SF Public Defender Leading Fight for Representation for Immigrants Facing Deportation

Share:
Jeff Adachi speaking at Hastings in September
Jeff Adachi speaking at Hastings in September

In what may be a prelude to the statewide battle on representation for immigrants facing deportation, San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Adachi Thursday vowed to keep fighting for due process for immigrants in detention, after the mayor struck a deal that fell far short of the $5 million plan to provide attorneys to all immigrants facing deportation.

Mayor Ed Lee agreed to provide $1.2 million to community-based organizations to enhance existing immigration services.

“While the $1.2 million is a piece of the plan, it will fall short of helping those who need it most, people locked away in civil immigration detention,” Adachi said.

Approximately 68 percent of immigrants in detention centers in San Francisco lack legal counsel.

“These San Franciscans are cut off from their families and communities and forced to defend themselves against trained government attorneys unless they can afford to hire a lawyer,” Adachi said, adding that half of all immigrant detainees have lived in the U.S. for more than a decade.

“These are our neighbors, and they should not be locked up indefinitely without legal representation,” he said.

The plan, which was proposed jointly by the public defender and community-based organizations, would have provided legal representation through the public defender’s office for 400-600 detained immigrants.

The advantages of legal representation are clear. In San Francisco, 83 percent of immigrants facing deportation with a lawyer won their immigration cases, compared to only 11 percent of those without attorneys. Those in detention centers were more than five times as likely to win their cases with the help of a lawyer.

Adachi pointed to the successful models of universal representation in New York and New Jersey, in which public defenders provide counsel for immigrants facing deportation.

“With so many people fearing for their families, it is a shame that San Francisco is not among the cities leading the way in universal representation for immigration proceedings,” Adachi said. “Our office will continue to advocate for funding so that nobody is deported simply because they can’t afford an attorney.”

Share:

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

133 thoughts on “SF Public Defender Leading Fight for Representation for Immigrants Facing Deportation”

  1. quielo

    Maybe he should familiarize himself with the term “pro bono” rather than asking the taxpayers to pony up. Last I checked there were thousands of unemployed and underemployed lawyers around.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      That’s ridiculous that you expect people to work for free. Getting money from the taxpayers, ironically, would be a way to employ some of those thousands of attorneys you say are looking for work.

        1. wdf1

          Frankly:  That is the last thing we need to do is to extract even more money out of the private economy to give more attorneys work.

          This is where I start to think that some of your previous statements are b.s.  You flatter yourself that conservatives have a higher appreciation for the sanctity of law (as suggesting that liberals probably don’t), according to Jonathan Haidt.  It is the interpreted Constitutional law that all defendants have the right to legal counsel, free if necessary.  Is your appreciation for the sanctity of law a selective and situational filter?

        2. Frankly

          That is a reasonable point.   Does due process extend to people easily determined to be in the country illegally?  You are setting up a dual legal consideration.  Which one takes precedent?

        3. wdf1

          Frankly:  That is a reasonable point.   Does due process extend to people easily determined to be in the country illegally?  You are setting up a dual legal consideration.  Which one takes precedent?

          I thought you believed in the sanctity of law.  The point of a hearing before a judge is to determine if their residency is legal.  It is up to the state to prove guilt.  The defendant has the right to a defense.  You’re assuming guilt before the trial/hearing starts.

        4. Frankly

          Here is my problem in a nutshell.

          Some of these cases are going to be clear-cut.  Some of them are going to be more complex and nuanced.

          It is clear to me that the political left wants to make ALL of them complicated.

          Here is a list of reasons for deportation…

          Classes of Deportable Aliens

          Any alien that is in the United States may be subject to deportation or removal if he or she:

          Is an inadmissible alien according to immigration laws in effect at the time of entry to the U.S. or adjustment of nonimmigrant status;

          Is present in the U.S. in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act or any other U.S. law;

          Violated nonimmigrant status or a condition of entry into the U.S.;

          Terminated a conditional permanent residence;

          Encouraged or aided any other alien to enter the U.S. illegally;

          Engaged in marriage fraud to gain admission to the U.S.;

          Was convicted of certain criminal offenses;

          Failed to register or falsified documents relating to entry in to the U.S.;

          Engaged in any activity that endangers public safety or creates a risk of national security; or

          Engaged in unlawful voting.

          I think the Trump administration and the GOP should pass legislation that creates a scoring system with respect to these and other questions that basically assess the qualifications of an illegal immigrant to be granted either a temporary or permanent green card.    This type of thing is done in lending… where a credit applicant is reviewed and then scored on a list of criteria that determines their qualifications for a loan.

          Anyone with a score below a certain line should just be deported and we should not waste taxpayer money for a legal challenge.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            “Some of these cases are going to be clear-cut. Some of them are going to be more complex and nuanced.”

            Guess what, that’s the legal system too. And yet everyone gets due process of law because that means we protect everyone’s rights. We have this thing called the Fifth Amendment; “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”

        5. wdf1

          Frankly:  Here is my problem in a nutshell.

          Some of these cases are going to be clear-cut.  Some of them are going to be more complex and nuanced.

          Here is my problem in a nutshell.

          Having dealt with immigration issues in my own family, I find that the law is more complicated and nuanced, even than you suggest when you say certain cases are clear-cut.  I’m not going to try to demonstrate that I know more about the law than you do.  I would go to an immigration attorney, like we did when we needed one, and that immigration attorney would probably not be you.

          Just as I might go see you if I needed a small business loan, or go check in with Don Shor if I need advice about plants, gardening and yard care.

          The Constitution and case law says that the accused are entitled to appropriate legal counsel, and that appropriate legal counsel is not you.

        6. Frankly

          Sure, but illegal immigrants are not entitled to having me the taxpayer pay for their attorney.

          So what I am talking about it for me the taxpayer to only provide assistance to those above the line.

          If you have only been in the country illegally for a short while there isn’t any justification for me the taxpayer funding your defense of deportation.

        7. wdf1

          Frankly: If you have only been in the country illegally for a short while there isn’t any justification for me the taxpayer funding your defense of deportation.

          Up until the time the court makes that determination (residency status), the defendant is entitled to legal counsel — even kids.

