by Pablo Ghenis

It all started in relative obscurity, a persistent protest on Wall Street with a catchy name. A few progressive talk show hosts started asking why the rest of the media was ignoring this event, even though it had grown larger than the Tea Party rallies they covered so diligently in 2009-10. Good question. Could it be that the establishment was feeling vulnerable, after witnessing the Arab Spring? How could that be? The US isn’t like that, Americans haven’t rebelled that strongly since the Vietnam Era, it’s not done any more, right? Wrong…

Early on, we watched with interest as the Occupy Wall St. protest grew too big to ignore. As the Occupy Wall St. movement grew, the establishment switched from indifference to ridicule, a definite sign of concern. The Arab Spring seemed to be going global. This could be the ultimate irony, considering that some observers of the commodities markets noticed that Wall St. traders had speculated heavily on wheat futures in the year before the Arab Spring, unconcerned or unaware that wheat is the main staple of the Arab diet, causing the price to double, and leaving many poor families unable to feed themselves. They say a man will risk his life to fight the powerful the day he can no longer feed his family, and so it was in 2011.  If Occupy Wall Street was inspired by this, then it is a boomerang that was thrown two years ago by Wall Street itself, and now it has returned to hit them in the back of the head.

Many of us felt beaten down in this crash. There was obvious and shameless wrongdoing, yet the culprits  were rescued from their own recklessness, nobody went to jail, and then they turned around and victimized the people all over again. The game was rigged! Like losers at a casino, we collectively gasped at the outcome, and protested to no avail that It was Wall St. that had gambled and lost.

The Occupy movement arrived in San Jose as it spread like wildfire from Wall Street to the entire world. It was a confusing proposition, a leaderless movement, with clear complaints but taking its time to articulate specific demands, a non-partisan big tent of ideas meant to accommodate the 99% that got cheated by a lot of the top 1%.  Some friends thought I had lost my mind to take a break from my more traditional activism, mostly Latino voter registration, to jump into this new concept. Yet, it was irresistible.

From the Wall St. theme, it was obvious that eventually the demands would have to include financial transparency, return of the old regulatory protections in some updated form, an end to perverse incentives that reward selling doomed deals that blow up after the huge December bonus is paid, claw-backs to recover such fraudulent earnings, some plank that pushes for people to get compensated for creating value rather than for tricking people, etc. One could see a core that people would all see as common ground. If we could stay focused, we could change the world.

Ah, the big tent! I never thought a tent could carry so many meanings. The big tent politically has room for all of the 99%. The dome tents as a symbol of occupying our common space. Tents as a symbol of free speech.  Tents as shelter remind us that housing was used as the main instrument of financial mayhem.

For the big tent to work, literally embracing the entire political spectrum from big-government to no-government, we would all have to be very restrained about our previous/outside political affiliations. Partisanship or co-option inside the Occupation is the one thing that can tear us apart. It’s not that we’re not supposed to have a political past when we arrive, it’s simply that we leave it at the door, like taking off our shoes before entering a home.  It could be poor form or provocative to flaunt a partisan symbol from any party. The same goes for conversations or statements that are personal or partisan enough to draw a response from someone from the other side of the partisan divide. If someone does go there, the hardest thing is to bite your tongue and NOT try to rebut like you would do in the “normal” world.  The best response is to say “We probably disagree about that last statement. Lets not spend time on topics that can divide us, how about talking about the really important stuff that unites us?”. Yeah, I know, how hippy-dippy lovey-dovey does that sound like?  Can people from two parties talk to each other that way?  Yes, it happens, it feels really weird the first couple of times, and then you get used to it. Congress could learn a lot from us right there.

This drive to seek the common ground gets into you after spending some time at Occupy San Jose.   Not that there haven’t been a lot of rough spots (I’ll leave that for another article), but one of our better moments was when we build some supportive ties with Latino groups, by precisely focusing on issues that were common goals for both movements.

Can Occupy really change the nation, and the world?  It already has, by causing the national debate to shift from cuts to jobs.  It has put the focus back on simple common sense values like compensation for creating value rather than fraud. It has given political cover to politicians who want to promote the right values, because they can point to this people’s uprising. Going forward, my hope is for Occupy to change the world’s direction through a platform, being a watchdog, and changing the people in government  as needed, in an orderly and peaceful way, to bring fairness to our societies.

