Guest Commentary: City of Davis Commitments As a Sanctuary City

Share:

Sanctuary-CityBy Robb Davis and Lucas Frerichs

In the past several weeks we have had the opportunity to meet and stand with a broad variety of members of the Davis and Yolo County community who have come together to express concerns about potential outcomes of the recent presidential election.  Specifically, we have been asked to describe the commitments the City of Davis has made to its residents as a  sanctuary city—something Davis has been for the past thirty years.

We provide the following as background to the City’s historical commitments in this regard and a reminder of our intentions going forward.

In 1986, the city of Davis passed Resolution 5407, a resolution affirming the support of the city of Davis for efforts to provide sanctuary to refugees fleeing persecution in Central America, particularly in El Salvador and Guatemala. In 2007, the City Council passed Resolution 07-162, which reaffirmed the sanctuary city status and broadened the wording to include all undocumented residents. In addition, in 2007, the City Council passed Resolution 07-123, which denounced human rights violations occurring during immigration raids.

Most recently, on November 5, 2014 the Davis City Council unanimously reaffirmed these prior actions, adding:

(T)he City of Davis once again reaffirms its declaration as a City of Sanctuary, recognizing its past commitment both to refugees and undocumented migrants to this country, and provides itself as a safe community until they can return to their homelands or until they receive federally-recognized residency in the United States; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Davis actively supports community outreach to educate the city’s population about these past resolutions, and therefore city policy, by:

 

  1. Encouraging City staff to provide outreach about Davis being a City of Sanctuary, and
  2. Adding signage in the city to demonstrate the city’s commitment to its entire community, regardless of identity, and
  3. Communicating the resolution to local, state and national representatives.

 

As staff noted at that time:

(S)anctuary status means that our police officers or other city officials, during the course of duty, do not take documented status into account when they encounter individuals in Davis. Documented status is not a factor in interactions or provision of city services/access to city facilities. It is a federal, not a local, issue. Sanctuary City status does not mean that undocumented residents are permitted to break the law or local code without ramifications. An individual violating a law or local code would be cited or arrested as the violation dictated but during an interaction with the city an individual would not be required to provide proof of residency. The Sanctuary City policy is only applied within the city limits; it does not apply to the county or to other jurisdictions.

 

We remind residents of these past decisions because of recent statements by President-elect Trump that he will withhold all federal funds from such cities.  It is important to note that the designation of sanctuary city has no precise legal meaning. Also, it is important to note that the City of Davis receives a variety of types of federal funding, most notably Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and various transportation grants, among others, in a given year.

To date, the President-elect has not defined what he means by a sanctuary city, nor by what method, or in relation to which funds, he intends to act. Nor, frankly, is it clear what the President’s latitude is in this regard. Whatever the case, our prior actions stand and will guide practice going forward

Davis is home to several hundred undocumented high school and university students who were brought to this country by parents who were, themselves, undocumented.  They are members of both the UC Davis and City of Davis community and have been promised certain protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program initiated by President Obama in June 2012 .  Our sanctuary status extends to these students.

Further, the entire Central Valley of California, including Davis, is home to unknown numbers of undocumented residents. The vast majority of them are active, contributing, and law- abiding members of our community.  Davis’ sanctuary city status communicates to them that they can live here without fear of reprisal, without fear of unlawful detention, and that they can trust our peace officers, especially in matters pertaining to public safety and well-being.

Of course, immigration reform is certainly beyond the purview of a local jurisdiction such as Davis.  However, it is our shared desire that for those who live here in peace, and who contribute in so many meaningful ways to our local and national economy, to find respite in the current uncertainty occasioned by the recent national election.  Offering them these guarantees helps to assure they will engage with local law enforcement if they are the victims of crime, rather than eschew participation for fear of being deported.

Beyond our sanctuary city status we want to assure all groups who have heard threatening comments directed at their respective community—be they Muslims, other international students or visitors, or members of the LGBTQIA community—that City leadership and the Davis Police Department take seriously any threats made against such groups. As an example, Mayor Davis and Chief of Police Pytel recently reaffirmed Davis’ commitment to confronting hate incidences at a press conference led by the Yolo County District Attorney and joined by School District and County elected officials after a hate letter was sent to our local mosque—the Davis Islamic Center.

