- “When federal agents roam our neighborhoods under the guise of enforcement, the very notion of community safety collapses. Militarized patrols in our streets and throughout our communities are unacceptable.” – Tracie Olson, Chief Public Defender of Yolo County and CPDA Board President
SAN FRANCISCO – The California Public Defenders Association (CPDA) on Thursday condemned the deployment of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to the Bay Area, calling it an alarming escalation in the criminalization of immigrants, people of color, and those exercising their constitutional rights.
The association said the arrival of armed federal forces in local neighborhoods—without authorization from local governments and in direct opposition to the wishes of residents—undermines California’s commitment to justice and sanctuary.
“CPDA and its members across California stand united with immigrant communities, labor partners, and local leaders demanding the immediate withdrawal of CBP agents from the Bay Area,” the organization said in a statement. “California’s commitment to justice and sanctuary cannot coexist with the federal militarization of our streets.”
“When federal agents roam our neighborhoods under the guise of enforcement, the very notion of community safety collapses. Militarized patrols in our streets and throughout our communities are unacceptable,” said Tracie Olson, Chief Public Defender of Yolo County and CPDA Board President.
“Every one of CPDA’s members throughout the state is working every day to protect and defend their clients in court,” said Kate Chatfield, Executive Director of CPDA. “In doing this work, public defenders are protecting and defending the rights of everyone. These federal actions undermine that work, replacing justice with fear and eroding trust in the rule of law.”
“This racist federal deployment is lawless, state-sanctioned violence designed to terrorize communities of color and destroy due process,” said Brendon Woods, Alameda County Chief Public Defender. “It is cruel, unconstitutional, and has no place in the Bay Area or anywhere else.”
“Deploying ICE in our local communities sends a chilling message: that some residents are less worthy of protection,” said Ellen McDonnell, Contra Costa County Chief Public Defender. “This approach violates the principles we defend every day.”
“When the line between immigration enforcement and everyday policing blurs, people stop trusting the systems meant to protect them,” said Lisa Maguire, Chief Defender of the San Mateo County Private Defender Program. “This undermines public safety for everyone.”
“We defend the rights of community members who have built lives here,” said David Sutton, Marin County Chief Public Defender. “To deploy federal agents focused on enforcement, not justice, in our community is to threaten everything this state says it values—family, equity, and the right to be secure.”
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
What, is the Vanguard going to have an article every time someone comes out against the sending in of the National Guard? That’s two more articles today.
Dude it’s happening today – in our part of the world. There are probably going to be a lot of articles on tomorrow… foreshadowing.
Hey dude, I’m not surprised.
Maybe you can get Joe Schmoe to weigh in tomorrow?
Keith do not read this under any condition..
For everyone else: raids called off.
Mayor Daniel Lurie today released the following statement:
“Yesterday, I spoke to San Franciscans about a potential federal deployment in our city. I said then what I have said since taking office, that keeping San Franciscans safe is my top priority.
“Late last night, I received a phone call from the President of the United States. I told him the same thing I told our residents: San Francisco is on the rise. Visitors are coming back, buildings are getting leased and purchased, and workers are coming back to the office. We have work to do, and we would welcome continued partnerships with the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Attorney to get drugs and drug dealers off our streets, but having the military and militarized immigration enforcement in our city will hinder our recovery. We appreciate that the president understands that we are the global hub for technology, and when San Francisco is strong, our country is strong.
“In that conversation, the president told me clearly that he was calling off any plans for a federal deployment in San Francisco. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem reaffirmed that direction in our conversation this morning.
“My team will continue to monitor the situation closely, and our city remains prepared for any scenario.
“I am profoundly grateful to all the San Franciscans who came together over the last several days. Our city leaders have been united behind the goal of public safety. And our values have been on full display—this is the best of our city.”
Sounds like Trump and Lurie worked it out. There are probably a lot of activists and Antifa who are upset about this today. I know they so wanted to protest/riot.