People have written many reasons on large sheets of paper for joining Occupy San Jose. My answer was a one-liner: Who would have thought that I’d see the start of a world-changing revolution, and that it would land 5 blocks from my apartment?

After WWII, Senator Dennis Chavez (New Mexico) said, “When we march off to war, we are Americans; but upon our return, we are merely Mexicans.” These words are just as true now on this Veterans Day as they were then.

Regardless of national origin, Mexican-Chicanos have bled and died for the United States in the Battle of the Marne, Iwo Jima, Normandy, the Chosin Reservoir, Khe Sahn, Fallujah, and other countless battles that the United States has fought. Imagine the indignation of a returning Mexican-Chicano veteran or war hero who is reduced to a zero when asked for proof of legal status at work, for merely walking down the street, or for placing children in school. Ostensibly, these veterans served to fight for freedom and, by extension, liberty and democracy. Freedom is so important that society is willing to sacrifice people and economic resources for this vaunted and cherished ideal.

For Mexican-Chicano veterans, and the communities they represent, the oft-used cliché “they fought for the freedoms we enjoy,” is either not applicable or has limited meaning. Simply stated, freedom means rights and privileges, such as civil liberty or ease of movement. Yet, the current trend of anti-Mexican-Chicano legislation in Arizona, Georgia, Alabama, and other states is infringing on the rights and freedom of Mexican-Chicanos. Given the legal and extra-legal means that have historically been used to suppress this group, this type of legislation comes as no surprise—especially in times of economic downturn.

Although it is not wise to be a prisoner of history, it cannot be escaped. Racist vigilante/militias have a long history of “Mexican hunting” and unabated violent repression—often with government complicity. Recently, some elected government officials have openly encouraged violence. Kansas State Representative Virgil Peck was blatant when he said the killing of feral hogs from helicopters could also be used to remedy “…our illegal immigration problem.” Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama has called for doing, “…anything short of shooting” undocumented immigrants. Herman Cain aspiring GOP presidential nominee claimed he was joking when he said that an electric fence should be build across the border. Texas Congressman Charlie Gonzalez, stated, “I see nothing funny about killing other human beings. Leave the comic routines to professional comedians.”

Historically, Mexican-Chicanos have consistently been considered alien or perpetual immigrants. The late professor Ralph Guzman surmised that one reason Mexican-Chicanos were over-represented in Viet Nam War casualties was because they wanted to prove they were Americans. Aside from having to provide proof of legal status to landlords, school officials, and employers, current legislation also gives police, not just federal officials, power to stop and to detain under suspicion of being undocumented. Unless a Mexican-Chicano has a passport or birth certificate on his or her person, it is not possible to determine legal status. Once away from his or her official duties or post, anyone who fits the profile of “foreign or Mexican,” regardless of social or class status, can be detained. This can include prominent individuals such as New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez, retired General Ricardo Sanchez, or Chief Justice Sotomayor. Ironically, even Mexican-Chicanos or other Latino police or border patrol agents are suspect and can be detained when out-of-uniform or official vehicles.

Mexican-Chicanos are indigenous; but because of colonization and race mixture, they have varying physical characteristics, languages, styles of dress, and nationality. One of the more brilliant Arizona SB1070 law proponents claims that you can tell a Mexican-Chicano’s legal status by the shoes that are worn. Some Mexican-Chicano families have been in the US since it was Mexico, some are recent arrivals, and others are somewhere in the middle. Within a family, the nation of birth can also vary. For example, one parent may have been born in the United States and the other in Mexico. The same can be said of siblings and the extended family.

Language cannot be a means to determine an individual’s legal status because language variation is common. Some Mexican-Chicanos are monolingual Spanish or English, and others are bilingual. There are Mexican-Chicanos whose families have been in parts of the US for centuries and who don’t speak English. There are others who came as children from Mexico and don’t speak Spanish. Some recent migrants don’t speak Spanish but speak an indigenous language; they are skipping Spanish altogether and learning English.

