By Carmen Iguina
California state lawmakers recently introduced three groundbreaking bills that could prevent thousands of immigrants from being torn from their families, communities, and the lives they built in the United States.
SB 6 gives immigrants facing deportation a shot at a fair immigration court hearing by ensuring they have qualified immigration lawyers to represent them. Research shows that immigrants that have an immigration lawyer representing them are five times more likely to win their immigration cases than immigrants without a lawyer, but most Californians facing deportation cannot afford or access one.
Similarly, AB 3 provides our public defenders with the necessary resources and training to adequately advise their clients about any possible immigration consequences in their cases. If passed, California would take a significant step toward helping prevent avoidable deportations.
SB 54 ensures that no state or local resources are diverted to fuel any attempt by the federal government to carry out mass deportations or a Muslim registry. The bill rightly turns off the valve to a mass deportation pipeline and closes the door on shameful attempts to scapegoat the Muslim community in California, a state that values diversity, public safety, and the humanity of all its residents.
By introducing these bills, the Golden State is standing firm in its resolve to uphold its values of fairness and due process. This is huge.
In a recent interview with 60 Minutes, President-Elect Donald J. Trump said that he planned to deport some three million immigrants—allegedly all “criminal immigrants.” Many people, myself included, were alarmed to hear this. The details of these new mass-deportation policies remain unclear, although some reports have surfaced that the policies would include anyone who has ever been arrested, even if the person was later found innocent or the charges were eventually dropped.
But California is moving in the opposite direction and instead undertaking efforts to make things fairer for immigrant and Muslim communities. Due process, the idea that everyone deserves fair treatment by our government whenever any of their civil liberties are at stake, is a cornerstone of our democracy and one of the most cherished American values.
And at bottom, that is what these three bills are all about: fairness. It is about how we treat other human beings and about bringing some semblance of fairness into an inherently unfair immigration system.
Because the fact is that our immigration system is deeply flawed and outdated, and relies on an equally flawed and biased criminal justice system as its deportation pipeline. Many of the people with arrests or convictions have been subjected to racial profiling and discrimination.
Take for example the California Gang Database (CalGang). For years, community members and advocates alike denounced CalGang as an error-prone database that lacks transparency and accountability, and relies on racial profiling and discrimination. This year, a state audit confirmed what many of us have been saying all along when it revealed that 42 children younger than one year had been erroneously included in the database. Yet we know that the federal government relies on CalGang data to deport immigrants.
More importantly, these three bills recognize the humanity of people who have arrests or convictions, rather than playing into anti-immigrant attempts to demonize entire communities in one fell swoop, which were all too common during the presidential campaign. We must remember that people put at risk by President-Elect Trump’s deportation threat are members of our communities that have long ago served their time and changed their lives. They include immigrants like deported veteran Fabian Rebolledo, who served as an Army paratrooper from 1997 to 2000, including duty in Kosovo in 1999. In 2010, he was deported following a conviction for writing a bad check. He is 100 percent disabled due to his military service and a VA doctor has confirmed he suffers from PTSD. His U.S. citizen son was 10 years old when Fabian was deported.
In California, we do not abandon people like Fabian just because he has a record. We stand by him and his family and fight for him to get a fair shot in his immigration case.
We thank the legislators championing AB 3, SB 6, and SB 54 for their ability to see past demonizing rhetoric and prioritizing diversity, true public safety, and the humanity of all Californians. And to the countless immigrants that call California home, we hope they know that the ACLU will always stand by their side.
Carmen Iguina is a staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California.
I heard on the news last night that San Francisco is doubling down on their sanctuary city status by putting aside $5 million for an illegal immigrant defense fund at the risk of losing $1 billion in federal funding.
BP
“San Francisco is doubling down on their sanctuary city status….”
Good for them. Sometimes it takes real guts to do the right thing.
$1 billion is a lot of money to lose in order to protect illegal immigrants that commit crimes.
