Progressives: It’s Go Time

Jeff Adachi speaking at Hastings in September
Jeff Adachi speaking at Hastings in September

By Jeff Adachi

It’s been less than a week since our nation’s massive political earthquake, and we’re now suffering the aftershocks: emboldened white nationalists, a rise in hate crimes, and a heightened sense of suspicion of our fellow Americans.

The reality of a Trump Presidency is sinking in. Deemed the ‘cabinet from hell,’ the architects of the impending political Armageddon include Breitbart News Executive Stephan Bannon, whose publication foments racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant resentment; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who defended the ‘stop and frisk’ law which Trump has promised to restore; David Clarke, the black Milwaukee sheriff who has publicly denounced ‘Black Lives Matter” and compared it to ISIS; Lucas Oil Founder Forrest Lucas, who has declared war against animal activists; Kris Kobach, the Kansas anti-immigration activist who wrote the infamous “show me your papers” law that was later overturned as unconstitutional, as well as Trump loyalists such as Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich.

There can be no question they will attempt to overwrite many of the core American values we have taken for granted under President Obama’s administration.

As we recover from our collective shock, one thing is clear: progressives must act swiftly to preserve our values and to protect those who are most at risk under a Trump administration: immigrants, ethnic and religious minorities, women, and anyone else they choose to target. While Trump will have his hands full when his campaign promises collide with the realities of governing, we must continue to protest and make it clear that we will not allow Trump to trample on the rights of those most vulnerable.

It’s as true in war as it is in basketball: The best defense is a good offense.

We must begin preparing for these attacks just as anyone would prepare against an enemy onslaught. By gathering and organizing, we can succeed in meeting their policy directives head on, and aggressively advocating against them. For example, we know that their immigration policies will promote mass raids, deportations, forced cooperation with ICE and Homeland Security and denial of entry for refugees based on country of origin. We must assemble our army of lawyers and immigration advocates to design our agenda of resistance and more importantly, to begin working with those who will be affected so they have a support network in place before the attacks begin.

Likewise, America’s 31 sanctuary cities, which provide protection and support to undocumented immigrants, should unite and make it clear that we will not be blackmailed into changing our core values. America’s sanctuary cities include the largest and prominent urban centers, such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington D.C., Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Miami, San Francisco and Seattle.

Our mayors and elected officials can form a powerful resistance against the anti-immigration forces.

We must encourage other cities to pass laws now that protect immigrants against unconstitutional government action and create a critical mass that would cause a Trump administration to think twice about proposing inhumane laws. And Trump’s campaign promise to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities must be rendered dead on arrival.

We should also expect that racism and scapegoating will continue and work with the ACLU and other anti-hate groups to fight back and support targeted communities. Whether or not Trump continues the rhetoric of his campaign, the die has been cast and hate-fueled attacks against people of color, Muslims, Middle-Easterners and others will continue. Trump has said that he would require all Muslims to register on a national database and supports tagging Muslims on the government watch list with electronic monitors to keep track of their whereabouts. These acts are reminiscent of the internment of Japanese Americans, an act which President Ronald Reagan redressed in 1988 when he signed the Civil Liberties Act, stating “here we admit a wrong and we reaffirm our commitment as a nation to equal justice.” We cannot make the same mistake again.

Finally, we must talk to our children about what may lie ahead, to help prepare them for the world that awaits and to instill the progressive values and ideals which have distinguished our country as one that stands for diversity, tolerance and equality. It is now more important than ever that they fully understand the true history of our county, beginning with the Native American genocide, slavery and its legacy, Jim Crow, the exclusionary laws used against Asians and Latinos and the fight for civil rights, gender and marriage equality that still continues today. Most of all, they must feel that they have a voice and a place in the fight for a better country. Certainly, the thousands of students flooded San Francisco’ s City Hall two days after the election and the young people who are protesting all over the country understand that the time is act is now. And with less than 70 days to go before the Trump administration takes over, the clock is ticking.