For many Euro-Americans, it may seem that this type of legislation is quite harmless and necessary. However, one can just imagine the uproar if Euro-Americans were detained for “reasonable suspicion” on the East Coast because there is a sizable, illegal Irish population. Profiling this group could mean that persons such as Bill O’Reilly, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, or Soledad O’Brien (who would get a double whammy), could be detained if they could not prove their legal status.

Perhaps Abraham Lincoln expressed it best when he declared, “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves.”

Charley Trujillo is a writer, filmmaker and Viet Nam War veteran who lives in San Jose, CA.

Posted in Mercury News

By Arturo Villarrealand Charley Trujillo
Article Launched: 08/06/2008 01:34:15 AM PDT

Immigration is driven by historical and economic necessity on both sides of the border. There are times when the United States needs Mexican labor, such as during World War I and World War II, that migration is encouraged. During economic downturns, migration is discouraged. Repression is directed toward this population, such as during the Great Depression, the economic recession of the 1950s and the present downturn.

Perhaps by analyzing and understanding history, we can change our perspective on the issue – not by building a fence across the border but by building a bridge between two countries that share a long history. It is difficult to comprehend that a physical barrier across the border will fence in history.

Most discussions of Mexican migration into the United States lack a historical perspective that lead to characterize it as a spontaneous and recent phenomenon. However, people of Mexican origin are descendants of one of the six original world civilizations and whose ancestors help lay the foundation for the development of the present-day Southwest and other regions.

The melting pot theory of assimilation and its assumptions are most often used by journalists, politicians and citizens who don’t believe Mexican immigrants, legal or not, are productive members of society. At best, this theory is applicable to ethnic immigrants of European heritage. Unlike European immigrants who had to traverse an ocean, this theory does not apply to Native Americans or Mexicans who are indigenous to America.

The first significant contact between whites and Chicanos led to the Texas revolt of 1834-36 when the symbolic battle of the Alamo occurred. Many of the whites in the Alamo were undocumented because Mexico barred further white immigration into Texas in 1830. Armed with a strong military and the ideological doctrine of manifest destiny that deemed the United States as people chosen by God to rule from sea to shining sea, the United States invaded Mexico in 1846.

Mexico lost the war and signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. Mexico ceded California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and parts of Nevada, Utah and Wyoming for $15 million. Under the treaty, remaining Mexicans became U.S. citizens with all rights of property, language and religion. However, the provisions were ignored; or, in the case of property, it was taken by legal and extralegal means.

Violence against Chicanos by vigilantes and law enforcement officials was so severe that scores left for Mexico. Violence faced by those remaining was comparable to what blacks faced in the South. By the early 1900s, cheap Mexican labor was needed for work in the mines, railroads, agriculture and other industries. During this period, Mexicans also migrated to the Midwest and Northwest. The Mexican Revolution and World War I also contributed to push and pull factors that brought migration of Mexicans into the United States. It is estimated one-eighth of Mexico’s population legally moved into the United States during this period.

Mexican labor has been instrumental in the development of infrastructure and capital accumulation in the United States. However, with the economic depression of the 1930s, Mexican labor was no longer necessary. Hundreds of thousands of Mexicans were deported. This deportation included U.S. citizens, a practice that continues.

Racial categorization in the United States is the confusion of race, nationality and ethnicity, whereby people of Mexican origin are always suspect of being foreign, regardless of legal status. To the dominant society, however, they are all indistinguishable. Unlike European immigrant groups who are removed geographically from home countries, Chicano culture and language are reinforced by new arrivals from Mexico. Unlike immigrants from other countries who can forge a new place for themselves, migrants from Mexico have a ready-made niche for them because of historical circumstances. Historical perceptions and stereotypes of Mexicans precede them as they venture into other parts of the United States. Hopefully, by understanding our shared history, we can refrain from stereotyping and scapegoating Mexicans.

28 August  2011

LITTER IN, OR LITTER OUT

Elsa Crumpley

In addition to all the catastrophes, natural and man-made, that threaten life on Earth, we must add the increasing danger from THE PLASTIC BAG.  Its usefulness cannot be denied.  But its threat to life becomes ever more apparent.  It is not bio-degradable; in 1000 years, it can only add to the pile of litter on Earth.  In addition, it kills marine animals and leeches toxic chemicals.  It becomes necessary to find a solution to the problem, or cease its use.

