Special to the Davis Vanguard
Nearly two dozen people occupied the governor’s outer office here at the State Capitol Tuesday for about two hours, praying and asking Gov. Brown to sign a measure to make California a sanctuary state.
Although California Highway Patrol officers hovered around the group – consisting largely of clergy from all faiths – no arrests were made.
SB54, if passed – and it’s expected to be approved by both houses soon – would build a wall of sorts between ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and local law enforcement, restricting 
cooperation. ICE can still target immigrants but local officials would be restricted.
For instance, the measure would prevent local law enforcement from asking people their immigration status or detaining them for ICE. Money and other resources from local or state government can’t be used to investigate people for immigration purposes.
Local enforcement cannot provide information to ICE, and cannot hold them for ICE at local jails. At the Sacramento County jail, Sheriff Scott Jones – who claims he’s not cooperating with ICE – does allow federal agents into the facility to “survey” those being booked and in custody, resulting in immigrants holds.
Among those protesting and speaking at the Tuesday occupation was Rev. Leslie Takahashi, who noted: “We are called to raise our voices today because the federal government is cruelly persecuting our immigrant brothers and sisters. The President’s pardon of Sheriff Arpaio has made it painfully clear that institutional racism is official policy.
“We pray that Governor Brown will turn away from California’s own aspiring Arpaios and instead recognize that all people are children of God. Contact with a deeply unjust criminal justice system should not stamp out our neighbors’ humanity. As Jesus teaches us in the Christian tradition: ‘When I was in prison, you visited me.’
Since the concept of separation of church and state is passe we should start taxing church properties. This would help with both revenue and housing as those churches that don’t want to pay will be redeveloped.
I’m not following you here. You’re arguing that clergy should have no place in arguing for governmental redress?
Why should lobbyists get a tax break?
If you read California Code Government Code Section 82039, you’ll see that these individuals do not qualify under state law as lobbyists.
C’mon David… you and everyone else can see that the definition of ‘lobbyist’ has nothing to do with his words nor his agenda…
Simply a pretext (or pretense?)…
The government code has more to do with who needs to register as a lobbyist. My issue is that if churches do not pay taxes while using services I am subsidizing them.
Note that they often occupy large amounts of real estate and often have few people who use them for their intended and tax free purpose. Since they are generally paid for, don’t have to pay taxes, and have no parishioners to service, the shaman needs to find something to do to stay busy. This leads to adventures in all sorts of activities that are far afield from the original mission. If they want to be a NGO that’s fine but like other NGOs they should pay taxes. If they don’t want to pay taxes we could build infill.
Your issue is really extraneous to this article and distracting from it.
By praying, rest assured they were ‘lobbying’ someone other than Governor Brown… trust me on that. All they did was ‘ask’ the governor. Am done… moving on…
Was Brown actually there? Or do they have the scheduling skills of our local “activists” who marched on Garamendi’s empty office?
Jim
“Or do they have the scheduling skills of our local “activists” who marched on Garamendi’s empty office?”
Perhaps you are referring to the time when it was known that Rep.Garamendi was not in office and we were patched into a telephone conversation with him in Washington….you mean that time ? But I also digress and would like to resume topic.
I believe that when churches or other faith based institutions make large donations, or hire professional lobbyists to promote their causes, they should be taxed. Individual clergy on the other hand have just as much right to lobby as individuals as you or I. And if prayer is part of their advocacy approach, that is as much their right as is my secular approach.
Tia,
Perhaps you are unaware but the community is making large donations already to churches. Instead of charging them for streets and firefighters pensions and such the rest of us are paying extra to they can have a free ride. NGOs such as International Support Centre for Sustainable Development do not get a free ride and instead pay taxes.
Mathew 6:24 “No one is able to serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and he will love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and he will despise the other. You are not able to serve God and mammon”
We agree that the “Holy Posers” (Thank you Nala) can do as they like. My question is why should I pay for it? If they want to take part in public discourse then pay your taxes like the rest of us you cheap chiselers!
I agree with Jim Hoch to the extent that I believe that church (and other houses of worship) should be subject to real property taxation as they do benefit from public services and the like. Churches (and temples and mosques and meeting houses, et al.) should be good neighbors and share in our burdens, as they share in our many benefits.
Holy Posers. How I dislike politics in the name of the Lord.
I think , Governor Jerry Brown would sign the “Sanctuary State Measure” without the occupation of his office by the religious people . Mr. Brown went to Jesuit schools, Santa Clara for a year, St. Ignatius for four years and went into the Jesuit order, not because of reading a book, but because of his experience, the relationship with all the different teachers he encountered. Jesuit schools is the ratio studiorum ,which is the methodology of Jesuit education. Governor Jerry Borown is a pro abortion catholic that supports Planned Parenthood selling baby parts. I’m sure the Pope is proud of his activities .
I’m sure that Governor [edited: Brown] will be only too pleased to endanger us all by making California a “sanctuary state” — as the [edited] clergy and the Democrat controlled senate and assembly want him to do. Remember this, California.
[moderator] Noreen, please read and adhere to the Vanguard comment policies.
Noreen
You got slammed by Mr. Moderator
A few days ago I argued myself the First Amendment case in 3DCA (In Pro Per) . In my 15 minutes permitted time I stated that free speech rights cannot be granted to some and denied to others. I am making reference to one Amicus Curiae brief the ALCU wrote in some case of Planned Parenthood v. Religious Group opposing abortion . Here is not the case . Orwell 1984 and the Animal Farm
“Planned Parenthood selling baby parts. “
Planned Parenthood does not now and has never “sold baby parts”. If you doubt this is true, please read my commentary on the Daleiden “sting operation” that turned out to be anything but. I am sure all of the articles are in the archives.