      1. quielo

        $1.2 Million is a lot of hours at @$15

        Are you next going to have an article by a hotel owner who will demand that the city pay to house all immigrants at his hotel at whatever rate he would like to charge?

        And is this really the best use of $5M? I would respect it more if he identified specifically the funds he would like to reallocate.

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          Do you believe that people facing deportation are entitled to due process? It was very informative learning from two of the attorneys on Wednesday how complex the immigration system is and how difficult it is for people caught in the system to know their rights – and in a lot of cases, “illegal” is not by intention, but rather by ignorance of their duties to stay legal.

        2. Sam

          “Do you believe that people facing deportation are entitled to due process?”

          Yes they are entitled to due process, but not necessarily to free legal advice.

          “And is this really the best use of $5M?”

          In a City/County with a terrible homeless/ housing problem I would say no, it is not. I think that San Francisco has an obligation to provide services first to its taxpaying legal residents that need assistance (homeless, mentally ill, those lacking medical care, women and children living in abusive relationships, foster care, safe neighborhoods, reliable transportation for the poor,…..) before they start providing free services to people that are here illegally or did not follow the rules (that I understand are not the best) to be able to stay here legally.

          The compassion that I have for helping someone who stays in an abusive relationship because they do not have the support or resources to leave is different than for someone who came here on a student visa 15 years ago and never left and now needs legal services.

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            “es they are entitled to due process, but not necessarily to free legal advice.”

            Legal advice? In many cases, individuals are detained and threatened with loss of liberty and expulsion, that’s not legal advice, that’s due process of law, is it not?

        3. quielo

          “Do you believe that people facing deportation are entitled to due process? ”

           

          Absolutely. I am currently suing my former landlord (BTW no BS mediation for me) and I don’t see anyone paying for an attorney to help me. If the state is so flush with funds they could pony up for legal assistance for me.

          Immigration is a federal matter. it makes no sense whatsoever for municipal/county/state taxpayers to get involved.

        4. quielo

          “Because you’re not being detained and deprived of your liberty.”

           

          And are they in a state or municipal court? I am. There are people in Zimbabwe on trial without lawyers. What is the state of CA planning to do for them?

        5. Sam

          “Legal advice? In many cases, individuals are detained and threatened with loss of liberty and expulsion, that’s not legal advice, that’s due process of law, is it not?”

          David-If tonight someone beat their wife to death and was arrested wouldn’t that individual be threatened with loss of liberty and possibly life. Aside from bail what is the difference in the process? I don’t understand the difference between a criminal trial and an immigration trial and how come you think that an immigration trial is void of due process if a free lawyer is not provided.

          It would be nice to see a whole article explaining this instead of a simple comment. I would be willing to write an article on the economic impact of pensions or minimum wage in exchange if you would like one.

        6. quielo

          “Because you’re not being detained and deprived of your liberty.”

           

          David you seem to be confused about a few things. If you are arrested and incarcerated in a local or county jail or a state prison you are deprived of your liberty. If you should ask to go home they will not let you go home and may hit you with a flashlight. Having been hit with a flashlight in a jail I can attest to this.

          If you are in immigration detention and you ask to go home they bring you a paper to sign and send you home. Do you see the difference?

        7. Sam

          Legal advice? In many cases, individuals are detained and threatened with loss of liberty and expulsion, that’s not legal advice, that’s due process of law, is it not?

          And that person would have an attorney appointed to represent them.

          So not having a free attorney provided to you voids the due process of law? Someone in an immigration detention center can still hire one right?

        8. Jerry Waszczuk

          If you are in immigration detention and you ask to go home they bring you a paper to sign and send you home. Do you see the difference?

          quielo

          I understood your comment that if somebody in detention center waived

          his/her legal rights by signing waiver than automatically would be departed or deported to his/her own country ?  I am not sure if  the INS process is such simple after the person has been  locked in  the detention center . By logic it should be simple like that but the bureaucracy is more complicated than process .

      2. Eric Gelber

        I’m sure quielo wouldn’t mind working for free. Attorneys in California provide substantial pro bono services, including in immigration cases; but, the supply can’t keep up with the demand.

        While ensuring due process has costs, there are also offsetting savings that would result from providing legal representation. It would speed processing and reduce backlogs in the system, in part because represented immigrants are less likely to pursue cases that have no merit or appeal cases with little chance of success. Most importantly, however, guaranteed legal representation would help prevent miscarriages of justice and protect people who have a right to stay against deportation.

        1. quielo

          “quielo wouldn’t mind working for free.”

          I like working for free more than I like paying additional taxes. Given the choice between giving our teachers a raise and paying for attorneys for people involved with the federal immigration system I’m with the teachers 100%

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            And that’s probably how we end up with people in New Orleans and other places not represented by competent counsel. I don’t see this as any different.

        2. Eric Gelber

          “Given the choice between giving our teachers a raise and paying for attorneys for people involved with the federal immigration system I’m with the teachers 100%.”

          Which would be a relevant comment if that were a choice you were being given. Not providing representation to people facing deportation will not result in an increase in teacher salaries.

        3. quielo

          “Not providing representation to people facing deportation will not result in an increase in teacher salaries.”

          Spending money on this will make less money available for other purposes unless A: you have a dedicated funding source, or B: you believe in magical money.

          Which are you referring to?

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            Part of the problem with the prioritization argument is just because you prefer A to B, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t spend money on B.

        4. Eric Gelber

          quielo – Your teacher salary vs. legal representation for immigrants is a false dichotomy. Your two alternatives are based on your faulty reasoning.

        5. quielo

          “quielo – Your teacher salary vs. legal representation for immigrants is a false dichotomy. Your two alternatives are based on your faulty reasoning.”

           

          So you are in the magical money camp!

        6. quielo

          More illogical nonsense.

           

          So you believe you can just keeping spending money forever.

          You will be pleased to know that you have the same monetary policy as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.  Nice company!

  2. Jerry Waszczuk

    Approximately 68 percent of immigrants in detention centers in San Francisco lack legal counsel.

    David

    Do you have any idea how many detention centers  are located in the  San Francisco area  and in  California and how many detainees we are talking about at the present time . ?  (in numbers )?