 

Ever since the first child died from lack of air playing with a plastic bag over its head,  we have become  aware of the danger, which cannot be dealt with merely as a warning.   Many cities have already banned the plastic bag for shopping use.  Schools were alerted to the need to adapt the curriculum to the needs.  The California Dept of Education issued a new environmental curriculum.

 

The new curriculum was developed with input from interested groups.  Responding to objections from the American Chemical Council to negative emphasis on the bags, the new curriculum included much positive emphasis suggested  by the Council.  Educators were outraged.  Since when does industry write our texts?

 

Recent years have seen occasional interference by business in school texts, and teachers and parents are outraged.  Education must remain public,in the hands of the Department of Education, in the public interest and under public control.  California Watch, a state investigative reporting team helps to keep education under public control.

 

With the new school year under way,   parents, retailers and schools are beginning to act by using nonplastic bags  and reuseable containers in packing lunches.  The aim is less waste, less garbage, environmental controls. And no plastic bags.

Opinion: Friday January 21, 2011

Must learn from events of last century
Elsa Crumpley – My Word
RECENT EVENTS in Tucson, Ariz., recall for me some of the most terrifying events in my life.
From 1932 to 1936, as I attended Brooklyn College in New York, students learned current history from the live world developments resulting from World War 1 and the Depression that followed. We watched, and we worried.
Germany, having lost the war suffered demands and restrictions imposed by the loss, which brought a complete breakdown to its economy and the basic needs of the people could not be satisfied. The government was inadequate to find a proper solution
The years that followed saw the rise of the fascist movement brought about by Adolf HItler, who built his power by manipulation unsubstantiated fears, thus generating hatred prevailing in Germany
Acceptance of the lies and misrepresentations enabled Nazi control of thinking and actions of the public to bring about domination of fascist leadership of the country. The big factor in achieving this control lay in active pursuit of anti-Semitism and anti-labor publicity and activity.
Ever-increasing activity and violence in the 1930s by Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist Party destroyed freedom of thought in Germany, and more than 6 million Jews lost their lives. Hitler’s party achieved power, and fascist control and fear led to a loss of democracy and to World War 2.
There is no doubt that the campaign was brought about by a constant repetition of lies and abuse and destructive activity that forced acceptance by the people. Democratic elements who objected were suppressed.
Increasing political activity in our country has become abusive and violently dangerous. It is unacceptable. An atmosphere of hatred and intolerance has led to violence that we do not tolerate.
The longer the lies and insults are allowed to continue, the closer we get to losing democratic control, making way for special interests to increase power.
When active elements and the media concentrate on negative and destructive tactics, a neutral balance is destroyed and we lose sight of truth and democratic power.
Above all, we must maintain an atmosphere of courtesy and respect, a willingness to listen to others, accept different opinions and make joint decisions.
Our strength lies in democratic control and decisions. Let us strengthen the power of the United Nations. Let us assert our will and determination to maintain a strong democracy through individual and joint action.
Let us learn by experience of the world’s people.

Opinion: Monday April 18, 2011

Language Grows
SOME THOUGHTS on language, provoked y the April 12 letter, “Use words correctly:”
With worldwide immigration in constant motion, it is no wonder that grammatical use of any language gets lost in distortion and misuse.
But language grows. IT becomes enriched with usages brought by immigrants, cultural growth, a desired twist of meaning, new technologies, and new social needs.
Enrichment also derives in usage of words applied in difference contexts beyond original use, for lack of appropriate words in the new situation.
Thus, inn the sentence, “The election of Barack Obama created an impact felt by all members of the population,” the word “impact” conveys the tremendous significance of the event in the meaningful way as desired without actual physical contact.
In this way, a language grows in words and meanings beyond their original use. Over time, a language becomes enriched far beyond its beginnings. Words gain new powerful meanings. In search and in writing, we learn to express more sensitive thoughts, accurate descriptions, and colorful speech, applying the old words to define new situations extending the original meanings to new usages.
Poetry, literature and music are products representing an everlasting tribute to our creative abilities in the use of language. Let us use our language to promote our most powerful and sensitive thoughts toward the grown of a positive contribution to the development of our species.
Elsa Crumpley
Oakland

In a climate of political backwardness, undocumented immigrants and their advocates are often accused of manipulating language. We are told that we should say “illegal immigrant,” rather than “undocumented immigrant”. Yet in the legal realm, this is backward and void. Asserting that someone, including many of our neighbors and community members here in the Bay Area who are not properly documented, are guilty of a crime ignores their presumption of innocence. This involves all sorts of extraneous factors, such as potential refugee status, amnesty status, undocumented but legal ancestors, lost paperwork, and a number of other factors which affect an undocumented person’s legal status.