Jeff Adachi is San Francisco Public Defender he will be the Vanguard Keynote Speaker on Bail Reform on Saturday

About The Author

Disclaimer: the views expressed by guest writers are strictly those of the author and may not reflect the views of the Vanguard, its editor, or its editorial board.

Related posts

65 Comments

    1. David Greenwald

      Hate crimes against Muslims hit highest mark since 2001

      Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said that he believed that the anti-Muslim rhetoric that came out of the presidential campaign was to blame and that he feared there will be more hate crimes this year. “Whenever you have one of the nation’s leading public figures in the person of Donald Trump mainstreaming and empowering Islamophobia in the nation, it’s the inevitable result,” he said.

  1. Barack Palin

    Who knew all it would take is for a Republican to win the presidency to get the Vanguard to decide to cover national politics.

    This article is noting but fear mongering.

    1. Chamber Fan

      BP: You’re not as bright as you think you are – Adachi is the keynote speaker to an event coming up this week for the Vanguard, might that explain why this article was published?

  2. Tia Will

    BP

    I find it alarming that you don’t seem to be the least disturbed by the proximity of a man who calls women who do not agree with Palin and Coulter , “dykes”, who apparently feels that discouraging the use of contraceptives is a good plan for women, since we all know that having an unwanted pregnancy reduces the rate of abortion and the need for public assistance and who feels that it is fine to make derogatory remarks about Jews and who praises anger as a motivator within steps of the oval office.

    All were documented by me yesterday as either direct Bannon quotes or published under his approval as editor in case you doubt the assertions.

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > I find it alarming that you don’t seem to be the least

      > disturbed by the proximity of a man who calls women

      > who do not agree with Palin and Coulter , “dykes”,

      I’m wondering if Tia is “disturbed” that the group of women on motorcycles who lead the SF gay pride parade each year call themselves “Dykes on Bikes” or that each year ~50,000 people in SF participate in the “Dyke March”  http://www.thedykemarch.org/

      P.S. Please let me know if “Dyke” is yet another word that liberals can freely use in conversation, songs, group names and event names but conservatives are prohibited from ever saying…

      P.P.S. I’m also wondering if Tia is confident that not a single member of Obama’s cabinet has ever said a single thing that conservatives find offensive…

      1. Tia Will

        South of Davis

         “Dykes on Bikes” or that each year ~50,000 people in SF participate in the “Dyke March” “

        We have been through this conversation many times. Words can have very different meanings depending on who is using them and in what context. Are you seriously proposing that Mr. Bannon was using this word as an expression of pride ? Or could he maybe have been intending it as a form of disparagement ?

        Fully expect the chorus of crickets on that question.

        I’m also wondering if Tia is confident that not a single member of Obama’s cabinet has ever said a single thing that conservatives find offensive…”

        I cannot imagine why you even chose to write this since it is so ridiculous. I have repeatedly stated that offensive language is not acceptable no matter who is the speaker or what their political affiliation. I have said repeatedly that it is not necessary to shout, or use deliberately hurtful language in order to make ones point. I also do not approve of the public use of profanity. I see it as coarse, vulgar and singularly lacking in any facility with the English language. Swearing to me, as my children hated to hear, is a failure to find any creative or constructive means to express your thoughts and feelings.  I make exception for the rare expletive when one is physically hurt or has just broken an expensive possession.

        I haven’t even sworn during the entire last week…..and I admit that this has been taxing.

         

  3. Barack Palin

    If some cities across the nation choose to oppose any future Trump directives to rid our country of illegals that perform crimes Trump can always do the same thing that the Obama administration has either done or threatened to do when his directives aren’t adhered to, withhold federal funds.

  4. Tia Will

    BP

     Trump can always do the same thing that the Obama administration has either done or threatened to do when his directives aren’t adhered to, withhold federal funds.”

    Yes, that will be his prerogative. But I prefer losing funds to losing my morals.

        1. Barack Palin

          There’s already a system in place that’s supposed to deal with illegal immigration too.  So you cite laws that you like and ignore the laws that you don’t?