     

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        hpierce

        Exactly .  The immigration law is not so difficult to understand and educated people without law degree  could help these folks who are locked up in the  civil detention centers . California has lot of students in law schools (the University of California alone has many  law schools ) . Many of law school students  probably would help if they know what is going on . Criminal cases for immigrants  are more difficult to handle without the  law degree . I think  that DV should make an appeal to UC Davis laws school students and professors for  help . If I am able to represent my self successfully  in courts with my awkward  written English  than  I believe that folks in the  civil detention centers could get a lot of help from  volunteers without law degree , paralegals , students etc.  If I would  not be  occupied in court now than  I would help for someone   .

        1. hpierce

          All good, points, particularly about what amounts to ‘work-study’ or ‘internships’… I’ll assume you know a certain degree about immigration laws, and I agree that the priority should be those already under custody… for cases more complex, due to criminal charges, full attorneys, including professors could supervise/mentor.

          Probably as effective as to due process, and a sight cheaper…

        2. David Greenwald Post author

          The immigration law clinic are law students working under trained lawyers. I don’t know off hand how many clients a year they work with or their budget.

        3. hpierce

          Until we have the question of how many clients (verifiable), and where, budgets aren’t as important as we have many UC law schools, and UOP… spread over the entire system(s), might not be that much impact (%-age wise)… better than starting a new “unit” outside those systems… unless one is looking for a ‘full employment for attorneys’ program, including PERS, Med, etc., not to mention a brand new set of support staff… oh, and new facilities and supplies for that effort…

          1. David Greenwald Post author

            You also have to keep in mind what the purpose of the Immigration Law Clinic is – yes it represents immigrants in court, but it’s also a training tool for students. Expanding the purpose might run afoul with labor laws.

        4. Eric Gelber

          Until we know which version of Trump’s various deportation positions he really meant, it’s difficult to say what the need will be. It could increase significantly.

  3. Jerry Waszczuk

    I could conclude this discussion that everything is about money and the  3,000,000 deportees  under the Obama’s  administration is speaking for itself . The sanctuaries cities ,  the law immigration clinics are helpful but it will not solve the problem if Trump will continue the path of deportation set  by Obama’s administration. This the obvious fact that Obama administration build deportation machine and silently shipped out 3, 000, 000 people . It never happened before in such enormous scale under any US administration. The sanctuary cities existing for long time . For example Sacramento is a sanctuary city since 1985.  It did  not help much  or  sanctuary helped  than we conclude that number of deportees under Obama’s administration  would reach maybe 5,000,000 people . We don’t  even know  how many people currently are being locked up  in detention  centers  and how many are  on the list to be deported . I don’t know and I believe  that most people don’t  not know  many many Americans are care about deportation of millions . Good  surveys and polls from different sources and different places in America would be helpful to asses what we could expect  in near future .

  4. Jerry Waszczuk

    I would like to   know how many people were deported or found themselves in the deportation centers from the State of California in last 8 years . California is most liberal State in the United States with  the Democratic Party legislature in charge for many many years .  Republican Party in California is a skeleton of this party . The US Congress and the  Senate  Democratic Party  powerful members like Barbara Boxer , Dianne Feinstein , former House Speaker and Majority and Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and their friend , the former US Homeland Security Chief and present UC President Janet Napolitano  and other California members of Congress had  a power to prevent deportation from this state.  The facts and number of deportees  make theses reps. looks like Soviet Union NKVD during  Stalin which deported millions to Siberia gulags and force labor camps . How worse it could get and what we could expect from the  next US  administration .?

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        DG

        The Trust Act was  just a  gesture after the  damage was  already done  and on top of this  the Trust Act is contradictory to  the AB60 which is  giving access for  the  Federal  enforcement agencies to the DMV’s  data of 1,000,000 folks in California which were provided with the CA DL . These folks  are being served on silver plate to feds .  I think you are focusing too much  on the  lawyers .  This is  a nice gesture but it is a  dilution of the broader issues . Myself,  I view the  deportation of families and kids in large numbers as the violation of civil and Human Rights  of these folks and it happened and is still happening  in the United States of America and was done  and still  is being carried out under  the cruel umbrella of democracy and  law enforced  by the Democratic  African -America President for the last 8 years with  the silent approval of  democratic legislators like Feinstein , Boxer and Pelosi and many others in California .  Jeff Adachi is ok but I got impression that you have no problem with throwing people  into detention centers but  your problem is only that the people in the detention center are not being represented by lawyers to fight deportation . It is nothing different than it was in Soviet Union and is probably is still going on in today’s Russia with former KGB’s  chief  Vadimir Putin in charge.  The best way  to prevent future cruelty and violation of Human Rights is to protect properly  the south border or  to open the south border . The opening the border is most likely out of question that what is  left ?

        1. David Greenwald Post author

          You get the impression wrong if you think i have no problem throwing people into detention center. However, given that we have detention centers, I prefer we have due process of law. Given who is going to call the shots on this issue, I think detention centers are not going away any time soon.

        2. Jerry Waszczuk

          DG

          Due  process  of law cost lot of money and as see yourself most  people are not very anxious to pay more taxes to provide lawyers with unknown defense result. We don’t have any information or statistic of defense result of these who were they are in detention centers . Ask Adachi . Maybe he has some numbers to provide of successful defenses . I think it is very important for people who supports such action and most important for sanctuary cities mayors and councils . If you, I , Mayor of SF or any person is  skeptical and thinks that it  is  waste of money to fight feds after folks were already  being thrown into  detention centers than Mayor of SF will not give more money .  This a vicious cycle to let millions of folks to cross the border than spent billions of dollars of taxpayers money to carry out deportation. The billions of dollars could be used to protect the borders and let the  folks get here legally for six months or one year if we need people to do some job for farmers or on the constructions etc .

  5. Tia Will

    Jerry

    My preference could definitely be to open all of the borders. But then my preference would be to aways help those that are actually in need rather than those who have plenty, but want more. We seem to do very well at the latter, but with the former, not so much.

      1. Tia Will

        Frankly

        Interesting though that you maintain this view but are clearly not in favor of a larger population of people in your neighborhood? “.

