should not result in their deportation because San Franciscans appear too sophisticated to oppose to “illegal immigration” without knowing the circumstances.
That is, it appears that San Franciscans are politically prepared to discern the question of “did you commit a crime?” from “what is your immigration status?”
-marc
September 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm
marc,
Thanks for taking the time to write the explanation above.
Please note that the 14th amendment says:
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
First, illegal immigrants are not citizens of the United States.
Second, deporting a person who is ALREADY ASSUMED to be here illegally is not a denial of either due process or the equal protection of the laws.
David Campos’ measure is on behalf of people who are already assumed to be illegal immigrants. That’s what the phrase “undocumented immigrants” means – immigrants who lack documentation to establish citizenship. Such immigrants are here illegally.
His measure has nothing to do with either U.S. citizens or legal immigrants.
Regardless of whether an illegal immigrant is guilty of committing a felony or not, he or she can still be deported for being here illegally. That’s the law.
You say:
“No, the United States Government does not have the right to deport people who are here illegally.”
Wrong. Both international law and U.S. law affirm the right of governments to deport non-citizens who have entered their borders illegally.
As noted, Campos’ legislation is on behalf of people who are already assumed to have entered the U.S. illegally. The U.S. has the right to deport them.
You say:
“Deportations can only take place after the person has been given due process …”
Again, please note: Campos’ legislation ASSUMES that the people are here illegally. Campos claims that the board of supes can trump federal law in the case of people who are assumed to be here illegally.
You say:
“The issue at hand with the Campos legislation is whether it is acceptable for San Francisco’s law enforcement authorities to short-circuit due process by referring suspected undocumented individuals to the federal government when those individuals have been arrested and charged with a crime.”
Wrong. The U.S. government has the right to insist that ALL illegal immigrants be reported to it, regardless of whether they are suspected of committing felonies or not.
You say:
“The constitution grants all individual rights aside from the franchise and right to seek office to ‘persons’ ‘rather’ than citizens, and even then imposes extra burdens on those who seek office.”
True. However, Campos’ legislation assumes that the people are already here illegally. It is on behalf of such people. That’s what makes it unique.
The issue is whether the Board of Supes can trump the power of Congress in deporting people who are already assumed to be here illegally.
Where does the Board of Supes get this power from?
September 11, 2009 at 11:26 am
Arthur,
No, the United States Government does not have the right to deport people who are here illegally. The government is authorized under the law to deport individuals who have been found by a court to be meet certain tests for deportation, such as being present in violation of the law or lying on an application or the like.
Deportations can only take place after the person has been given due process, just like any punishment for violating the law can only take place after due process.
The issue at hand with the Campos legislation is whether it is acceptable for San Francisco’s law enforcement authorities to short-circuit due process by referring suspected undocumented individuals to the federal government when those individuals have been arrested and charged with a crime.
This presumes that the police do not need the due process or judicial review to ensure that those whom they arrest and charge are indeed guilty. There are good reasons why there are constitutional guarantees of habeas corpus and due process, to check a renegade executive.
The constitution grants all individual rights aside from the franchise and right to seek office to “persons” “rather” than citizens, and even then imposes extra burdens on those who seek office.
The constitution could probably be amended in this political climate so that only citizens enjoyed constitutional rights, but that would also require due process and cannot be wished into existence.
I hope this helps.
-marc
September 11, 2009 at 9:40 am
marc,
I had trouble following your argument above about the 14th amendment.
David Campos’ measure applies to illegal immigrants. Doesn’t the U.S. government have the right to deport anyone who is in this country illegally?
Isn’t that so, regardless of the behavior of the illegal immigrant? Doesn’t the U.S. government have the right to insist that states and cities comply with this requirement?
Does the 14th amendment give people from other countries the right to be here illegally? Where does the 14th amendment say that? Could you point that out?
Thanks.
September 11, 2009 at 7:47 am
I happen to hold great affection for the 14th amendment, and Supervisor Campos’ legislation ensures that no statute law breaks the constitutional guarantees to due process under the law for all persons.