Our police stand ready to meet with leaders of any community group to discuss security issues and we are extremely appreciative that our fellow community members are vigilant and desire to protect the rights of each member of our community.

We are also cognizant that there are members of our community who support the President-elect’s stated goals, including those related to immigrants.  We respect their right to hold such views and to advocate for them, privately and publicly.  These views are also protected by the same inalienable rights, (including freedom of speech), that we all hold dear, and that apply to all community members.  They too must feel secure as members of our community.

Share:

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

64 thoughts on “Guest Commentary: City of Davis Commitments As a Sanctuary City”

  1. Tia Will

    I would like to personally thank Mayor Davis and Councilmember Frerichs for putting out this statement, and for reaffirming the principal of safety within our community for all its members regardless of documentation, group membership or affiliation, or political belief.  It is my hope that we will not need to take action under the incoming administration, and my even greater hope that should we need to , we will prove up to our stated standards.

     

  2. Barack Palin

    I always hear that Davis complies with state laws in regards to immigration and deportation.  If that’s true then why must we designate ourselves as a sanctuary city and risk losing federal funding?

    1. David Greenwald

      I’m going to address the first part of your post, not your second.

      You say you “always hear that Davis complies with state laws…”

      AB 4 by Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) – “Prohibits a law enforcement official from detaining an individual on the basis of a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody, unless specified conditions are met.”

      Davis’ resolution: – “the City of Davis supports a fair and just reform to the immigration process, where local funds and resources are not used to enforce federal immigration laws, and where the Davis Police Department has actively committed not to seek out and persecute individuals within the city limits because of their documented status.”

      So now you don’t have to hear that Davis complies with state laws, you can see that they do.

        1. David Greenwald

          I think if you ask five people that question, you’ll get six different answers. I don’t believe based on the nature of Davis’ Sanctuary City, the feds can withhold funding precisely because it basically mirrors state law. SF and LA are different stories.

        2. Barack Palin

          You’re dodging the question.

          IMO it makes no sense to put ourselves out there to possibly lose fed funding so we can have a feel good policy in town that’s the same as the state policy anyway.

          1. David Greenwald

            I’m not dodging the question. I’m answering it in two fold. First, that there’s not one view in the community on the answer and second that I don’t believe the premise is correct – I don’t think we lose federal funding based on our policy.

        3. hpierce

          BP and David… isn’t it more important to have appropriate policies in place than to worry about claiming a “designation” and/or flaunting it?

          David’s graphic would be an example of flaunting it.  I would oppose such a sign actually being placed, just as I would advertising that we are an “anti-wood burning stove city”.

           

        4. Barack Palin

          You don’t “think”?

          Why chance it and for what if we follow state policy anyway?

          Comeon, it’s all so our local libs can hang their hat of Davis being called a sanctuary city so they can feel good.

          1. David Greenwald

            So here’s my view of what will happen. Right now we are arguing in the abstract, in a vacuum. At some point we will have an idea if federal funding is actually threatened. My guess is that that at that point Davis can see if their law threatens money, if it actually does, then there will be a debate over whether Davis should forgo that money or whether it should change its status. There will be people who argue that we cannot afford to lose millions and those who will argue that our values are more important than those millions. I will probably side on the side of giving up the money to adhere to our values. However, as I have said, I don’t believe Davis’ law actually will cause it problems. The cities that have more a worry are like SF, with jails and a policy to refuse to acknowledge ICE holds without a lawful detainer. Davis doesn’t have a jail so much of our policy is a statement of values rather than opposition to federal law.

        5. hpierce

          Folk, as I recall we are already “out there”.  The current thing is more of a re-affirmation, for dramatic purposes. If I recall correctly, the original City resolution/policies pre-date the State action.

          1. David Greenwald

            The original Sanctuary City was the result of the Central American refugee crisis and dates to the mid-1980s. Yes

        6. Barack Palin

          But David, once again, why chance it?  What do we have to gain if we adhere to CA policy anyway?

          there will be a debate over whether Davis should forgo that money or whether it should change its status.

          The thing is we won’t be changing our status because it will still be the same status as the State of California.  The only thing that will be different is we no longer call ourselves a sanctuary city.

           

        7. hpierce

          BP… your 9:06 post….

          Damn, I hate to agree with you!