        You are so predictable. You failed to take note of my statement that I believe in helping those who actually need help. I have stated many times that I would not have objected to a project to house students ( such as the “mini dorm” or student co-ops on my street), or low income housing. What I object to is designing by exception not to house those in need but to provide investments for those who definitely are not in need and housing for those who can afford luxury apartments.

        I have said this repeatedly and yet you prefer to repeat your own version of what “Tia thinks”.

        And while we are on the subject of providing housing for those who are in need, how many of the needy are you providing rooms for in the spare rooms in your house ? Until you are providing this kind of housing for an in need population at less than market value, I really don’t see that you have room to criticize me on this point.

        1. Frankly

          So Tia you provide and few rooms and say you would be fine with mini-dorms on your street… but then you advocate for allowing 165 million new people to be allowed into the country.

          Are you not just doing a token part and expecting everyone else to do more in support of your views?

          I guess I see this as a consistent problem of credibility… accepting a minimal impact but then saying that because you accept any at all you are credible in your extreme position.

      2. Tia Will

        Frankly

         Refreshing when someone with your views is honest about your views.”

        Dishonesty is not the sole purview of any part of the political spectrum. Our president elect is a prime example.

    1. Jerry Waszczuk

      Tia

      Mexico must meet the same criteria for the open border  as Canada .  For example,Polish people have no the “no visa needed “privilege  to visit the United States. Poland is the member of the NATO pact and the European Union member . It is quite easy to get visa for Polish people but Poland has no  status “no visa ” .  It must be a reason behind.  Chicago is the city populated by more Poles than Polish Capital Warsaw . The US  government is probably afraid that Polish language will became the primary language in the North -East if  the “no visa “status or policy for Poland would end.

  6. Sam

    David-From your comments it looks like you believe that by not providing an illegal immigrant a free lawyer this violates due process. Is that what you believe and why?

    1. Don Shor

      In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

        1. quielo

          “Do you intentionally try to be obtuse?” I really think you should ask Don this question. He references criminal law even though the vast majority of immigration removals are civil. I suspect he knows this and just quotes criminal procedures to confuse people who don’t know much about this.

          According to ICE 98% of removal proceedings are civil, not criminal. 

          ” Indeed, 98 percent of individuals that ICE removed in FY 2015 met ICE’s civil immigration enforcement priorities.”

        2. Jerry Waszczuk

          Do you know what an ICE Raid looks like?

          DG

          Write something about ICE Raid .  I have my own 1982 experiences with these guys in New York Air Port in 1982 upon my arrival from Germany with  the large group of immigrants  . Gestapo. I don’t remember if they were called ICE in 1982. Brutal .  I would never leave Germany if I would knew  that I would receive such welcome  in the promised land just  a half hour after  I landed .  I could only  imagine what the  immigration Gestapo does in the  raids against illegals or how they treats people in the detention centers .

      1. hpierce

        Literally, Don, the amendment does NOT guarantee the right to publicly provided ‘Assistance of Counsel’.   It only provides that they may choose counsel.  True, it has “morphed” into something else.  The amendment does NOT say that “if someone cannot afford/find counsel, the State shall provide it for him/her.”  That was a separate choice society has made, but it is not mandated by the Constitution nor its amendments.

        Technically, the cite is satisfied if folk like the ACLU offered counsel to each and every defendant, pro bono… or on a ‘sliding scale’.

      2. Sam

        In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, 

        It has been pointed out to me many times that illegal immigrants have not committed a crime by being here. Also, the person is not on trial to determine punishment, like you would be for a crime. They are free to go back to their home country at any time they wish. If they had committed a crime that would not be the case right? Also, an illegal immigrant is able to have “the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” right?

        So Don, how is what you posted an answer to my question?

        1. Don Shor

          t has been pointed out to me many times that illegal immigrants have not committed a crime by being here. Also, the person is not on trial to determine punishment, like you would be for a crime. They are free to go back to their home country at any time they wish. If they had committed a crime that would not be the case right? Also, an illegal immigrant is able to have “the Assistance of Counsel for his defence” right?

          Actually, I think you’ve just described the debate here.
          Most are just undocumented, but they don’t want to “go back.” Thus deporting them is certainly a punishment. I don’t consider them illegal, just undocumented. So now I guess you agree they shouldn’t be called illegal aliens?
          The 6th Amendment guarantees them, like everyone else, the right to counsel in a criminal case. If it’s just a paperwork thing, then deportation seems very out of proportion to their status. Again, as I noted earlier, a huge number of these folks have been here for many years and are a part of our community. If the sanction for inadequate documentation was usually proportional to the situation — maybe a fine, or a hold on a drivers license, etc., something akin to traffic court — then I could see that it would not be necessary to provide counsel. But deportation is much more than that. It’s not just a minor inconvenience or expense commensurate with the violation.

        2. Sam

          Most are just undocumented, but they don’t want to “go back.” Thus deporting them is certainly a punishment.

          If I sneak into a UCD basketball game without paying is it really a punishment when they kick me out? I didn’t go though the proper process to attend the game, so I don’t get to attend the game.

          I could see a violation of the 6th amendment if they were being punished with incarceration or a fine but they are not, they are just being sent home.

        3. South of Davis

          Don wrote:

          > Most are just undocumented, but they don’t want to “go back.”

          Just like people that stay in a home or business after a lease expires and stop paying rent are not “criminals” (the cops will not arrest them) they just “don’t want to leave”…

          > Thus deporting them is certainly a punishment. I don’t consider them

          > illegal, just undocumented. So now I guess you agree they shouldn’t

          > be called illegal aliens?

          Deporting someone that does not have the “legal” right to be in America is just like “evicting” spomoene that does not have the “legal” right to occupy a home or business.

          I’m wondering if Don retires some day and rents his business to Joe to run “Joe’s Garden Center” and Joe stopped paying rent if Don would say he was “illegally” occupying the premisis and evict him or just keep  paying all the expenses and let the “undocumented” squatter (that does not want to leave) stay in the property without paying rent for as long as he wanted …

        4. South of Davis

          BP wrote:

          > Liberals won’t be happy until our state is completely overrun with illegals.