Yet in a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program, known as Securing Communities (S-Comm), ICE has itself nefariously used a legally void and undefined term – “criminal alien” – to deport many of our nation’s residents, including many here in the Bay Area. S-Comm is billed as a program to deport “criminal aliens” who have committed egregious offenses. S-Comm involves requesting that local law enforcement transfer anyone deemed “deportable” to ICE to await possible deportation when police submit finger prints for criminal background checks, which also go through immigration background checks. But law enforcement officials, judges, elected officials, and community leaders have instead found that ICE is using the Secure Communities program as part of a growing trend to engage in mass deportations of residents who have often committed no criminal offenses – or even worse, residents who are themselves victims or eyewitnesses of criminal activity. Furthermore, ICE’s program avoids accountability and oversight, violates privacy rights of citizens and undocumented workers, and severely hampers effective police conduct.

In a new report titled “Restoring Community,” the National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON) and a National Community Advisory Commission has put together an extensive collection of facts and testimonies from law enforcement and community leaders regarding the devastating effects of ICE’s new program. The full report, as well as a run-down of the report prepared by the San Jose Peace and Justice Center, can be found at http://altopolimigra.com/s-comm-shadow-report/

Rather than targeting those who have committed serious crimes, data from ICE itself reveals that S-Comm deportations have overwhelmingly been of individuals who have committed no criminal offenses or have committed misdemeanors, including traffic offenses. Furthermore, data collected by NDLON and civil liberties advocates have found that time and again, many of those deported as a result of S-Comm are themselves victims of violent crimes, including domestic abuse. In addition, law enforcement officials from throughout the country claim that S-Comm has had a negative effect on community policing methods. Immigrant communities, including witnesses and victims of crimes, are more afraid to interact with police, fearing an arbitrary deportation as a result of the program. Furthermore, law enforcement officials nationwide believe that ICE is a distraction for police departments who care to focus on more serious crimes.

Other serious problems with S-Comm include entangling ICE with the criminal justice system, which creates a “two-tiered system of justice” for its targets, in which both – the criminal justice system and the immigration system – are overwhelmingly stacked against the defendant, preventing individuals accused of any crime from properly defending themselves in court. Furthermore, data from ICE’s deportation suggests that the program incentivizes racial profiling, and follows a long trend of using the criminal justice system to attack immigrants in the midst of the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. Large numbers of immigrants swept up in S-Comm related deportations across the country committed no serious offenses, strongly suggesting the presence of racial profiling.

Moreover, the limits of the program have been vague, allowing ICE to “go rogue”. Time and again, ICE officials have lied to elected officials and judges over the scope and nature of the program, and the legal limits of S-Comm have come under scrutiny. On a related point, privacy advocates like Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation have noted that the FBI has used S-Comm to “accumulate a massive store of personal and biometric information on citizens and non-citizens alike”

S-Comm has hit home to the Bay Area, one of the most diverse areas on the planet and home to millions of immigrants themselves. There is no reason for Bay Area residents concerned about their safety, human dignity, or privacy rights to put any faith in ICE’s new program.

Indeed, Bay Area leaders have been taking a stand against the program. Bay Area Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) has demanded an investigation of the S-Comm program, accusing federal immigration officials of lying about whether or not local counties and states have the right to opt out of the devastating program. “It is inescapable that the [Department of Homeland Security] was not honest with the local governments or with me” said Lofgren. Both San Francisco and Santa Clara counties have defended the rights of Bay Area citizens and non-citizens by attempting to opt out of the program – only to have federal immigration officials give mixed responses as to the legality of opting out. Although the program was billed as “voluntary,” Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)-obtained documents reveal that ICE officials knew it was involuntary long before.