          Perhaps we could affirm that “we are a proud political subdivision of a Sanctuary State”.  That could deal with both policies and “optics” [a word I hate when not referring to elements of glasses, telescopes, etc.].

          We would not have to change our resolutions (in case the State ‘caves’).

          Would this not be a ‘collaborative’ solution?

    2. Jerry Waszczuk

      BP

      By reading the   previous  DV articles and what I read from other sources I understood  that  the declarations  about protecting illegals in sanctuary cities are the   phony gestures and left wing anti Trump propaganda.   The deportation process depends on the deportation machine Obama build  and how many people ICE can process with  the resources they have. If Obama administration deported $ 3,000, 000 than it was probably number the  ICE was able to handle. If Hillary would won the election  than deportation process would be silently continued without out cry and with  out any  noise . It seems to me that deportation of 3, 0000, 000 people is the Obama’s  best achievement in 8 years Somehow Obama himself  or Democrats or liberals don’t like to talk about his best achievement . Maybe the Obama goal  was $ 5,000,000 and he failed  to achieve it and this is why Trump is being blamed for the deportation of millions .  Let’s wait and see .

  3. Tia Will

    BP

    Comeon, it’s all so our local libs can hang their hat of Davis being called a sanctuary city so they can feel good.”

    I would think that everyone could “feel good” about reaffirmation of and adherence to our current policies. I do not see this as a partisan issue since members of both political parties and all political persuasions benefit from the presence of many undocumented workers in our communities.

    1. Barack Palin

      Are you following the thread?  It doesn’t change anything calling ourselves a sanctuary city because we follow California law.  It’s all about symbolism and our local liberals being able to say we’re a sanctuary city but it means nothing if we already follow CA law.  We don’t have any special local immigration policies that are different from the state.  It’s moronic to chance losing federal funding just for the sake of semantics.

      1. Tia Will

        BP

        I am definitely following the thread. And I believe that words and symbolism matter. Sometimes even more than money and policy as we saw in the recent election.
        I am also aware from your repeated words that the money is the most consideration here for you, but it is not my top priority. Thus the difference in our comments.

        1. Frankly

          And I believe that words and symbolism matter. Sometimes even more than money and policy as we saw in the recent election.

          As I have earned my PHD over the years in trying to understand the liberal-leaning mind, I have concluded that this is the source of their being from Venus while I and other conservative-leaning people are from Mars.

          What I see isn’t just that liberals think words and symbolism matters… it is often ALL that matter to them.

          You can rob the treasury, just don’t say the wrong words.

          Frankly (because I am) from my perspective the symbolism that shines the brightest is that liberalism as practiced today is not practical.  The leading liberals are hyper emotive and fight for and against words and symbolism in a sort of weird virtual reality space, while few actual problems get solved and more develop.

          This is part of the reason that Trump won… the strategy to get liberals all wee-weed up and then miss seeing the practical political moves they should have made.

          Is this a personality wiring thing, or a learned trait?

          I remember some of the kids I knew growing up that would easily cry or get their chain yanked if someone just looked at them cross-eyed.   I remember thinking that they would grow out that that, because otherwise they would just keep getting picked on.  They would get all wee-weed up and make mad-bad decisions.

          But we see all the Millennial snowflakes melting over Trump, demanding safe spaces and protesting any speakers on campus that disagree with their views.   It is hard to believe that we have an entire generation that is somehow biologically wired to this word and symbolism sensitivity thing.

          I think it is a learned thing.  Growing up is hard work.  It requires that we get our feelings hurt and then learn how to get over it and bounce back.  It requires that we learn that humans can be cruel because they are mostly walking fits of personal insecurity.  But we also learn that there is goodness in most people do and we forgive them in their moments of weakness and stupidity… because… we are ALL human.

          But it is hard work to get there… better to form a system that prevents the struggle and makes you feel good all the time… except it is not better.  It is destructive to the whole.

          We have become weak.  We have become impractical sensitive bookish types that live in the words on the page and the words in the air, rather than in tangible reality that is the true basis for social progress.

          But it isn’t even a consistent thing.  For example, we have a horrendous slow moving train wreck of economic and social devastation in much of the country, and some of that is absolutely caused by the flooding in of poor and uneducated immigrants from south of the border.  Yet our hearts can only bleed for the illegal immigrants and to hell with those “racist” Trump voters… because they don’t represent the RIGHT type of symbolism to make us feel good about ourselves.