          Remember most (but not all) liberals don’t want any new construction in the neighborhoods where they live so it won’t be their neighborhoods that are “overrun with illegals” (who will just come in to clean and do yard work for $8/hour cash paid under the table).

          http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-17/progressive-san-franciscans-strongly-support-immigration-rights-just-not-their-neigh

        5. Barack Palin

          A friend of mine told me it took them an hour and 45 minutes to commute from S.F. to San Mateo the other night, a drive that should take 25 to 40 minutes tops.  She said it’s getting worse by the day.  Let’s open the California floodgates and welcome everyone.  Maybe we can get the commute from Davis to Sacramento to well over an hour.

        6. quielo

          “If it’s just a paperwork thing”

           

          other than those people who are facing jail time in this country for immigration violations, about 2% according to ICE, the rest have just a paperwork thing, lack of a valid visa. If they either kept their visa in status, generally through exiting and reentering or applying for an extension on time, or getting one in the first place, they would be fine.

        7. South of Davis

          quielo wrote:

          > “S.F. to San Mateo” BART is horrible too. It’s full of psychos.

          BART only goes to Millbrae, and the crazy factor on BART is actually lower than the people you will meet on SamTrans going all the way to San Mateo…

           

        8. Jerry Waszczuk

          Liberals won’t be happy until our state is completely overrun with illegals.

          Barak

          This is already happened and problem has to be solve in proper way by federal government in cooperation with the  state government . For example collecting cars insurance premium from one million “undocumented”   by the  insurance companies is linked to the federal tax and it is  a fraudulent activities   I am suspecting that California government cronies and some legislators getting a kick -back in many different forms  from the insurance companies . I have no other explanation . Looks like the “undocumented: folks   in California and other states is a very big business . The Insurance companies  and DMV should provide legal representation  to undocumented in  the California detention centers . This is crazy.

        9. Frankly

          Thanks quielo and Don.  Very educational.

          This does convince me ever more that the foundation of our immigration policies is racist, archaic, and harmful to many.

          A couple of points.

          First, why is deportation to a country of origin considered so harmful?  This is one of those liberal cognitive dissonance things for me.  On the one hand liberals are fond of rejecting any claim of American exceptionalism.  Claim we are a racist country.  Claim we don’t have our own culture.  But then they claim we should all cry crocodile tears for someone being deported BACK to their country of origin.  Presumably by the liberal narrative that their home country would be BETTER than this terrible country that we are all cursed to live in.  Really, all those racist red state people voted for TRUMP!  Why would anyone WANT to live here?

          See here why it appears that liberals just want to collect more needy to vote Democrat?

          Second, why do American liberals set the immigration morality bar so high for the United states that has already jammed in about 100 million legal immigrants since the settlement of Jamestown and when NO OTHER COUNTRY HAS EVEN COME CLOSE TO ADOPTING SO MANY SICK AND TIRED POOR PEOPLE?

          Australia has about the same land mass as the US and 23 million people compared to our 320 million.  Yet their immigration policy has always been much more restrictive.  So has the immigration policy of EVERY industrialized country on the face of the planet.

          I think American liberals are really screwed up here.  With a controlled flow like Australia manages we could also do like Australia and make sure we have services needed to help assimilate immigrants to the US.   But we have been overwhelmed over the last several decades.  Most of that 100 million of total legal immigration has happened in that time.  And then there is the 12-20 million of illegals here.  And the majority of these people are all poor and without even a high school education.

          This is just madness.

          And demonstrating of cognitive dissonance.

          Why don’t all you liberals travel to Mexico and South America and start advocating for a better system for these people.  Stop importing charity cases.  We have MORE THAN enough.

          1. Don Shor

            I can’t answer most of your questions. I suggest you ask a liberal who believes all those things, if you can actually find one. But as to this:

            why is deportation to a country of origin considered so harmful?

            Again: the majority of immigrants have been here for several years.

            A rising share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for at least a decade. About two-thirds (66%) of adults in 2014 had been in the U.S. at least that long, compared with 41% in 2005. A declining share of unauthorized immigrants have lived in the U.S. for less than five years – 14% of adults in 2014, compared with 31% in 2005.

            http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/
            It is safe to assume that in a decade they have established family relationships, they work, they are part of the fabric of our community. It is possible that they have little connection to what you are calling their home country.
            I really urge you to read up more on Australia’s immigration history before you continue to cite it as some model for the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy

            Stop importing charity cases. We have MORE THAN enough.

            At least as of 2014, about 8 million of those undocumented immigrants were in the workforce.

      3. quielo

        The reason deportation is not punishment is that an 1893 Court decision, Fong Yue Ting vs. United States, still holds. That court decision reads as follows:

        [Deportation] is simply the ascertainment, by appropriate and lawful means, of the fact whether the conditions exist upon which Congress has enacted that an alien of this class may remain within the country. The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a banishment, in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions … which the Government of the nation … has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          quielo

          Good case . It should be end of the discussion . At that time  the Chinese immigrants were the targets.  At the time the  immigrants from other countries than China were pouring into United States through the  Ellis Island .  Today we are taking about 11-15 million people who could be subjected by this case. Do you know how this case could  solve the problem with  the today’s  number of illegal residents who are practically  more legal than illegal .

        2. Don Shor

          Now I urge you to read that whole citation and think about the history, and pay special attention to the dissents. Personally, I’m happy to stand with the justices who clearly stated:

          But the act before us is not an act to abrogate or repeal treaties or laws in respect of Chinese laborers entitled to remain in the United States, or to expel them from the country, and no such intent can be imputed to Congress. As to them, registration for the purpose of identification is required, and the deportation denounced for failure to do so is by way of punishment to coerce compliance with that requisition. No euphuism can disguise the character of the act in this regard. It directs the performance of a judicial function in a particular way, and inflicts punishment without a judicial trial. It is, in effect, a legislative sentence of banishment, and, as such, absolutely void. Moreover, it contains within it the germs of the assertion of an unlimited and arbitrary power, in general, incompatible with the immutable principles of justice, inconsistent with the nature of our Government, and in conflict with the written Constitution by which that Government was created and those principles secured.

          Bear in mind that one of the cases cited, the

          collector refused to give him a certificate, on the ground that the witnesses whom he produced to prove that he was entitled to the certificate were persons of the Chinese race, and not credible witnesses …

          You’ve done a fantastic job of illustrating how racist our immigration policies have been in the past, and how much of that history still affects our policies. I know which side of that I prefer to be on. But you’re welcome to cite this precedent if that’s what you agree with.