BP
Sometimes there are considerations more important than money. Such as humane treatment for all.
I inadvertently wrote a “bad check” on a joint account recently. I promptly made good on it , but that doesn’tt alter the fact that I did it. Does that make me criminal ? Regardless of degree of service to community and country, should that lead to my deportation with no concern for the welfare of other members of my family simply because of the location of my birth ?
Not sure the two are connected. Putting aside money for immigrant defense fund (not just for undocumented immigrants btw) is probably not what will risk federal funding (if the Trump administration even has the authority to pull that trigger). Other aspects of the sanctuary status, particularly not turning over people to ICE, could, but that’s a separate issue.
BTW, tonight we will have a discussion on Davis’ Sanctuary City at 5 pm at the public library. Among others will be Lucas Frerichs, Police Chief Darren Pytel, Holly Cooper from the UC Davis Immigration Law Center and Ann Block, an Immigration Law Attorney. I’ll be moderating that.
http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/SF-preparing-in-case-Trump-cuts-federal-funds-10607210.php
But my point to you referred to the specific policy of immigrant defense rather than the totality of the sanctuary city status
David, Does this discussion include anyone opposed to SC Status?
I highly doubt it.
The discussion is informational – what does our SC Status do, how does immigration law process work, what does it not do, what funding is at stake.
“Due process, the idea that everyone deserves fair treatment by our government whenever any of their civil liberties are at stake, is a cornerstone of our democracy and one of the most cherished American values.”
What will we become if in the name of protecting Americans, if we abandon our most basic values. Osama bin Laden had as one of his stated goals, the destruction of our western way of life. What better way to do so than to terrorize us in brief bursts of violence, and then sit back and watch us destroy everything we cherish in order to “protect” ourselves from the “other” ?
At a recent gathering days after the election, I noted to a friend that I did not feel that I was a good fit for this country anymore. He smiled, and said reassuringly, “That’s true, but you are a very good fit for California”. There is not much that I can do on the national level, but there is much that I can do locally and regionally to promote the inclusivity, equity, fair treatment and due process that I see as core values that define “the American Dream” far more than just the idea of each generation being materially better off than their parents, but each generation being more humane than were there parents.
I have to wonder if sanctuary cities like S.F. and Davis that would have to raise taxes in order to cover for lost federal funding might be opening themselves up for class action lawsuits on behalf of the taxpayers? After all, should the taxpayers be burdened because cities decide to break federal laws? An interesting question.
What would be the legal theory behind such litigation?
BP wrote:
> I have to wonder if sanctuary cities like S.F. and Davis that would have
> to raise taxes in order to cover for lost federal funding might be opening
> themselves up for class action lawsuits on behalf of the taxpayers?
Any politician that votes for a $1,ooo/parcel “illegal alien tax” (even in liberal SF and Davis) will be voted out of office before any class action lawsuit makes it to trial.
It is not clear that Davis’ federal funding would be in jeopardy as the sanctuary city provisions are much more modest in Davis than SF.
A few conservative Vanguard posters who are out of step with California voters, where Trump lost by 4 million votes, are not reliable predictors of how voters will react to anything Trump does to California.
It only takes one taxpayer to file a lawsuit if they feel they’re being unfairly taxed so their city can break federal laws.
BP
It has to be a rich taxpayer or class action . Otherwise is no chance to win against City . When illegals are being renamed to “undocumented ” and car thief is being renamed as a “unregistered car borrower” than the chances to win are very slim .
Class action on behalf of all Davis taxpayers.
BP
We could file a lawsuit. I know how to do it .