“ Mr. Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he had stopped the federal action in San Francisco at the request of friends who live in the Bay Area, and who vouched for the work of the city’s Democratic mayor, Daniel Lurie. Mr. Trump specifically cited Marc Benioff, the chief executive of Salesforce, who set off a local firestorm for initially saying he wanted the National Guard in San Francisco, and Jensen Huang, the president and chief executive of Nvidia.”
Just can’t make this stuff up
From Newsom: “Trump has finally, for once, listened to reason – and heard what we have been saying from the beginning. “
“Trump said Lurie had asked “very nicely, that I give him a chance to see if he can turn it around.”
Now I have to clean up my keyboard. Thanks, I needed a laugh today.
“Now I have to clean up my keyboard. Thanks, I needed a laugh today.”
I know the feeling. I get that often when reading the Vanguard.
“San Francisco is on the rise. Visitors are coming back, buildings are getting leased and purchased, and workers are coming back to the office.”
As I said recently. Wrong city. Lesson: one way to keep Trump at Bay is clean up you city.
Oakland do you hear me?
“Lesson: one way to keep Trump at Bay is clean up your city.”
So Trump is cleaning up some of our crime ridden cities in more ways than one. The fear of Trump taking action…
Keith says: “There are probably a lot of activists and Antifa who are upset about this today. I know they so wanted to protest/riot.”
Not to worry – they still had a “mini” protest in Alameda, before the plans were changed.
Looks like law enforcement has found a way to get through blockades (second video in the attached article).
Truth be told, there’s a part of me that looks at these protestors as losers, most of whom are probably the SAME PEOPLE who continuously cause problems for everyone else in regard to freeway shutdowns, etc. The type of people who make me glad that I’m no longer in that area (though they periodically show up in Sacramento, as well).
But there’s also a part of me that looks at the public at large as losers, for continuing to tolerate it in so-called liberal/progressive enclaves. (Again, I’m pretty much lumping together all of these type of protests – regardless of the issue.)
I also ultimately don’t know why some people are so opposed to immigration laws being enforced, to the point where they’d take it upon themselves to try to interfere with the federal government in the early morning hours.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/federal-immigration-action-operation-protest-21115746.php
Now, I do have respect for someone like the “butterfly lady”, who lived in a tree for an extended period of time – which didn’t force everyone else to suffer.
“Truth be told, there’s a part of me that looks at these protestors as losers”
“most of whom are probably the SAME PEOPLE who continuously cause problems for everyone else in regard to freeway shutdowns”
“I also ultimately don’t know why some people are so opposed to immigration laws being enforced”
Your point?
But if you’re going to simply quote me, I think you should include the part where I called the general public “losers” for tolerating never-ending protests which impact others. This type of thing has been going on for decades, and the protestors PURPOSEFLLY target the public themselves, in regard to their “cause”. (In this particular example, it got called off before it started impacting “everyone else”.)
On an extreme level, this is the same type of mentality that causes some people to attack works of art in Europe, for example. It’s not that different than the Taliban blowing up statues carved out of mountainsides, either.
It also ultimately leads to injury and death, at times – for participants and others.
And yet, the “finger of blame” is pointed at law enforcement (and laws themselves).
“Your point?”
You said it all, I have nothing to add
O.K.
I get the feeling that you think I’m in the minority regarding this. (I didn’t even vote for Trump, and never would. I also think this is the wrong way to go about it – trying to deport 11 million or more people who shouldn’t have gained entry in the first place.)
I’m certainly in the minority regarding the type of people who support these protests, however.
But since Trump has gone down this path, I say let him deport some people. Hopefully, not to prisons in El Salvador, though.
Trump’s actions have apparently resulted in a significant decrease in the number of “new” illegal immigrants, at least.
One thing I have increasingly learned is that there are more institutions than I first thought which support illegal immigration for their own purposes. (That’s likely the biggest reason it was allowed to occur.)
You admitted you didn’t even understand the issue… again.
I think Ron made some valid points.
Ron should’ve added that many protesters are being paid to agitate.
I’m sure you did
“You admitted you didn’t even understand the issue… again.”