          I expect Davis and all cities that declare themselves Sanctuary Cities to pay the price in cuts in Federal funding.  And then we can calculate the real and practical cost of satiating this childish liberal need for feeling good about certain words and symbolism.

          Maybe then they will decide that it is time to grow up.  But I doubt it.

        2. Misanthrop

          You seem to forget Trump lost CA by 4 million votes so the people of California seem to be overwhelmingly in support of the liberal policies you seem to believe are out of favor.

      2. quielo

        At the last school board a number of people urged the school board to take precipitous action in order to be a “leader” among school districts. Not that it was in the best interest of the children, that seemed irrelevant to them.

  4. Tia Will

    Jerry

    I do not agree with the policy of mass deportation of undocumented individuals whether it is President Obama’s administration that has done it or whether it is going to be continued or ramped up under the incoming administration. What I do see as blatant hypocrisy is to pretend that this policy was wrong under President Obama, but will somehow be justified under the president elect. Please note, I am not claiming that this is what you are doing, but I do think that it is what the president elect and his spokespeople have attempted to portray.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Tia

      I know your believes.  Myself , I a  an immigrant who was thrown once into detention center in his own country for the  different reason and I am  against the deportation of people who were allowed  to be here because government don’t care to protect the borders but  government cares  to build billions of dollars deportation machine .  What is the point.?  $10,000 is the  average cost  to deport one person . Multiply this number by 3,000,000 than price is quite high for taxpayers to pay  beside the suffering  and inhumane treatment  for many humans being.   Trump during his election campaign was taking about deporting 3, 000, 000 people stating that they have criminal record . Where he got this number ?  It is appear that these 3,000,000 are additional to 3,000,000 Obama already deported and theses folks are already in detention centers , prisons , jails and on the lists to be processed . I believe that  that sanctuaries cities and   California Trust Act’s  propaganda does more harm than good to many because gave them protection and safe heaven a  false assurance by not telling them that they can be rounded up by feds and thrown into the  detention centers and no help will come  from these who declared and promised protection and safe heaven . This is the naked true .  Most  immigrants who are coming here legally  or illegally don’t know  that California or other state law is different than federal law . They are in America and this what they understand . I have a  good  friend who came here from  the south ten years ago and I had to learn some Spanish to communicate with him .  I learn a lot from him. He and others were  hoping  that Obama will legalize their status .  People should know  the true what they can expect . If you get here illegally than it should is your own responsibility to protect yourself from deportation and you are on your own risk here.  If anybody win immigration lottery to became a permanent resident in USA than after landing in USA the person is on his own without any government financial  support.

  5. Tia Will

    Frankly

    What I see isn’t just that liberals think words and symbolism matters… it is often ALL that matter to them.”

    You seem to see this only as it applies to liberals. What you seem to ignore, all the while criticizing liberals for it, is that this is exactly the mechanism the president elect did use to win. He won on symbolism designed to rile up those who feel “victimized” or neglected by those who are in power. He did it with  symbolic generalities, not specific policies, and yet you acknowledge the existence of this mind set and strategy only in those who disagree with you.

    1. Frankly

      Funny Tia.  Liberals used their same tired strategy to destroy Trump using their media-backed word and symbolism attack strategy.  He knew they would.  And he had a sense that it would not work because of all the practical people out there seeing through the crap and wanting hope for actual progress.

      If you really cared enough to talk to and listen to the people that voted for him you would understand that these practical considerations trumped (pun intended) their dislike of words said.

      That is my point.  Use a word the wrong way and set a liberal’s hair on fire and then while they are running around screaming about the travesty of the word, you can steal the election from them.

      In terms of leadership, words and symbolism should be the icing and actions the cake.  Liberals don’t care about the cake and want to keep consuming frosting.

        1. Frankly

          Jerry – As I point out repeatedly, I never expect to change anyone’s mind… especially Ms. Will.  She is just a great inspiration for me to write a contrasting view.  I really appreciate that she puts out there what many liberals believe but don’t admit.

          I think group-think is dangerous.  It takes a people down a path that could lead to the end.  Every “standard” needs to be persistently challenged.   And in Davis the group-think is of the liberal kind.