          1. David Greenwald

            Except that the question is whether the system works. I think everyone agrees the system that deals with immigration does not work – they simply disagree on the solution. For the most part, the current system for removing immigrants (again something that people don’t seem to understand is that legal immigrants get deported for committing crimes as well) who commit crimes, works. I think the left would prefer that a magistrate rather than ICE make the determination for immigration holds, but the idea that there are millions of illegal immigrants in this country despite committing crimes is largely false. I’d like to see that quantified rather than simply asserted.

          1. David Greenwald

            The question I continue to have that neither you nor BP have answered – there is a way that ICE can get around sanctuary cities and yet they have refused, why?

        2. quielo

          ” I’d like to see that quantified rather than simply asserted.” Posted on that the other day. Did you object to the numbers? The disagreement is “commit crimes” . Is petty theft a “crime”? Is vandalism a “crime”? DUI? 

          Now Trump has gone beyond crimes and says that gang members should be deported regardless if they have been convicted of a crime. I believe that there is broad support for this though as you have noted in several recent articles defining who is a member of a gang can get tricky.

          In my personal opinion I would add a broad bucket of people who cost me money. This would include people with diagnosed mental problems and the morbidly obese.

          1. David Greenwald

            While I have criticisms of the legal system, I’m not about to scrap it in order install a firing squad however. I prefer the rule of law.

      1. Tia Will

        BP

        No one has promoted protecting criminals regardless of their immigration status. Interesting to me that you use Obama’s deportation of undocumented individuals as a thorn directed against liberals, but praise our president elect when he advocates for still more deportations. So it would seem that you favor deporation when favored by our president elect, but disparage it when performed by our current president. Interesting belief system.

        In my opinion, despicable to deport those who contribute to our society and do not break our laws regardless of who is in control.

        1. Barack Palin

           Interesting to me that you use Obama’s deportation of undocumented individuals as a thorn directed against liberals, but praise our president elect when he advocates for still more deportations. So it would seem that you favor deporation when favored by our president elect, but disparage it when performed by our current president. Interesting belief system.

          Show me where I have ever stated this.

        2. South of Davis

          Tia wrote:

          > No one has promoted protecting criminals regardless

          > of their immigration status

          We are giving criminals drivers licenses (and in SF illegals get a pass on having their cars impounded):

          “After a new law went into effect in January, more than half of all new driver’s licenses issued in California this year have gone to people who are in the country illegally, the state said Friday. The California Department of Motor Vehicles reported it has issued roughly 397,000 licenses to people who live in the country illegally. A total of 759,000 licenses were issued in the first six months of the year.”

          http://www.mercurynews.com/2015/07/17/california-most-new-drivers-licenses-go-to-illegal-immigrants/

           

        3. quielo

          Hi Tia,

           

          Your statement “No one has promoted protecting criminals regardless of their immigration status. ” is factually false. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez  was already in Federal custody on his to being deported for a 6th time. San Francisco asked for him to be transferred to them and then they released him whereupon he killed someone. Mirkarimi actively protected him and therefore facilitated the murder of Kate Steinle.

        4. Chamber Fan

          “San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi said he was following city law when jailers released Lopez-Sanchez after a 20-year-old marijuana possession charge was dropped. The sheriff said his department requires federal officials to obtain a warrant or some other judicial notice in order for his jail to hold an inmate facing possible deportation.”

          I think this is a point that David and some of the others are making.  You really want to deport someone based on a 20 year old marijuana possession charge?  Ok, but why didn’t federal officials seek a warrant and take it through the legal process?  That seems to be where the system failed here.

        5. quielo

          “but why didn’t federal officials seek a warrant and take it through the legal process?”

          Because that is time consuming and they are in a volume business. They already had him in custody, why spend the time and money just to play games with idiots in SF?

          In my opinion they should indict Ross Mirkarimi as an accessory to murder. It is not beyond possibility that the feds under the new administration may hold local police/justice officials criminally responsible for crimes committed by people who had a detainer filed.

    1. quielo

      Tia,

       

      Interesting question. In any municipality there are people with diverse outlooks. Yet losing money will impact all of them. How do the political leaders make a decision in this case?