Not sure who this comment is directed to, but no one on here is “admitting that they didn’t understand the issue . . . again”).
Are you becoming delusional – seeing comments that only exist in your mind?
The protestors are not concerned about “process”. That’s a ruse. They support illegal immigration, plain and simple.
I’d have more respect for them if they just openly acknowledged that, since they’re not actually fooling anyone. It is (from their perspective) a reasonable argument/concern. I’d also have more respect for them if they simply sat down in front of federal agents/vehicles, and allowed themselves to be peacefully arrested. THAT’S how protests should be done.
“ I also ultimately don’t know why some people are so opposed to immigration laws being enforced”
If you don’t understand why people are opposed to this stuff, it’s hard to weigh in…. But you do it over and over again.
I see. That is true.
I should probably reword that to say that I don’t ever hear them talking about the consequences of supporting illegal immigration. It’s as if they have no analytical ability whatsoever (or at least, aren’t sharing it).
And more often than not, they will deny (from what I’ve seen) the fact that they DO support illegal immigration. (Perhaps that’s one of the reasons I don’t understand them – they don’t actually state what they support. Instead, they just talk about Trump, the mean federal agents, etc.)
Also, lots of talk about “process”, when that doesn’t actually pass the smell test in regard to their (stated) concerns.
So yeah, when I’m “lied to”, it makes things more difficult to understand.
You shouldn’t have added that last part.
“And more often than not, they will deny (from what I’ve seen) the fact that they DO support illegal immigration.”
Are we talking about super fringe left people? 95 percent of the current debate is over tactics and what we should do about long term residents.
“ I also ultimately don’t know why some people are so opposed to immigration laws being enforced”
Failure to follow due process.
Excessive force and intentional brutality.
Use of military force against American citizens in their own communities.
Detention of immigrants and American citizens without charges.
Selective enforcement based on skin color.
Selective enforcement based on political alignment of communities and their leaders.
Harm to long-time community members.
Damage to local economies and the broader communities.
Exactly.
Even if they were deported “gently”, they’d still be opposed.
When someone (or a group) lies about what’s motivating them, it becomes more-and-more obvious over time.
Almost all of the issues you listed are not what’s motivating them. Go ask them if they’d be out there anyway, even if these illegal immigrants were deported “gently”.
Go ask them what they think should be done regarding the immigrants who would CONTINUE to pour over the border, if that wasn’t controlled.
I’m pretty sure I have a general idea of what they actually do support. (Again, the truth is difficult to hide.)
This is probably helpful…
About 16 percent say no one should be deported.
About 38 percent favor deporting all such immigrants living in the US
That means that the number of who favor no deportations is very small.
Gentle isn’t the *only* issue. I oppose deporting anyone who has lived in this country long term without a compelling additional reason.
Yes (thanks). The 16% probably comprise a significant portion of the protestors. In other words, they support illegal immigration (at least for anyone who has made it into the country illegally, already). And probably a lot more.
And yes, a lot of people would have a problem in regard to the issue you mentioned, as well (long-term illegal immigrants). Personally, I don’t necessarily support deporting them either, but I also would not provide a “path to citizenship” that isn’t available to the rest of the 8 billion or so people in the world.
I would also remove or restrict “birthright citizenship” if I were “king”. This loophole is being abused (including by some wealthy people).
Though I don’t know if those kids would then automatically be citizens of the country of their parents’ origin. (I guess it depends on the country.)
Arguments regarding the negative effects of illegal immigration:
Economic concerns
Undercutting wages: A key argument is that the influx of a large, low-skilled workforce willing to work for lower wages suppresses the pay of low-skilled legal resident and native workers. This creates unfair competition for jobs and depresses wages, especially for those with low to middle incomes.
Taxpayer burden: Critics contend that illegal immigration places a financial strain on taxpayers. This occurs through increased costs for social services such as emergency medical care, housing, education for non-English-speaking students, and incarceration. At the same time, some undocumented immigrants evade taxes by working in the informal economy.