Am amused… think this is on-topic…
Some of the most fervent pro-immigration folk are against immigration to Davis, even if they immigrated here from other states, other nations… others are against immigration to the US, even as they and/or their parents/grandparents came from other countries…
All of my ancestors were in the US since the 1870’s… most before that… yet many those anti-immigration [the “illegal” part is more than somewhat a “smoke-screen”] have less rationale to claim to be “American” than I do… I’ll admit to being an “immigrant”/newbie to Davis… only came here 44 years ago…
The anti-growth folk need some mirror time…
That is why people adopt the “caring liberal” or “compassionate conservative” clothing so we don’t notice they are naked.
hpierce wrote:
> Some of the most fervent pro-immigration folk are against immigration
> to Davis, even if they immigrated here from other states
If you look at almost every zip code in America with a high percentage of well educated people you will find that few illegal immigrants “live” in the zip codes, but many illegal immigrants “work” there.
A few years ago I heard that a friend of my Mom drove down to the San Carlos Home Depot (with her cleaning lady that speaks Spanish) to get $10/hr illegal aliens to clear poison oak from the back yard of their ~$5 million home.
When I mentioned to my Dad that many of the guys probably got poison and a lady who’s husband makes millions can afford to pay people more than $10/hr (who know how to take the precaucions necessary not to get poison oak) my Dad reminded me that “few generous people ever get that rich”
This is an illustration of the problem of using correlation to imply causation. The implication here is that more highly educated people have a bias against undocumented immigrants living in their neighborhoods. But, given the very strong correlation between education level and income, far fewer undocumented immigrants would be able to afford to live in the more affluent neighborhoods that generally have more highly educated residents. Thus, the correlation could very well be a consequence of economics rather than bias.
Am thinking the point was also that the affluent have no problem paying cash, under the table, to avoid paying more to cover SS, MC, etc.
hpierce – My point would be the same. Both the fact that few undocumented immigrants live in these zip codes but many are hired to work there are most likely questions of economics, not bias or hypocrisy.
Thus, the correlation could very well be a consequence of economics rather than bias.
Eric
Your statement has so much meaning as the statement ” Why you are poor because you are stupid and why you stupid because you are poor ” Educated people most likely have no bias and many of them employs illegals in their homes . Speculations .
Eric… agreed…
Yet there is a certain correlation… it’s been 40+ years ago, but remember a labor contractor (SF Bay Area) laughing about how little he paid “mexicans” per hour, and boasting that he made even more money by calling INS on payday afternoons… ‘they’ scattered, leaving their pay behind… some of that still goes on, apparently…
And I do believe there is a difference between “undocumented” and “illegal”… don’t think any of my ancestors “had documents”, but don’t think any were “illegal”… they pretty much got here before you needed “documents”…
Eric wrote:
> This is an illustration of the problem of using correlation to imply causation.
My main points were:
1. Few well educated people want to live near illegal aliens.
2. Many well educated people hire illegal aliens.
I’m wondering if Eric disagrees with either of my points
If the wealthy well educated people wanted to “live” near illegal aliens they could easily.
1. Move to an area with a lot of illegal aliens (and save a lot of money).
2. Buy land and build low cost housing in their neighborhoods (something like a “Trackside Dorm for the Undocumented”).
If the rich and well educated stopped hiring illegal aliens things would not go as well since it is not as easy to find work as a gardner, cleaning lady or nanny in a poor neighborhood.
A bit of a side issue, but these days, “undocumented” and “illegal” are used interchangeably, and the preferred term is a matter of some discussion among journalists and others. The difference may be nuanced, but calling someone “illegal” is somewhat dehumanizing and criminalizes people rather than their actions. (And not all immigration violations are criminal.) It seems unnecessarily harsh to call a child illegal who was brought here without proper authorization by his/her parents. My practice is to refer to people as undocumented but the behavior as illegal immigration; but, others may choose to use different terminology.
If you are a wealthy liberal you oppose growth and block development in your community under cover of the “environment”. Then you “advocate” for the poor and demand higher taxes on the wealthy. You will say that you would support housing if it is low income housing, but then you again will block any significant densification as being harmful to the environment and “out of character” with the existing neighborhood… because we all know how emotionally upsetting it would be to have to see a building “out of character” with the existing neighborhood. Your anti-development stance actually causes more people to be poor or to not be able to afford to live in your community because there are fewer good jobs available in your community.