  5. Don Shor

    Calling undocumented immigrants “criminals” is like calling you a criminal if you have a speeding ticket. The conflation of undocumented immigration with criminality is one of the most repellent aspects of the recent campaign.

    1. Frankly

      Don, why do you continue to twist, spin, embellish and distort the actual record of things said to fit the divisive group-ism narrative?   It really damages your credibility as a thinker.

      1. Don Shor

        South of Davis 

        Tia wrote:

        > No one has promoted protecting criminals regardless

        > of their immigration status

        We are giving criminals drivers licenses (and in SF illegals get a pass on having their cars impounded):<

        So with respect to this:

         why do you continue to twist, spin, embellish and distort the actual record of things said to fit the divisive group-ism narrative? <

        Got it, Frankly? South of Davis said we are giving criminals drivers licenses. I was responding to that. It was not twisting. It was not spinning. It was not embellishing. It was not distorting. It was not divisive group-ism narrative. It was none of the above.

    2. Jerry Waszczuk

      Don Shor

      You are wrong .  Crossing border illegally is a  crime itself  by law which is not enforced . Crosing the border illegally is not the speeding ticket, How did you get to such conclusion . Don’t you have respect to the law of this country ? Just curious .

      1. Chamber Fan

        Illegal Immigration is a Crime. Each year the Border Patrol apprehends hundreds of thousands of aliens who flagrantly violate our nation’s laws by unlawfully crossing U.S.borders. Such illegal entry is a misdemeanor, and, if repeated after being deported, becomes punishable as a felony.”

        The question of course is whether this is what Trump was referring to – my guess is no.

        1. Chamber Fan

          However: “Although many people commonly think of undocumented immigrants as people who have snuck across the Mexican border, somewhere between one third and one half of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. have overstayed their visitor, student, or work visas.  That means that they entered the U.S. with lawful documentation and only later became undocumented.”

        2. Jerry Waszczuk

          Chamber Fan

          I should write . Is not enforced as should be  if we have 11 millions illegals and problem was used as a bargain chip in the election .It never should get to this point at the first place

        3. Chamber Fan

          We are where we are.  I think it would be very destructive to attempt to forcibly remove a large population.  I support amnesty and ten some sort of work program tying immigration to available jobs.

    3. South of Davis

      Don wrote:

      > Calling undocumented immigrants “criminals” is like

      > calling you a criminal if you have a speeding ticket.

      It is more like calling the “undocumented” driver who lost his license after 5 DUIs speeding past the school at 70 mph right now a criminal…

      P.S. I don’t call anyone back in Mexico who illegally crossed the border in the past a “criminal” just like I don’t call anyone that sold a few dime bags of pot in the 70’s a criminal but most “undocumented” immigrants are not only breaking our immigration laws every day, but usually driving without a license, working without a green card and committing criminal tax evasion (millions not paying a penny in to SS and Medicare is just making the bad situation worse).

      P.P.S. With that said as a Spanish speaker who has spent a lot of time in Mexico I don’t plan to turn anyone in to INS and if I needed to sneak in to Canada and work illegally to feed my family I would do it, but I would not lie to myself and “pretend” that I’m not breaking any laws…

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        South of Davis

        I don’t plan to turn anyone in to INS

        In such mess nobody should collaborate with INS  in  rounding  up other people because they  are here illegally . The illegal  immigration must be resolved politically because the  problem was not  crated by the  both parties yesterday.

  6. WesC

    Obama deported 2.4 million illegal immigrants from 2009-14.  Data for 2015-16 is not yet available, but if the pace continued then 3.2 million illegal immigrants will have been deported by Obama.  Bush deported 2 million illegal immigrants between 2001-08.