Lofgren and county governments are not alone. San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey also condemned the draconian nature of the program and its exploitation of police departments:

This fear of the arbitrary use of immigration laws is only reinforced when you have a high-ranking ICE official telling law enforcement, “If you don’t have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he’s illegal, we can make him disappear.” This is a quote from James Pendergraph, the former executive director of the ICE Office of State and Local Coordination, who was speaking in 2008 to the Police Foundation’s national conference on immigration issues…My main criticism of Secure Communities is that it casts too wide a net and scoops up the fingerprints of everyone not born in the United States whether or not they pose a criminal risk (6).

Hennessey also claims that out of opposition to the misleading and dangerous program, he does not recommend immigrants caught with minor violations for deportation. His sentiments as a law enforcement official are echoed throughout the Bay Area. San Mateo County demanded clarification about opting out, and Sonoma County representatives were also “upset” about misleading information from ICE. Marin County’s Juvenile Probation Office was “quite agitated about S-Comm being ‘forced’ on them”. NDLON claims that despite S-Comm being mandated by federal officials through deception, the program’s officially “voluntary” method is an important legal means of fighting back against this draconian legislation. As per the tenth amendment, it is illegal for federal immigration officials to require state and local police to do be distracted from serious police work with the dirty job of rounding up innocent Bay Area residents for deportation.

The opposition to S-Comm from local leaders, law enforcement, our elected officials, and our community has been strong and vocal, and has sent a clear message to those at ICE who seek to harass and deport members of our community. But the fight is still uphill. The number of annual deportations from the United States in 2010 has skyrocketed to 400,000, up from only 20,000 in 1980. With the conflation of immigration violations with the criminal justice system, under the auspices of solving drug problems or fighting terrorism, we have seen a drastic increase in deportations and harassment of undocumented immigrants.

Immigrants-rights advocates continue to be accused of manipulating language for our defense of our communities. But S-Comm proves that it is deportation officials from the federal government, not immigrants-rights advocates, that have been deceptive and manipulative with words for their own purposes. As such, we must unite as a community and remain strong against ICE’s new harassment program. Only through continuing to organize as a community against this heinous attack on Bay Area citizens and non-citizens alike can we reverse this disturbing trend.

The National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON) and a National Community Advisory Commission has put together an extensive report detailing the “Secure Communities” program (“S-Comm”) of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which brutally cracks down on immigrants with deleterious effects on local communities. In their August 2011 report, “Restoring Community,” NDLON summarizes some of the most blatant problems with S-Comm as well as meaningful recommendations to fix these problems, citing the opinions of community leaders, academics, judges, and law enforcement officials. The following is a run-down of this report prepared by the San Jose Peace and Justice Center.

The full report can be found here: http://altopolimigra.com/s-comm-shadow-report/

The premise of S-Comm is simple. When local law enforcement submits fingerprints from individuals for criminal background checks, they are automatically searched against immigration databases. If ICE decides that an individual may be “deportable,” it requests that local police detain an individual and transfer him to ICE for possible deportation (2). The program was originally voluntary, but after pressure from local communities against it, it was made mandatory.

NDLON points out a number of serious issues with police-ICE entanglement. S-Comm results in diminished trust in law enforcement in target communities, making effective community policing techniques impossible. NDLON quotes Ron Hampton of Black Law Enforcement in America, “Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) ‘Secure Communities’ program is incompatible

with community policing” (4). Because S-Comm turns every police encounter into a risk of deportation for immigrants, immigrant eye witnesses and victims become afraid to come forward. NDLON points out that this risk is not hypothetical, as S-Comm has resulted in numerous victims of violent crimes being recommended for deportation upon calling the police (4). NDLON quotes New York District Attorney Rob Morgenthau on this issue:

When immigrants perceive the local police force as merely an arm of the federal immigration authority, they become reluctant to report criminal activity for fear of being turned over to federal officials. That’s why during the 35 years I was district attorney in Manhattan, I made it a policy never to turn over names of individuals involved with the criminal justice system to immigration authorities until after they were convicted of a serious crime (9).