Exploitation of workers: The undocumented status of illegal immigrants makes them vulnerable to exploitation by employers. These workers are less likely to report violations like sub-minimum wage pay, unsafe working conditions, or denial of overtime for fear of deportation. This dynamic harms both the vulnerable workers and employers who follow labor laws, creating a competitive disadvantage.
Strain on public services and infrastructure
Social services: Concerns exist about the strain on public services in communities with high numbers of undocumented immigrants. This includes overcrowding in schools, increased demand on emergency rooms and hospitals, and pressure on social safety nets and housing resources.
Infrastructure and environment: Opponents argue that illegal immigration contributes to unsustainable population growth, which can stress infrastructure and natural resources. This includes increased traffic congestion, housing shortages, and environmental impacts.
Rule of law and national security
Undermining legal process: Illegal immigration is seen as a disregard for the rule of law, which undermines the integrity of a country’s legal immigration system. Those who enter illegally are perceived as unfairly “cutting the line” ahead of legal applicants, which critics argue is disrespectful to legal immigrants who follow established procedures.
National sovereignty: Some argue that a nation’s ability to control its borders is a fundamental aspect of its sovereignty. Uncontrolled illegal immigration is viewed as a threat to that authority.
Crime and security: While studies on crime rates and undocumented immigrants have produced mixed results, some concerns exist about potential threats to public safety. These include the risk of increased drug trafficking and the possibility that released, unvetted immigrants may commit crimes.
Social and political issues
Unfairness to legal immigrants: Many people who support legal immigration view the illegal process as inherently unfair to those who follow the rules. It can also divert resources from processing legal applications.
Political polarization: The issue of illegal immigration often drives political polarization and can increase social tensions.
Your AI doesn’t have any evidence provided. This wouldn’t even get a passing grade from a junior high school teacher.
“Arguments regarding the negative effects of illegal immigration:”
“Undercutting wages: A key argument is”
argument by whom?
“Taxpayer burden: Critics contend”
Which critics?
“Social services: Concerns exist”
who is concerned?
“Infrastructure and environment: Opponents argue”
Which opponents?
“Undermining legal process: Illegal immigration is seen as a disregard”
seen by whom?
“critics argue”
which critics?
“Crime and security: While studies on crime rates and undocumented immigrants have produced mixed results,”
AI couldn’t distinguish which had sufficient rigor and couldn’t evaluate them. This is a key flaw with AI.
“some concerns exist”
among whom?
“Unfairness to legal immigrants: Many people who support legal immigration view the illegal process as inherently unfair to those who follow the rules.”
Which people?
“Political polarization: The issue of illegal immigration often drives political polarization and can increase social tensions.”
According to whom?
Don says: “Unfairness to legal immigrants: Many people who support legal immigration view the illegal process as inherently unfair to those who follow the rules.”
“Which people?”
I can answer that one (anecdotally). The answer is “someone I know” who became a citizen legally (and one of their family members, who simply wants to come to the country for a short-term visit. Which has now failed twice, costing a bunch of money and time, etc.).
Pretty sure there are others in similar situations who view it that way, as well.
As a side note, the person whom I’m referring to is (sort of) a Trump supporter. (Not entirely a supporter.) But interestingly-enough, that person’s lukewarm support is apparently not based on the immigration issue. Instead, that person thinks that Trump is (mostly) good for the country, economy, and world.
Needless to say, I don’t always agree with that individual.
But I suspect that a far bigger number might be found if counting some of the 8 billion people in the world, a significant portion of whom would like to immigrate to the U.S. (but can’t, or aren’t willing to make a dangerous, illegal trip into the country).
That’s where you might find a significant amount of envy or resentment regarding the people who bypass the legal process.
(Sort of reminds me of those who say that there’s a billion or so people who want to move to Davis, but can’t because of Measure J. But of course, they actually can do so (since there’s no restrictions for any citizen to do so) – but it seems unlikely that a billion housing units will be built there. And truth be told, there’s probably 7 billion people who don’t want to live in Davis, and would move elsewhere if they got stuck there.)