        2. hpierce

          Yet, Frankly, ‘group-think’ is exactly what Trump, the conservative Republicans, and the liberal Democrats rely on … as do ‘alt-right’ folk and hard core socialists…

          That’s exactly why folk who think for themselves reject all of the above, much as I do… yet when we speak out, we are attacked from both sides by the standard deviants on both ends…

          Except, when there are others near the median, who when we disagree, can actually have thoughtful exchanges, without needing 2-3 adjectives in each sentence, meant to categorize others…

        3. Jerry Waszczuk

          Frankly

          Tia knows knows what is true and what is not . She is  the  the DV ‘s Mercedes engine to keep this going . The DV is like a little Amazon River with piranhas  which are waiting to get something  to eat . David throw the article as meat  into the river and we have fiesta until David’s  article became a skeleton within one or two days .  The bottom line is that we have fun and we  like it and we should be thankful to David and to  each other that we could present our views with out much interference and in the  civilized way.  Sometimes we got emotional because we are the robots and we are not  smart phones .

        4. Jerry Waszczuk

          Frankly

          Do you see much difference between  the today’s Republican and  Democratic Party establishment or elite  Most of are filthy rich regardless if they are on left or right .  They blaming each other but they working together like well oiled machine. Their businesses in China and other countries thriving . The election for the last twenty years became the  empty and meaningless promises for millions of Americans. Lets wait and see what Donald Trump will do. The Trump  promises to America sounds differently than I previously heard for last twenty plus years.  I am  hoping for better outcome of this election.. Some people are saying that: The hope is the mother of the stupid and naive people.

        5. Alan Miller

          The DV is like a little Amazon River with piranhas  which are waiting to get something  to eat . David throw the article as meat  into the river and we have fiesta until David’s  article became a skeleton within one or two days .

          THAT is the funniest thing you have ever posted.

        6. wdf1

          Jerry:  The DV is like a little Amazon River with piranhas  which are waiting to get something  to eat . David throw the article as meat  into the river and we have fiesta until David’s  article became a skeleton within one or two days .

          And after one or two days, sometimes I will come around (depending on the topic) and consume the bones that remain.

      1. Tia Will

        Frankly

         And he had a sense that it would not work because of all the practical people out there seeing through the crap and wanting hope for actual progress.”

        I see this a little differently. I believe that he had a sense that it would not work, not because he had better ideas, but because he recognized that he was objectively better at knowing which emotional buttons to push.

        If you really cared enough to talk to and listen to the people that voted for him you would understand that these practical considerations trumped (pun intended) their dislike of words said.”

        And what exactly makes you think that I didn’t do that.  I spoke with a number of folks who voted for him at work. I also listened to many, many interviews of voters who supported him hoping to understand the appeal. What was of most interest to me is that most of them were willing to place party above all else ( some were honest enough to admit it). When asked about their dislike of the language, bullying and divisiveness, they would almost universally just shrug. Some would say that they disliked it  but were still voting for him because they believed that he would not actually do the things that he was claiming he would or that they believed that he would act more presidential once in office.

        I personally see this as wishful thinking. I believe that what we see in the president elect with all his contradictions, impetuousness and disregard for any process or decorum regardless of how this erratic behavior may harm us, is exactly what we elected and exactly what we will get.

         

  6. Tia Will

    Jerry

    From your post of 11:31, you seem to have the idea that this is about “winning”. Here is one point on which Frankly and I can agree. I do not believe that either of us perceives this as a matter of winning. I see it more as a point/counterpoint arrangement in which both of us enjoy clarifying our own view points. I doubt either of us has the goal of changing each others mind but both of us share the enjoyment of the conversation.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Tia

      I meant that you are so good in  presenting your point of view  . This is means  the respect for adversary Most likely Jehovah Witnesses would have no chance to convince you that theirs believes are better than yours .   I am enjoying the discussion between  you and Frankly .  Frankly’s  responses are   is in very close proximity to your performance .

  7. Tia Will

    Jerry and Frankly

    About that “group think”. I do not believe that you hear it from me. I am willing to say exactly what I think regardless of who does or does not like it. I do not mind disagreeing with President Obama when I think that he is wrong as I did on the ACA ( I wanted universal single party payer health care preferably under a Kaiser model like form of administration), I did not like his deportations policies, did not think he pushed nearly hard enough to close Guantanamo, and did not approve of his use of drones, and did not think he pushed nearly hard enough on environmental issues.  What I rarely hear from you Frankly is any criticism that is not directed at liberals.  So where is the individual thinking that you say that liberals do not engage in ?