If you are a wealthy conservative you oppose growth and block development in your neighborhood (generally not your community) because you believe you are deserving of all the hard work and risk-taking you did to earn you that wealth, and you think that having some exclusivity where you live as a just reward. You don’t want a lot of poor people living in your neighborhood and probably also do not want a lot of poor people living in your community. Because you know that higher populations of poor people bring crime and other social problems. You don’t have a problem with commercial development and also don’t have a problem with more people living in your community (not your neighborhood) as long as they are working and make enough money to care for themselves.
The primary difference is transparency.
Eric wrote:
> The difference may be nuanced, but calling someone
> “illegal” is somewhat dehumanizing and criminalizes
> people rather than their actions.
Just like very few people in criminal street gangs do not engage in criminal activity few illegal aliens do not engage in criminal activity (tax fraud is probably the most common). If you want to say that “gang members” are part of a “youth club” that is fine but just by changing the name does not make the illegal activity “go away”…
“but calling someone “illegal” is somewhat dehumanizing and criminalizes people rather than their actions.” This is an example of selective doublespeak. Are forgers just people who forge? Since Politician is not a popular title is it dehumanizing to refer to Politicians or Legislators and instead refer to “people who politic and legislate”?
quielo — “Are forgers just people who forge?” Yes. That’s precisely what a forger is–a person who produces fraudulent copies or imitations. We don’t call forgers illegals, or illegal people. Similarly, the term for one who enters the country without lawful authority is an undocumented person, not an illegal person.
I have never heard anyone referred to as an illegal person. The term I hear is illegal alien which is differentiated from a legal alien.
Because of its other meanings, ‘alien’ has always struck me as a rather odd term. I consider ‘immigrant’ more accurate.
Don Shor
You should ask immigrants if the care being named , aliens . permanent residents , legal , illegal , documented , undocumented . Most immigrants are paying double price for this promised land and they don’t give damn how they being called or named by American government. They want to stay here and don’t want to find themselves in the detention centers with their families . My friend from the South does not use term “undocumented “. He is telling me : Jerry I am illegal here and I am thinking to go back to Mexico because the amnesty did not happen as Obama promised . I don’t recall if Obama ever made the statements about amnesty but my understanding is that folks from the south expected the amnesty .
We have to understand the left playbook related to this.
But first we need to calculate…
This is the modern Democrat… children of the Greatest Generation. How do you match or exceed the achievements of your parents coming from that time of profound heroes? You don’t and you are forever haunted by it. So you act out. You first started protesting the wars, the inequity, they unfairness in the world. It made you feel better… you were at least doing something… and to your peer group you could maybe advance to someone like Abbie Hoffman.
You were really hitting your stride over the last eight years. You protested another war… got that feeling your were relevant again. There are a lot of you because your parent’s generation, the soldiers coming back from WW-II, wanted a family. So with your great numbers you infested education and the media. You also infested government… because you had been made so terrified of failing at anything given the achievements of your parents, you became risk-averse and stayed in college longer to delay your launch. With a stack of degrees and a bucket of risk-aversion (because nobody gets fired from a gubment job) you naturally took a position in the public sector.
Previously you had taken up assigning nasty labels to people that don’t share your values and views. You became a crusader of social justice. You figured out that the media was… well, it was you… and they media loved easy and lazy reporting on the strife of victims. So you invented more of them. You came up with a speech code book that you used to shout down those that disagreed with you. You had done this for the wars, so hey, why not just make it a standard!?
You discovered that you had the power (with the media’s help) to persecute anyone and everyone not frogmarching to your political orientation and agenda. So, when your opposition finds a word that resonates in debate, you put it on the “cannot say” list and then begin the persecution phase.
So, “illegal immigrant” is crossed off the list and you will be persecuted if you use it and not “undocumented immigrant” (as if the problem is only some clerical error).
You were doing all this and feeling pretty good about yourself with respect to your feelings about your parents and their generation.