-marc
September 10, 2009 at 4:42 pm
SFYRPrez, — It’s interesting in that the majority of Americans if they knew of Daly and Beck would think them booth hard to take.
Campos’ law will pass and there will be more lawsuits that we tax payers will have to foot the bill for, the progressives and their morality with others lives and money, in the end all this sanctuary business will be down the tubes because of this over reaching.
September 10, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“With that said, I do believe in redemption. If you would like to do some deep self-reflection and self-improvement, I’ll be happy to Facebook friend you.”
Redemption? Ooooh, Chris has offered me redemption, if I will only repent and change my evil ways! How magnanimous of him!
What a crock.
September 10, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Chris Daly asks:
“Why would anyone in their right minds want to be ‘friends’ with someone who is openly hostile and malicious?”
Which figure at City Hall do these words most aptly describe?
Any guesses?
September 10, 2009 at 1:08 pm
The Van Jones issue has nothing to do with freedom of speech or a witch hunt. Why would Obama want to have someone in his administration that not only signed the 9/11 petition but supports cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal? Jones seems to be a talented guy, but he’s too much a product of the radical left to serve in what is essentially a moderate Democratic administration. He should come home and run for supervisor in District 6.
September 10, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Chris, your thoughts on the illegal proposal by Supervisor David Campos are just wrong. And since you insist on having San Francisco break the law in terms of the sanctuary policy by “re-doubling” your efforts to pass Supervisor Campo’s Ordinance 091032, the citizens of San Francisco will re-double our efforts to stop you.
September 10, 2009 at 10:11 am
If I were a progressive I would be upset too, Bush gets his horse trainer through at FEMA and Bush also got a bunch of moonbat grads of Bob Jones through too.
And poor Obama can’t get his 9/11 conspiracy Mumai is innocent goof through. He should have appointed guy to FEMA, a community activist can get in their I bet.
Just isn’t fair is it?
September 10, 2009 at 8:49 am
Well George, while I am not Facebook friends with you or Arthur, I am friends with almost 1500 people there. Some of them even disagree with me on things!
Why would anyone in their right minds want to be “friends” with someone who is openly hostile and malicious?
With that said, I do believe in redemption. If you would like to do some deep self-reflection and self-improvement, I’ll be happy to Facebook friend you.
Cheers!
September 10, 2009 at 6:43 am
“Too bad Ruth isn’t my friend!”
Chris, that’s because you only confirm FB friends who don’t dare question you. We both know that.
September 9, 2009 at 10:19 pm
In a post above, Chris Daly says:
“Too bad Ruth isn’t my friend!”
Ruth has sharp disagreements over policies with many, but wishes good fortune to all as individuals.
September 9, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Most of the comment and discussion seems to be happening on my FB page. Too bad Ruth isn’t my friend!
September 9, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Perhaps we should apologize for our use of corny acronyms.
September 9, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Chris Daly is right about the Republicans’ outrageous behavior toward Van Jones but wrong on two other points in his essay.
As to Van Jones, the Republicans wanted to punish him because he had expressed criticisms in the past of their views and leaders. Their move was an attack not only on Jones but also on freedom of speech.
Pres. Barack Obama should not have caved into this pressure, as Daly rightly notes. Obama should have stood up to the bullying Republicans, using the situation to educate the public about how witch hunts work. As it is, the Republicans will now just be more emboldened in their nastiness.
As to homelessness, it is not a crime, but it is no excuse for committing crimes, either. When public addicts and alcoholics cause injury to others or damage to the environment, they should not be given a pass because they are homeless.
Otherwise, the city is just flushing its poor and at-risk neighborhoods down the drain. If you doubt it, take a walk through the Tenderloin some day.
As to illegal immigrants, the city should not harbor them from federal laws if they are suspected of committing felonies, as Supervisor David Campos wants.
Three members of the Bologna family were murdered because of such harboring by the city. If Campos gets his way, we will see more cases like this.
In sum:
Stand up to the bullying Republicans, protect at-risk neighborhoods from abuse by public addicts and alcoholics, and be mindful of public safety in general.