    1. Frankly

      “What I rarely hear from you Frankly is any criticism that is not directed at liberals.”

      When you have a roach problem, why spray for ants?  If I lived in Texas I would be spraying for ants… fire ants.

      My family in Nebraska think I am a California liberal except on economic matters.

      Davis has long been plagued with liberal group think.  It is like a soft blanket that they cover themselves with to keep from being blinded by the light of social destruction and looming fiscal catastrophe.

      Ronald Reagan nailed it when he said: “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction”.  This is why it requires some proactive diligence to prevent the persistent slide toward collectivism.  It always starts with liberalism and then the liberal-progressives keep pushing it to socialism… which is the baby step before totalitarianism and then fascism.

      Some recent quotes from Russian chess champion Garry Kasparov (someone that knows a great deal about collectivism) summarize this pretty well:

      The story of human progress is striving, dreaming and sacrificing for a better future. Instead of believing that happy, successful individuals make for a successful society, socialism insists that a perfectly functioning system will produce happy individuals. When the system comes first, the individual becomes an afterthought. When the system fails, individuals are blamed for not surrendering to it enough.

      Globalization has made it easy for the enemies of the free world to spread their influence in ways the Soviet leadership couldn’t have imagined, while the West has lost the will to defend itself and its values.

      Illegal immigration has a profound net negative cost to the nation.  You keep ignoring costs and budget deficits like the US is just a giant endless charity that can keep giving and giving.  But of course like a lot of liberals these days, they demand all this charity and giving from the comfort of their elite gated community… while others suffer the real cost.

      [moderator] Apparently our filter does not like references to a common insect that scurries around in your kitchen at night. I think this is the third time I’ve had to edit it. For future reference, please choose a different insect or just abbreviate it to ‘roach’.

      1. Don Shor

        Illegal immigration has a profound net negative cost to the nation.

        I hear this regularly from conservatives, and liberals generally counter by describing the economic benefits of illegal immigrants. My conclusion is that the answer isn’t simple. A good overview is provided at Wikipedia. It would be very difficult to add up all the costs and benefits of illegal immigration and arrive at any firm conclusion. So I don’t think your statement is factual, though it would be hard to prove it either way.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

        1. Frankly

          There is no argument about it being net negative vs. net positive.  Of course it is net negative.  Based on reports it is somewhere between about $20 billion per year and $113 billion per year.

          And this does not include the hard to quantify cost of depressing wages and causing an under-supply of working-class jobs from an over-supply of workers.

          And now we are going to increase the bill taxing residents to provide the illegal immigrants free legal service.

          http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-us-taxpayer

          http://www.fairus.org/publications/the-fiscal-burden-of-illegal-immigration-on-united-states-taxpayers

      2. wdf1

        Frankly:  When you have a roach problem, why spray for ants?  If I lived in Texas I would be spraying for ants… fire ants.

        Having lived a while in several places in Texas, I can assure you that it’s worthwhile to spray for roaches in Texas in addition to ants.

      3. South of Davis

        Don wrote:

        > My conclusion is that the answer isn’t simple.

        We all know that illegal aliens are a HUGE benefit to big construction, landscaping and agriculture firms and help them make millions more in profits.  Many others save ~$100/month on gardening and house cleaning or ~$1,000/month on child care.

        As taxpayers we probably get a little extra in taxes from the the big guys making extra profits thanks to the illegals (and the local family paying $8/hr for house cleaning probably eats out more)  but it will be hard to say that it makes up for millions of extra people working for cash and not paying income tax and a huge number of people that don’t have car insurance or health insurance forcing the rest of us to pay (my car insurance AND family health insurance have more than doubled in the last decade) and send their kids to local schools (including UCD).

      4. wdf1

        Frankly:  Illegal immigration has a profound net negative cost to the nation.  You keep ignoring costs and budget deficits like the US is just a giant endless charity that can keep giving and giving.  But of course like a lot of liberals these days, they demand all this charity and giving from the comfort of their elite gated community… while others suffer the real cost.

        Can you point to a specific community or state where the economy improved because laws and conditions made it impossible for undocumented immigrants to survive there?  Because I can point to a few examples where it appears that the economy worsened in communities that pursued policies that were more inhospitable to undocumented immigrants.