        3. quielo

          “you’re welcome to cite this precedent” This is the current case law in the US despite your constant references to criminal law.  And I learned a lot more than I ever wanted to about immigration law in the process of extricating my wife’s goddaughter from being held incommunicado in a secret prison here in the US. BTW in an offtopic comment Feinstein’s office was helpful while Boxer’s would never return a call. I have a fantasy where I find Boxer injured in a car wreck on a country road and I drive off and leave her to bleed out. 

          Agreed that the Chinese exclusion act was racist and the dissent was based on unequal application of the law not the law itself. If you feel that immigration law is applied unequally you should state your reasons for believing that.

          1. Don Shor

            If you feel that immigration law is applied unequally you should state your reasons for believing that.

            No, I have definitely been schooled here, as they say. I appreciate you taking the time to provide the citations. This does convince me ever more that the foundation of our immigration policies is racist, archaic, and harmful to many.

        4. quielo

          “racist, archaic, and harmful to many” Certainly archaic and harmful to many. Of course there are several billion people in the world who would move here if that had the opportunity.

    2. Tia Will

      Sam

      In addition to what Don posted at 10:33, I found the following article from the Atlantic helpful.

      http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/the-overlooked…to-legal…/487682

      I especially appreciated the clarification that while the individual is entitled to a fair hearing, the government is not obligated by law to pay for an attorney. From my perspective, the lack of obligation does not preclude any given community from deciding that, given the documented disparity in outcome between those who have legal representation and those who do not, a truly fair hearing would necessitate counsel for which the community is willing to help compensate. This counsel would of course include pro bono and student/intern assistance, but would probably have to be complimented by additional funds as the need seems to be greater than what the legal community can provide for free.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        Tia

        This  a simple explanation how the American justice system works .

        If you are a terrorist  from the foreigner country  who killed many people by the  terrorist act than  the government automatically assigns  the public defender to avoid  the miscarriage of justice . On top of this  many famous lawyer would like  to defend terrorists  for free . If you are an  undocumented or illegal immigrant locked up in the detention center and you facing deportation than is very hard to find lawyer for free and the government  does not care because  illegal immigrants are not  the terrorist and they are not entitled to have a public defender .

      2. quielo

        “From my perspective, the lack of obligation does not preclude any given community from deciding that, given the documented disparity in outcome between those who have legal representation and those who do not, a truly fair hearing would necessitate counsel for which the community is willing to help compensate”

         

        Exactly, the same as my case against my former landlord. it would be nice if the county supplied some paralegal assistance and waived the filing and service fees.

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          quielo

          Dream on . I am handling  myself two cases in the Superior Court and the Courts of Appeal and when  I see UC  Regents don’t pay any fees for filing or service and  the Sedgwick (insurance company)  paying  for the  UC lawyers  than chance to prevail against UC is very slim.  If your landlord is rich and if like to drag the case forever  than his lawyer will .

  7. Sam

    David-From your comments it looks like you believe that by not providing an illegal immigrant a free lawyer this violates due process. Is that what you believe and why? I would still like to know.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        David

        This  is physically impossible to provide the legal representation for so many detainees . The legal or justice system would go bankrupt system ? How it is possible you could  you provide the legal representation for 3,000,000 folks .  Would  you make them stay in detention centers for five or ten years until legal counsel would be assigned ?  I was helping two people with their complaint filed with EEOC . It took 18 month to assign an  investigator because this federal  is under budget and under staffed . I think  you  are perfectly aware what is going  on with the in California and access to justice because because whole justice system including the are underfunded.  This why SLAPP law is so popular in California because Judge could end litigation and case in one month.

        I wrote before .  Immigration and deportations are completely different problem which can’t be fixed by the dedicated  to the cause a few  people and lawyers . I am not saying  that is not necessary to help some folks whose life became miserable because of their undocumented status .

        1. Jerry Waszczuk

          Sam

          They can apply for tourist or working visa. You don’t apply from your own country to be permanent resident in United States . You have to be a refugee to other  country  to apply , be processed and  get the permanent resident  status  in USA . Is something also like lottery to get permanent resident status but it does not apply to all countries and it is a very marginal immigration .  We are taking here of millions of people who just crossed the unprotected border and this a US government’s fault that it is happening. No any country on world let the millions of people to cross the border , let them works for many years  , give them Driver Licensees , welfare for born kids in USA and other benefits than round them up and throw them them into detention centers .  My father and mother and law were subjected to force labor in Nazi Germany on the farms . The Germans treated them better under the  Nazi law than American governments treats these who were allowed to cross the border . This is not the simple problem . This is  the Human Rights violations by  the American government. It is easy to  scream ” deport , deport ,deport ”  Don’t let people to cross the border than thereafter molest them and abuse them and put their life upside down. These folks will be coming if they know about sanctuary cities , that they get welfare for their American born kids, that they get Driver Licenses by taking test in  Spanish  . They are not illegal here . DL is the government issued document regardless if it  state of federal documents and this issue should resolved between feds and  the state not by the rounding up people and  detention .

      2. Sam

        Once you are in the detention center it is their choice to stay. How are you depriving them of liberty if they can go back to their original country at any time? They can always go back and apply to return to the US from their home country.

        1. Tia Will

          Sam

          How are you depriving them of liberty if they can go back to their original country at any time? They can always go back and apply to return to the US from their home country.”

          This is true only if they are not under threat of being raped, inducted into a gang, or inducted into some fighting force, or killed if they are returned to their own country. One assumption that is being made here is that all undocumented people are here only for purely economic reasons. This is demonstrably not true. I have personally known individuals for whom returning to their native country would have been essentially a death sentence. We claim to be a moral nation, and yet we are willing to return people to their country of origin if they cannot provide proof that they are under threat. An interesting proposition for those who have fled with little but the clothes on their backs.

  8. Marina Kalugin

    I love this guy already.. sorry I missed his talk David.. Would you please repost the links again?