    Interesting that the Democratic party chose not to use this information to blow a hole in Trumps campaign promise that he will be the one to deport the illegal alien criminals and the Democrats will only shelter and protect them.  By Trumps own estimates, he said that 2-3 million could be deported. The Democratic party often seems to be their own worst enemy. I was constantly amazed by Hillary’s focus on immigration reform and her promise to enact reform in the first 100 days in office.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        Chamber Fan

        We know both know that world is not perfect and I am more concern about the  corrupted and insufficient  justice system  as as whole  than the  the  bail system alone . I don’t believe  that reforming the bail system will decrease the  crime rate  and empty the prisons. I entirely agree with one guy name Timothy D. Naegele  view or statement  that:

        “Tragically, the system of “justice” in the United States—and especially in California—is little better than that of Russia and other authoritarian countries that try to silence their critics.
        The principal problem is that the judges are often egotistical, callous, mean-spirited, power-hungry, self-righteous, condescending and, yes, incompetent and arrogant. They can smile at you, just as easily as they can slit your throat and never think twice about doing it.
         
        To be perfectly blunt, they are Hitler-esque—and not worth a thimble full of a day laborer’s warm spittle.”

        1. David Greenwald

          Disagree Jerry. Putting bail on pre-trial custody means that poor people are held in custody while wealthy people can be released and wait for their hearing. Why is that important? Well if you are in custody, you are not working, paying for rent, etc. You are more likely to plead guilty, even if you’re not and therefore more likely to be in a bad economic position if you ever get released and more likely to commit another crime. The system is discriminatory – it is not based on risk, it based on ability to pay.

        2. South of Davis

          David wrote:

          > Putting bail on pre-trial custody means that poor people are held in custody

          I’m wondering if David feels that anyone should ever have to post bail?

        3. South of Davis

          David wrote:

          > No. Bail is money for freedom.  If someone is

          > so dangerous keep them in custody.

          If we don’t have bail what will stop people from failing to appear in court? Only about half the people picked up by INS and released on OR bother to show up at their court date.

          I agree that we need reforms to the bail system and would be OK making deals for people without a lot of cash like taking the pink slip to a car (or keeping a guy’s shopping cart if he is homeless and does not own a car)  but I don’t think that letting everyone walk OR without putting up any security is a good idea.

  7. Barack Palin

    Question To David or Don Shor.

    I tested the ignore function to see how it works.  I really don’t want to ignore anyone so how can I unignore the person I did the test on?

    1. Alan Miller

      Yeah, no kidding.  Why would you introduce a new feature without explaining how it works?  Does it omit the person for one article?  In perpetuity?  How do you un-ignore?  And why is it so close and in the same color as “reply”?  I’ve almost hit “Ignore” several times by accident already.

      I predict few ever use this feature.  And those that do, I pity you if you are doing it so as not to “listen” to opposing views.  Ignoring the rambling I do understand, but I’ll just skim and fast scroll the ramblers as I do now, even the ramblers occasionally have a nugget worth munching on.

      There are other features that are needed that have not been implemented.  Sorry to see this is what was chosen.

      1. Alan Miller

        Oh  CRAP!  I just did it.  I hit “Ignore” because there was no reply, and now that person’s posts disappeared.  I looked everwhere for an “unignore posts” button, but I don’t see it.  What a crappy feature and what even poorer implementation.  How do I unignore?  And can we please have a way to remove the Ignore buttons?  Like “ignore ignore feature”.  Ug!

      2. Barack Palin

        And those that do, I pity you if you are doing it so as not to “listen” to opposing views.  Ignoring the rambling I do understand, but I’ll just skim and fast scroll the ramblers as I do now, even the ramblers occasionally have a nugget worth munching on.

        I agree with this 100%.  There’s a few commenters who I don’t always read and probably not the one’s you might think.  I just skip their comments but once in a while for whatever reason I will read their posts.  I will never put anyone on ignore.  Alan Miller, I think you hit the nail on the head, some people just can’t listen to opposing views.  So I pity them too, they can now come to the Vanguard and discuss things with only people that have a like liberal mind like they.  I don’t think you will see conservatives ignoring anyone.

  8. Alan Miller

    Jeff Adachi is San Francisco Public Defender he will be the Vanguard Keynote Speaker on Bail Reform on Saturday

    What did any of that have to do with bail reform?  Nothing obviously, but if this is this guy’s approach to politics, I’m not interested in hearing his views on any subject.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for