How do you know? . Yare not a salesman ?
Planned Parenthood did sell baby parts, maybe just to recoup their costs but none the less they did sell baby parts.
NTIWITWNBOT
Aside from the issue of whether fetuses are babies, assisting parents in donating fetal tissue for medical research is legal and does not entail the sale of baby parts.
Aside from the issue(s) of the means of having fetal tissue available, I agree with Eric.
Once a pregnancy is ended, no matter why or how, beneficial uses of the remains is a good thing, in my opinion…
As long as we’re correcting the record on Jerry Brown, I would note that he is not pro-abortion. He is strongly in favor of women’s right to choose, however. And as to the Pope, they have met, and are in accord, on climate change. So, yes, I’m certain the Pope, who has been critical of Donald Trump, is proud of Jerry Brown’s activities.
Where did you get it ? From David ?
Eric reads… and not just from the VG… Eric and I probably have reading material in common… we come to same opinions on this…
Except, not convinced Francis is “proud” of Jerry… some of his efforts, perhaps…
The “drift” continues on this thread…
I humbly suggest that Noreen, Jim Hoch and/or others submit an article(s), starting a new thread, on whether churches, 501(c)3’s, STEAC, school districts, the Red Cross, Cities, Counties, public, quasi-public, other groups should be taxed more… and/or having their property revert to the local agency/State… should be interesting…
Until then, very much off-topic…
Without my comment there would be no comments at all, which may be desirable.
All I did was suggest that you bring your topic forward… that properties (real or otherwise) owned by religious, charitable, non-profits be taxed at the same rate that you are… [or, perhaps more (?) if they engage in any advocacy]… just trying to help… this is apparently a ‘sore point’ for you… but irrelevant to the topic at hand…
Howard
Let see what Gov. Jerry Brown will do about the “Sanctuary State ” Maybe he will write a Declaration of Independence for California . Zorro
Jerry… your Zorro reference rings true… “the fox” in Spanish… with all the attendant meanings/implications of the term… hell, he dated a ‘fox’! [yeah I had a crush on Linda Ronstadt as a teenager… then, met a real girl who was as cute/cuter… but not a great singer…]
Howard my comment was not a direct response to you.
Let’s analyze this article. Some unidentified people who allege they are members of the clergy go sit in the governors office while he is not there. they have a little photo op and leave.
I believe the technical term for this article is “wee bit ‘o fluff”.
Please note that people in general respect clergy when they believe the clergy is in agreement with their view but when the clergy says “don’t eat that” or “don’t have sex with that person” they can no longer hear them.
Jim
“Without my comment there would be no comments at all”
Wow ! While making the first comment on a thread undoubtedly helps to shape the direction of that thread, I think it is a stretch to say that without your comment, no one else would have had any thoughts/comments on the issue.
Howard
You are correct and I admit to feeding the “off topic” trend. My apologies, although I think there is a very slight possible connection between the power of the Pope through his religious influence and what is due the state.
Hi Howard
I know Spanish a little to communicate with a Spanish speaking folks . I know that Jerry Brown dated Linda Ronstadt. I have her album entitled : Canciones de Mi Padre and other album in Spanish . I love some songs she sings . My favor song is the Crucifijo De Piedra and few other.
glad we are back on track.
Jim
This occupation of Jerry Brown’s office was phony .Staged propaganda . Stupid
Maybe the clergy want to pay a visit to Santa Rosa?
http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Man-wanted-for-deportation-allegedly-kills-12162718.php
Jim
“people in general respect clergy when they believe the clergy is in agreement with their view but when the clergy says “don’t eat that” or “don’t have sex with that person” they can no longer hear them.”
I think that you are conflating “respect” with agreement. What I think is that these are two separate issues. I respect the Pope for his empathy and humanity, but disagree with much of the doctrine he embraces.
Tia
What is your opinion about the SB 54 which declaring the State of California a “Sanctuary State” for undocumented immigrants in light that California’s governor Jerry Brown vetoed Senate Bil 1289 also known as the Dignity Not Detention Act.
Jerry –
Last year’s SB 1289 would have prohibited local governments from contracting with for-profit detention centers, in reportedly unsatisfactory conditions and with limited access to counsel. His reasoning in vetoing it (prior to the election, by the way) was that the federal DHS was considering whether such contracting should continue, which might have dealt with the issue long term, not because he supported the concept. Agree with his veto or not, there’s no consistency between the veto of SB 1289 and support for SB 54.
Correction: My last sentence should read “… there’s no inconsistency …”
Eric
As an immigrant in this country, I am against hunting people down if they already here and they are living and working here for 10 or more years . Obama build sophisticated detention system and with Napolitano hunted down and deported 3 million folks including a lot of families and kids. I view the SB189 and SB54 as a phony and stupid gestures toward immigrants. Everything is about money and is not about people in regards to government’s measures protecting immigrants (not only in California) .If the federal DHS was considering whether such contracting should continue why bother to write the bills than , knowing that bill is meaningless and is just gesture because Feds are controlling immigration not states. . If you would get deeper into the US immigration law than you will find out that today situation is not much different that it was before WWII. The only difference before WW II was that the southern border was properly protected and people were lawfully crossing border if they wanted to work in the United States for few months. As you know Mexico has 120 million people and it would be hard to absorb them with the phony bills in the State of California and others southern states. United States has a lot less manual labor to provide that it was 50 years ago or even 30 years ago to provide for the crossing border people. Millions of people from the south are undedicated people with 3 or 4 years of education in elementary school. I know quite few and I know how they got here and how they live here. One of them is my good friend and he is leaving USA on Sunday with one way air plane ticket after he lived 10 years in USA. No jobs for him and his family. I am giving him ride to Sacramento Airport tomorrow and he is flying back to Guadalajara.