    I now may have some time to watch …

    There was a time when SF was the very best place on the planet to grow up.. nada since Feinstein and Blum and the Aliotos and so on…..the idio@@@@@@ on the SF school board who were insisting common core to be put in at LOWELL HS.. common core means teaching at grade level.. there is nada a soul at or below grade level at LHS> they would not be admitted..

    THAT is how bad it is in SF omggggggg

    and without REAL education the kids are BORED and cause trouble.. a very high percentage of juvi perps and HS drop outs are bored..

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > If we really were to open the borders, I doubt that either of

      > us could predict exactly how many people would chose to

      > migrate, and in which direction.

      The current minimum wage in Mexico is about 65 Pesos a DAY (not hour), at the current exchange rate that is $3.18 a DAY (not hour).  The current minimum wage in CA is $10/hr ($88/day with no OT).  In two weeks the minum wage goes to $11/hr and will hit $15/hr ($120/day with not OT) in four years.  When you can make more working in CA for one DAY than you can make in Mexico working for one MONTH pretty much anyone can predict that a LOT MORE Mexicans will come to CA if we open the border, just like a LOT of Americans (including myself) would move to Canada if they had a “minumum wage” of $270/hr (27 times higher than in this country)…

      1. Tia Will

        South of Davis

        With regard to your post of 3:33. If we completely opened the borders, and if you truly believe in a free market, this would not remain the case. Things would equalize over time if conservatives  are right about free markets….. remember supply and demand ?  If we allowed people to go freely and pursue their true and best interests, if this is correct, then things should equalize over time , wouldn’t they ?  But that is not true in my opinion, because we do not have a “free market” and such a thing is as utopian as anything that I have every promoted because the strong will likely take advantage of the weaker by choice, not because that is human nature, but rather because that is what we are teaching our children to do.

  9. Tia Will

    Frankly

    So Tia you provide and few rooms and say you would be fine with mini-dorms on your street… but then you advocate for allowing 165 million new people to be allowed into the country.”

    I not only say that I would be fine with mini-dorms on my street, I am fine with the mini-dorm that is on my street. I am fine with the student co-op houses that are on my street. I am fine with the largely student apartment building that is on my street. I am also likely in support of the Lincoln 40 that is closer to my house than is the Trackside proposal.

    Do I expect that I will personally be able to accommodate all “165 million” that you say will need accommodating ? No. But two points on that. If we really were to open the borders, I doubt that either of us could predict exactly how many people would chose to migrate, and in which direction. Obviously if there were high demand, more people would have to make accommodations, such as those I am already making. But I don’t suppose that you would extend to yourself and others the same accommodations that you expect me to make in my neighborhood all for the sake of local investors/ developers and those who can afford luxury apartments. Fine to make selective changes to zoning and guidelines in my neighborhood as long as it is to accommodate the wealthy and as long as it is in my neighborhood.

     

  10. Tia Will

     Liberals won’t be happy until our state is completely overrun with illegals.”

    In my experience, and I have lived both in northern and southern California, in Fresno, and in Arizona very near the border, it is not liberals but wealthy land owners ( usually conservative farmers) and wealthy folks of all political persuasions who invite illegals in to work their fields, packing houses, in construction and in their homes at greatly reduced wages than they would have to pay Americans if they could even find applicants that are the real drivers of the undocumented population. But of course, it is much easier to just finger point at liberals than it is to consider the real drivers of immigration.

     

    1. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > it is not liberals but wealthy land owners (usually conservative farmers)

      > and wealthy folks of all political persuasions who invite illegals in to work

      > their fields, packing houses, in construction and in their homes at greatly

      > reduced wages than they would have to pay Americans

      This is 100% correct, but since only the small number of mostly conservative/right of center people actually getting rich from exploiting the illegal workers want them here they would be forced to go home (and the people hiring them would be sent to jail) if it were not for the large number of liberal/left of center people that also want them here to increase both their illegal voter base (and legal voter base after the anchor babies turn 18) and jobs for their friends in social services and education.

      P.S. As a legal American who owns my own business I don’t have any problem with the people that come here looking to make more money or get their kids a better education (I’m not worried that they will push my kids out of AP classes or make me wait in longer lift lines at Squaw this winter).  I do worry that as it keeps costing more and more to hire (and insure) “legel” workers in the state we will have a lot MORE people hiring illegal workers making things a lot WORSE for the legal “working class” (of all races) in the state that keeps shrinking as life gets harder and harder…

      1. Tia Will

        SOD

        the large number of liberal/left of center people that also want them here to increase both their illegal voter base “

        I know that this is a cherished conservative belief, but I am still waiting for evidence that it is actually true.

        1. hpierce

          OK…to dispel or confirm this illegal voter myth, at least in CA:

          https://www.vote.org/register-to-vote/

          See for yourselves how likely, at least on-line, it is to register, imagining yourself as an undocumented alien/immigrant… you can use fake info, just please don’t complete the registration process… remember, at the end, you’ll [your persona] have to affirm, under penalty of perjury (which could be a deportable offense if you were undocumented/illegal) that everything you say is true…

        2. South of Davis

          hpierce wrote:

          > OK…to dispel or confirm this illegal voter myth

          It is NOT a myth and it is NOT just the Democrats since Republicans also illegally register illegal aliens to vote (Democrats just register more of them).

          Most (but not all) of the people that get paid to register people to vote and get paid to get signatures on petitions are druggies that can’t hold a regular job and will do anything for an extra few bucks…

          http://registertovote.ca.gov/es/

      1. Tia Will

        hpierce

        are the drivers different for those immigrating legally as opposed to illegally?”

        I think that this is a very interesting question. I think that the answer may be “yes” in that those who would block the immigration of those who are undocumented tend to discount the factor of desperation.

        There are some immigrants who are coming to the US for educational opportunity or perhaps for higher wages than they can earn at home and who can afford to follow all the rules and “wait in line”. I believe that there is another subset of people who are truly desperate to save their children from rape, induction into gangs or other forms of violence who are willing to attempt to enter the US and other countries out a greater moral obligation to protect their children.  Are there really any amongst you who would not attempt an illegal border crossing if you saw that as the best  and perhaps the only way to save the lives of your family members ?  I know that I would in a heart beat.