         

        1. hpierce

          wdf… actually, that is a bit unfair… kinda’ like a “show me yours, and I will probably refute, and maybe I’ll show you mine”… if you have the cites, please share now… and my inclination, based on experience is that you have the upper hand… but I lack cites… maybe it will shut some of the nonsense down…

        2. Frankly

          where the economy improved

          So, if no humans visit the forest, how will you even know how “good” it is doing?

          If the economy is doing well, but about 50% of the population is not doing well within the economy, is it really doing “well”?

          The national labor participation rate is still lower than it has been for 40 years.

          Wages for the working class have stagnated.

          GDP growth post-recession has been anemic.

          Communities in almost every part of the nation that have a high percentage immigrant population are in financial decline… with ballooning deficits and demands for increasing tax rates.

          We sit here in our highly educated well-off ivory tower and decree that the poor and uneducated should be allowed to flood in, and then once across the border, should be embraced and given permanent status… knowing that these people will never negatively impact OUR lives.  In fact, they will help OUR lives.  They will take care of our landscaping and clean our houses.  They will cook, clean and serve in the restaurants we like… thus keeping the costs down.  And if we need any trade work… say a new addition, a new roof or a new floor… well that will be less expensive for us… we can safe some coin and use it for that fifth vacation to Europe in the last 10 years.

          Liberal elites effed it up.  They cannot stop looking at every poor person as a charity case that they must “save”… except if that person is an existing American that is generally white and Christian (“yuk” says the liberal).  Where they mostly effed it up is demanding copious benefits to the poor.   So when we import so many poor, they get taken care of.  And because they get taken care off the cost is enormous.

          Conservative elites effed it up.  They wanted cheap labor.   Bring em’ in in truckloads.  Let them do the work for much less than the American worker expects having developed some expectations over time that things should be better with each successive generation.

          Liberal elites addicted to charity cases and victims to save… and addicted to the looting political power these moochers provide.  Conservative elites addicted to the cheap labor.  And both knowing that they can afford the exclusive neighborhoods where the resulting problems don’t impact them.

          You want proof?

          I give you Donald Trump as our next President.

          DONALD FRIGGIN’ TRUMP!

          1. Don Shor

            Alabama and Georgia already did this experiment for us. If we are going to reform immigration it needs to be done in an orderly manner, with respect and consideration for those who are here working in our country and who are part of our communities. You already have people on this thread who have explained to you their own personal situations involving immigration of their family members. So why don’t you quit posting stuff like this:

            We sit here in our highly educated well-off ivory tower and decree that the poor and uneducated should be allowed to flood in, and then once across the border, should be embraced and given permanent status… knowing that these people will never negatively impact OUR lives.

            And instead listen to what people have said to you here about their lives and the people they know and the impacts it will have on them, and reply to that?
            Immigration reform affects people who are part of our communities, part of our culture, part of our economy, part of our daily lives. Abruptly implementing what Donald Trump advocated would have clear harmful impacts on those people, on local economies, and on our communities. What he actually plans to do, of course, nobody really knows because he clearly just blabs stuff without thinking, and says what he thinks audiences want to hear. But the people he’s appointed, and the ones he considered for various jobs, give us some clue as to his thinking. And muddled as that thinking appears to be, the direction he seems to be going will harm people.
            There’s a way to reform our immigration system. We know what an immigration reform law is going to have to include. We’ll see if his administration gets there, but so far I have my doubts.

        3. wdf1

          Frankly:  You want proof?

          I give you Donald Trump as our next President.

          DONALD FRIGGIN’ TRUMP!

          I think you currently lack the ability to lay out a reasoned argument to support your contention that tougher immigration policy and deporting undocumented immigrants will improve the economy.  Maybe you can try again and show better effort.

          Meanwhile, here are three citations/examples of how tougher immigration policy hurts the economy.

          The Law Of Unintended Consequences: Georgia’s Immigration Law Backfires

          Excerpt:

          Georgia’s immigration law has had precisely the effect the economic studies could have predicted. Farmers are having a hard time finding workers with the right skills to harvest their crops.  As a result, Minor says, “A lot of the smaller growers have elected not to plant as many crops or to plant any crops.”  These reductions cascade through the state economy and everybody loses.