Then Donald Trump happened.
And everything came crashing down.
I suggest that we keep using the term “illegal immigrant” because it is the most accurate description.
Frankly: I suggest that we keep using the term “illegal immigrant” because it is the most accurate description.
…and that comes from the conservative playbook of Frank Luntz, who has strongly encouraged that conservatives use of the phrase “illegal immigrant” when talking about immigration issues to frame such immigrants as being more deserving of deportation.
Elie Wiesel was the person known to have re-framed the , “You who are so-called ‘illegal aliens’ must know that no human being is illegal.”
This was in part inspired by the fact that Jews fleeing to Palestine after WWII were identified by the British as “illegal immigrants,” a term that Zionists resented.
This takes me to Jonathan Haidt’s work that explains conservatives having a more varied moral filter which includes the sanctity of law in addition to considerations of fairness and harm, while liberals tend to be focused solely on fairness and harm.
The term “illegal” works because that is the only differentiation between two types of immigrants. In fact, you can say that it is unfair and harmful to an immigrant to be illegal. You should embrace that term.
There are many immigrants who have overstayed their visas. Others intentionally entered the country illegally. Some people enter on one kind of visa, then work without proper documentation for employment. I think you’d agree that there are degrees of violation of immigration law, just as with other laws.
And there are plenty of family situations in which one person has legal residency but other family members do not, for instance children, and they’d rather have their children close by while they’re still kids. But I guess it’s part of your moral flavor to call such kids, ‘illegal’? …or a spouse?
So you just get to ignore the laws you don’t like because of circumstances? That was my point. There are laws. If you don’t like them then work on changing them.
If there are children of a visiting professor for example, they will have temporary visas. They will not be “illegal” unless they over-stay their visas.
By God, liberals are completely unreasonable here. The US has the most generous and lax immigration policy in the freakin’ industrialized world. And yet it is not enough. It is never enough.
I think the ONLY at risk illegal immigrants in this country are those having a criminal record of any significance, and those that have not been here very long.
What Trump is quoted on related to the children that have been here a while…
Liberals are really quite a hoot with their rejection of the US being the greatest country but then crying crocodile tears over people being sent back to their country of origin. Seems all cake and frosting and eating it too.
Remind me why the 2013 Senate immigration bill never came before the House.
Frankly: Liberals are really quite a hoot with their rejection of the US being the greatest country but then crying crocodile tears over people being sent back to their country of origin. Seems all cake and frosting and eating it too.
It’s at this point that you say too much. I don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. You clearly seem to aim your liberal label and baggage at me, but it doesn’t apply.
I was an exchange student in another country for a year. There were some interesting and novel things in that country, but it was from that experience that I that I became certain of my American identity, loyalty, inspiration, and civic activism.
Having dealt with immigration issues with my foreign born wife and her kids (whom I adopted), the policy is very arbitrary and without a lot of rhyme or reason. It was one of the most stressful intervals of my life. The one bizarre issue was the thought that my government had the power over me, a native born citizen, to take away my bride over an arbitrary label — undocumented or “illegal”. There was a two week period where it could have gone either way. I was lucky it worked out. She had done nothing wrong and had harmed no one as far as I and local police were concerned. I’m not sure what your issue would be. It’s the way you describe regulations place on business in the U.S. and worse, because immigrants who haven’t naturalized can’t vote, and so are of less concern to legislators.
It is clear that the current immigration policy was crafted so that legislators could pander to constituents like you who are ignorant of the reality of the issue and not interested in any changes to have it address reality. I side with Grover Norquist, who advocates for pro-immigration/path to citizenship on this issue.
No immigration system is going to be perfect in satisfying everyone’s situation.
What countries or country do you see as the model of immigration policy that the US should copy? Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, then it likely isn’t a good thing.
The reason that there has been no immigration reform is because Democrats refused to make border control and illegal immigrant law enforcement a priority. Republicans have been saying over and over again that this is their position. That by prioritizing the legislation this way they could support some path to citizenship rule changes. But Democrats wanted the votes.