        1. South of Davis

          Tia wrote:

          > I believe that there is another subset of people who are truly desperate

          > to save their children from rape, induction into gangs or other forms of

          > violence who are willing to attempt to enter the US and other countries

          > out a greater moral obligation to protect their children.

          It is sad to hear that Tia thinks that Mexico is such a horrible place that the only way to protect your children is to leave the country (vs. moving to a neighborhood without gangs).  If Tia was not talking about Mexico please let us know what country she feels is so horrible that not even a single city is safe for children.

  11. hpierce

    OK reality check… what does “length of time” mean when someone physically (but undocumented/illegal) present in the US is entitled to legal representation for “due process” as to deportation? 5 seconds? 5 minutes? 60 minutes?  24 hours?  6 months?

    Think that’s one of the “lines” I’d want to use…

     

     

  12. Jerry Waszczuk

    And I learned a lot more than I ever wanted to about immigration law in the process of extricating my wife’s goddaughter from being held incommunicado in a secret prison here in the US.BTW in an off topic comment Feinstein’s office was helpful while Boxer’s would never return a call. I have a fantasy where I find Boxer injured in a car wreck on a country road and I drive off and leave her to bleed out. 

    quileo

    I am not sure if still pursuing  your  case but maybe you  should try to  contact . Abby Vansickle  from

    The Center for Investigative Reporting https://www.revealnews.org/staff/  avansickle@cironline.org  http://cironline.org/person/abbie-vansickle

    Read the  Interceptor Abby Vansickle’s  story . The story  is from Lodi where I live.

    https://theintercept.com/2016/11/19/infamous-post-911-california-sleeper-cell-case-continues-to-unravel/

    You are dealing with very intriguing and serious matter .  Feinstein and  Boxer . Forget them. Can you write more about or it is  very private ?

    1. quielo

      No jerry it is not private. My wife’s goddaughter came to live with us in southern california for reasons that are not important here. She had a valid visa as did her mother who stayed in her country of origin. My wife had legal guardianship.  She went to visit her family when she was 16 and we were waiting for her at LAX when she never came out. It turns out she was detained by CBP as a possible trafficking victim. Why they made this determination is completely unclear but I believe they were just trying to give her a hard time. As I said my wife had legal guardianship and was waiting outside and her mother would have been willing to jump on the next plane and if there were any questions. Instead CBP seized her cellphone and prohibited any communication and sent her to an unknown location, which turned out to be outside of Chicago. Apparently CBP can just just gaff up anyone under 18 and send them to a secret prison where they have no access to parents, lawyers, or anyone else on the pretense that the CBP wants to see if they are being trafficked.

      I finally figured out where she was by the simple expedient of pulling the bid awards through federal procurement and calling every place that had a contract for these services.  The facility was greatly offended to be referred to as a prison however, unlike a regular detention center, you could not sign yourself out and return to your home country. And unlike a jail there was no public hearing, no lawyers, no bail, and you were truly held incommunicado. It was a black site.

      Anyway don’t have time for all the events but it took me 10 days to get her sprung which I was told was a record for this particular facility. If I hadn’t been been able to determine where she was located average processing time I understand is 30 days.

      A total and colossal waste of money. My guess is the feds spent more than $50K on this episode.

      1. Jerry Waszczuk

        quielo

        Thank you very much for sharing . I never  heard any similar story like this . Secret prisons. Wow. When it was happened ? Is resolved or is still going ?  I believe that The Interceptor  journalists would  like to hear your story and publish it.  They are specializing in such government  activities  . I would like to read full story.  Maybe DV like to interview you and publish it .  Don’t keep it for yourself . This is important to let people know.

  13. Tia Will

    Frankly

    Are you not just doing a token part and expecting everyone else to do more in support of your views?”

    No Frankly. That is not what I am doing. I am doing as much as I can and still ensure that I have taken care of everyone who is dependent upon me which I now number at seven. If you want to call that “token” that is fine. I also do not “expect” or “demand” that anyone else will do anything. What I am doing is to state my views, make the strongest case that I can in support, and hope that maybe I can convince a few people to consider things in a different light than they might have previously.

    I “expect” nothing. I hope for much.

  14. Tia Will

    Hi Jerry,

    I suspect that you have just provided me with my last Vanguard induced smile of the evening. As far as being a lawyer or maybe a Senator specializing in filibusters, I wonder if you are familiar with the phrase “It takes one to know one”. I seem to remember some impressively long posts from you on subjects on which you were passionate.

  15. Tia Will

    Hi Jerry,

    I suspect that you have just provided me with my last Vanguard induced smile of the evening. As far as being a lawyer or maybe a Senator specializing in filibusters, I wonder if you are familiar with the phrase “It takes one to know one”. I seem to remember some impressively long posts from you on subjects on which you were passionate.

    1. Tia Will

       If Tia was not talking about Mexico please let us know what country she feels is so horrible that not even a single city is safe for children.”

      A couple of thoughts. I did not say that any country was “so horrible”….. The country does not need to be “so horrible” as a whole for a family to find itself in dire circumstances and to perceive the US as a safe haven.

      I’ll just reference the DV article that I wrote in 2013 when the movie Snowpiercer was in theaters and there were large numbers of Guatemalan, Honduran and Salavdoran children arriving. I know that it is not popular to think that our policies are actually keeping out at risk women and children, but I think that many would agree that people would not send their children on a long and dangerous journey if they were not desperate. Please note that I did not say you shared their perception, merely that this is the way that many feel.

      Until one has personally started IV’s of those with dehydration in border ER’s and dressed wounds obtained trying to enter the US from Mexico and countries to the south, one may not have had the chance to see things in this light. But I have  and so can guarantee you that this desperation is a real driving force. Your disbelief does not change their perspective.

       

  16. Tia Will

    hpierce

    “families” rarely ‘cross-borders’ illegally … usually individuals, who hope to bring their families (if any) later…”

    Two thoughts on this.

    1.  While I agree that the predominant pattern at the southern border is individuals hoping to do as you said, I saw many variations on this theme during my two years, ’84-’86, working on the reservation outside of Tucson. During my time there we did have a few couples,or siblings or families with young children who made it as far as the Sells hospital before someone became too ill and they had to stop.

    2. Just one word…..Syria.

     

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