          Tough on Immigration Is Tough on Economic Growth

          Excerpt:

          Despite politicians’ ill-informed rhetoric and pro-law rallies by Tea Party groups, the economics of the issue remain unambiguous: Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is a net general benefit for the people of a state or country. The argument is an easy extension of David Ricardo’s argument for free trade; blocking immigration hampers the free operation of an economy in much the same way that blocking trade does. It prevents resources, including labor, from being reallocated to those industries and locations where consumers most urgently want them.

          Prince William County, Virginia: 9500 Liberty documentary, extended trailer summarizes some of the major points, the latter part on the economic impacts.

        4. wdf1

          Frankly:  Ronald Reagan nailed it when he said: “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction”.  

          Permitting a large resident population of undocumented immigrants to exist with extended/ongoing economic and social restraint is a shackle on their freedom and on our economy.

          Reagan had it right about immigration.  But Republicans today would never accept him.

          George H. W. Bush & Ronald Reagan debate immigration policy in 1980

          Ronald Reagan – “I Believe in Amnesty for Illegal Aliens”

    2. Jerry Waszczuk

      Tia

      How I should  understand American liberals who are   promising  the Utopia to  all Americans under slogans of equality and diversity and no racial segregation but they  naming  pople  whites , African -Americans , Asians , blacks , Latinos . Caucasians. I listened not so long ago  one old  ‘African -American” on TV when he sadly stated that during the official racial segregation their black neighborhoods were looking good and they had own banks , stores , schools  and black people had own businesses and now everything is ruined with crimes out of control in their neighborhoods  that  even police is afraid to patrol the streets where he  lives . This is what we see today is not what  Martin Luther King sacrificed his life for. The City of Davis is not the example how the  whole America looks and live today. American liberals vision was perfectly described by  the Hillary Clinton’s   ” basket of deplorable” statement.

      The basket of deplorable translates to socialist state or Banana Republic third world country . You can not to keep 50 million people on food stamps and welfare for ever . It means the future uncontrolled bloody disaster.  I lived in the country where 90 percent were deplorable and and saw the  bloody deplorable  uprising against such system. If the 50 million of deplorable  have nothing  to lose anymore than they will fight to get their life better and to feed their kids . Don’t promise anything  if can’t deliver because the empty promise will turn against you and  will destroy you sooner or later.

    3. South of Davis

      Tia wrote that she does not think that the President:

      “pushed nearly hard enough to close Guantanamo”

      rather than writing “He LIED every time said “I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that,”.

      Like Frankly who when pushed to the wall will admit that a Republican “may have not tried hard enough” to keep a campaign promise he rarely goes “off script” from the RNC talking points he reads in the WSJ and posts just like Tia pretty much sticks to the DNC talking points that her “group thinks up” (and posts at the Daily Kos for her to re-post here).

      I voted for Obama primarily because I hoped he would close Gitmo and bring our troops home from the endless “sand wars”.  Sadly Obama (aka President Drone Striker) has just (literally) doubled down bombing twice as many countries at GW Bush (making the military industrial complex that almost equally finds the GOP and Dems even more money)…

  8. Alan Miller

    We are also cognizant that there are members of our community who support the President-elect’s stated goals, including those related to immigrants.  We respect their right to hold such views and to advocate for them, privately and publicly.

    Wow.  A token shout-out to the ‘other side’.  I am sure they feel placated.

  9. Kropp1

    Let me be clear-my daughter, and I am an American citizen born in California, was denied a travel visa to the USA! Why? Because she is eligible to immigrate from Brazil.

    What does that mean? I petitioned. She was first cleared by the Department of Homeland Security. Then we worked with the National Visa Center in New Hamshire. Believe me; Congressman Garamendi could not help! I have a beautiful letter of apology from him.   Now, after their approval, my case has been sent to the American consulate in Rio for adjudication. She will undergo rigourous medical exam this week including vaccinations. (Required by all immigrants.)

    I say this could be done in 30 days-actual time elapsed has been 5 years! RIDICULOUS…

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Krop1

      It is a lot easier to fly to Mexico and cross the border . No hassle . Unbelievable . Another incredible story. It look likes  Brazilians are the  subject of the US  Immigration Exclusion Act regardless if they born in USA or in Brasil .  You wrote the letter to wrong Congressman . I wrote to him once as well . Write some more about .

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