A bipartisan immigration reform bill passed the Senate in 2013. It had all those things you are demanding. It would have passed the House with a majority of Democrats and a solid minority of House Republicans, and would have been signed by the president. But Boehner refused to bring it to the floor because of the Hastert Rule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
The country that I see as the model for immigration policy is the United States with an immigration reform bill passed that continues to tighten border security while providing a path to citizenship for the millions who are already in the country.
Obama is your man if you wanted border enforcement and deportation — he deported a lot more than GW Bush, including breaking up families. DACA was the one area where he had some sympathy, and I think this was definitely warranted, but they maybe vulnerable with Trump. Trump has promised even stronger enforcement, but he has started openly suggesting that he didn’t mean all those things he meant when he was campaigning — such as jailing Clinton, and “draining the swamp”. So I don’t know what he really means any more.
Funny, but this is pretty much what Republicans have supported. As long as the path puts them in line behind those already in the “legal” line for immigration. There should be no reward for stealing across the border ignoring our nation sovereignty and laws.
We know that most on the left of politics are foaming at the mouth in anticipation of a more expedited path to citizenship because they want those extra votes.
But of course you ignore the point that the US system even if we simply enforce our laws is the most generous in the free world. I do understand the left tactic… talk about how the US is such a terrible place to advance the progressive agenda even though there is no better model to use as an example.
I doubt it. Trump has said he is in favor of a very thoughtful and generous vetting process. The difference is that the Democrats would never support the needed border security. With that in place, there will be more national interest in dealing with those here in a thoughtful and caring way. That does not mean that there will not be some deported against their will and interest. Maybe we should be like Australia and put them all on an Island off the main coast. I have an idea… let’s deport them to Cuba… the Hollywood-liberal-claimed utopia. Maybe Sean Penn can go there to help take care of everyone.
Some did, but the House wouldn’t let it come to a vote. It is exactly what was in the bipartisan Senate immigration bill in 2013. The House Republicans opposed the path to citizenship part.
Not sure who you’re talking to, since you keep addressing “the left” in your comments. Our immigration policies over the years have zigged and zagged from outright racist to very generous. I prefer the generous approach. I also acknowledge a long history of using and abusing immigrant labor in a mutual relationship, primarily with folks from south of the border, and feel that we should recognize their contributions and adopt a pragmatic approach to the fact that millions are living here and working here. Did you know that the majority of immigrants have been resident in the US for years?
— Pew Research
That means they are part of our economy, part of our culture, part of our daily lives even when often they are barely visible to most of us. Thousands of people cross back and forth at our border every day, with family members on both sides. If you’ve spent any time in our southwest you know that our economy and our culture is intertwined with that of Mexico, and that both countries benefit. That’s a reality that we need to address: that we have made great use of labor from our southern neighbors even as we’ve tried to restrict their ability to move here.
All of that is why I support immigration reform along the lines of what passed the Senate in 2013. And what blocked that from becoming law was the Tea Party rump of the Republican party.
Frankly: Trump has said he is in favor of a very thoughtful and generous vetting process.
Trump also said he would end DACA.
Frankly: That does not mean that there will not be some deported against their will and interest. Maybe we should be like Australia and put them all on an Island off the main coast. I have an idea… let’s deport them to Cuba… the Hollywood-liberal-claimed utopia. Maybe Sean Penn can go there to help take care of everyone.
Not funny for the people I personally know who signed up under DACA and who are wondering, what now?
Don, A question for you. Let’s say you wanted to go to UCD. You didn’t want to apply because you didn’t think you get accepted or you could not bother. Instead you break into the lecture hall and sleep in a chair or you sign up for a campus tour and sneak away from the tour and go to sleep in a chair.
Morning comes and the students who applied and were accepted show up and the lecture is 75% full of people who not applied and the most of the people who were accepted are turned away. Is that fair to the applicants? This is how our current immigration system works.
People who follow the rules get screwed and people who break the rules get rewarded.
Mexicans and others have been migrating to the United States to work for well over a hundred years. We have encouraged it, discouraged it, exempted Mexican migrants from early immigration laws, then sought to deport them when the economy turned, then formalized the bracero program with all its abuses. Now migrants from Mexico and further south are integral to our economy, disproportionately in some sectors. There are powerful interest groups that wish to retain that labor and avoid the serious disruption that would occur if the laws were suddenly enforced rigorously. It is also just a matter of common decency and humanity to avoid the wrenching dislocation of separating families where there are documented family members living along with undocumented ones.
So I decline to answer your facile and pointless scenario, since it disregards the context of these folks who are, in my opinion, an established and valuable part of our culture and economy.
OK, keep those “There are powerful interest groups ” happy Don
They are among those who are blocking immigration reform. I support immigration reform. I believe we should treat those who are here decently and that they, like everyone else, are entitled to due process.
hpierce
I don’t see anybody on this forum who is against immigration . This is not the point . The uncontrolled illegal immigration is the problem which was created by U.S governments and legislators by the “don’t care policy ” to enforce the law and protect the borders. It never should get to the point that the sanctuary cities are needed to protect these folks who are already here. It is awkward to let people in than build costly detention centers , prisons and deport them or incarcerate them. I don’t even believe than wall is needed to protect the border . Before WW II the south border was well protected and law enforcement had no problem to enforce the law. If a young ladies which came her illegally knows that having five or more children born in USA year after year provides the good source of income than in form of welfare and food stamps, “I love USA” is appropriate to say if you are better protected here as a illegal guest than in your own country as a legal citizen . If you believe that “Welcome of America ” should be without the borders passports and visas for anybody who like to get here than it is ok. However , so far is not the issue and 11 millions of illegals has to be solved with out making nice faces in the dirty game on the illegal immigrants expenses and American taxpayers. Napolitano is a best example of cruelty and violation of Human Right and she is not a Trump’s supporter. This woman did not care about ten of thousand of families and children which were thrown by her orders to the detention centers and deported in contrary to Trump who did not deport anybody . Why DV dont’t like publish an article about Napolitano’s deportation’s achievement. Personally I think she is disgrace to the University of California for what she had done to tens of thousand of families and children . U.S Senator Dianne Feinstein who brought Napolitano to the UC system is not better than Napolitano herself in regards to immigration. and deportation .
hpierce’s postulate… if any topic gets long, it will invariably bring in “Napo”/Napolitano…
She is the one who you should admire taking into consideration your political view .
You, literally, have less knowledge of my political views, by an order of at least 10, than you do of English grammar, spelling, or syntax.
Have a good evening… best wishes to you and yours…
Careful, hpierce, David will cast unwarranted aspersions on your post’s character.
Biddlin… noted…
‘Deed is done’…
hpierce
This must be your whole knowledge about immigration and immigrants. Their English , grammar , spelling or syntax . Other than that you have no clue about the immigrants lives in this country . You have painted perfect picture of yourself and what you and your buddy Biddlin represent here. Your are both good to be a guard in the detention center run by Napolitano . That it.
Truly, Jerry, have a good evening… and best to you and yours…
quielo
“Morning comes and the students who applied and were accepted show up and the lecture is 75% full of people who not applied and the most of the people who were accepted are turned away. Is that fair to the applicants? This is how our current immigration system works.”
You left out quite a bit about how our current immigration system works. So let’s flesh out your analogy. Let’s now suppose that the people who did not apply were offered this deal by the very wealthy alumni. They were told, “You can stay, but only if you are willing to clean the buildings, maintain the grounds, and babysit our children for just enough to barely live on, and if you only sit on the floor, and you won’t come out at the end with a degree, but only the knowledge that you can glean while you are are doing whatever duties that we assign you to, which by the way, will be only those jobs that the wealthy kids have not applied for when they filled out their applications. “