These aspects of S-Comm thereby compromise public safety. Furthermore, S-Comm has a “dragnet” effect, resulting in the arrest and deportation of individuals with minor or no criminal convictions. According to ICE’s own numbers, one third of immigrants arrested have never been convicted of anything, and nearly sixty percent have either been convicted of nothing or are guilty of misdemeanors such as traffic offenses. This aspect of the S-Comm program was heavily criticized by Sheriff of San Francisco Michael Hennessey:

This fear of the arbitrary use of immigration laws is only reinforced when you have a high-ranking ICE official telling law enforcement, “If you don’t have enough evidence to charge someone criminally but you think he’s illegal, we can make him disappear.” This is a quote from James Pendergraph, the former executive director of the ICE Office of State and Local Coordination, who was speaking in 2008 to the Police Foundation’s national conference on immigration issues…My main criticism of Secure Communities is that it casts too wide a net and scoops up the fingerprints of everyone not born in the United States whether or not they pose a criminal risk (6).

NDLON also points out that S-Comm results in distracting police officers from serious crimes. For example, Sheriff Mark Curran of Lake County, Illinois, writes ““I view Secure Communities as a distraction…[T]he program has diverted my department from more serious law enforcement responsibilities” (8). That is, in addition to potentially deporting victims and eye-witnesses, S-Comm distracts law enforcement from serious crimes altogether! Finally, NDLON points out that S-Comm “incentivizes racial profiling,” pointing to an excerpt from the Rights Working Group’s 2010 report, Faces of Racial Profiling. The report points to “abnormally high rates of non-criminal deportations under Secure Communities,” from ICE data, strongly suggesting that S-Comm is not “prioritizing criminal aliens for enforcement action based on their threat to public safety” but rather deporting individuals for minor offenses and even drawing in U.S. citizens for enforcement actions—further evidence that this ICE initiative is encouraging racial profiling.” (10).

“Restoring Community” also discusses injustice in the immigration and criminal justice systems. S-Comm exacerbates many aspects of discrimination amidst a climate of anti-immigrant laws which have caused a skyrocketing level of deportations in recent years. From twenty thousand deportations in 1980, the level of annual deportations has grown to four hundred thousand deportations in 2010. By entangling law enforcement with immigration, S-Comm creates a “two-tiered system of justice” for targeted immigrants, “in which non-citizens are routinely denied bail, jailed for longer periods, and disqualified from alternative release programs” in addition to well-documented biases against defendants in the criminal justice system (14). NDLON quotes director of the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild Dan Kesselbrenner, about this disadvantage: “By leveraging their considerable resources against the criminal justice system and “criminal aliens,” ICE subverts its purpose. Interjecting immigration enforcement into the criminal justice system undercuts people’s attempts to represent themselves effectively in their criminal case” (15). Furthermore, according to Kesselbrenner, ICE and S-Comm have invented a legally undefined and vague term, “criminal alien,” allowing ICE to net and harass a number of citizens through the criminal justice system. Another means of using the criminal justice system to harass individuals over suspected immigration offenses has been to use the “war on drugs” and “war on terror” to simultaneously target immigrant communities. From anti-drug laws that limit means to challenge deportation, to the PATRIOT Act which allows the state to detain immigrants and hold them without charge indefinitely, S-Comm is part of a trend of using law enforcement and the criminal justice system to harass immigrants.

NDLON also argues that ICE has “gone rogue” through S-Comm, which exacerbates ICE’s historical secrecy and lack of accountability with “new levels of deception” (25). NDLON writes, “On July 11, 2011 a federal district judge concluded that “[t]here is ample evidence that ICE and DHS have gone out of their way to mislead the public about Secure Communities.”20 Numerous reports confirm that ICE misled local, state, and federal government officials about S-Comm’s scope and ostensibly compulsory nature” (25). Indeed, through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, internal documents from ICE reveal a lack of clarity in defining the scope or the nature of S-Comm in its entirety. NDLON reports, “Despite the program’s vast scope, not a single statute or regulation specifically defines its parameters. Indeed, ICE appears to be inventing legal authority as it goes along—and, as with the opt-out controversy—repeatedly changing its mind along the way” (28). Indeed, a number of documents obtained through FOIA suggest that ICE officials have been lying to public officials throughout the country regarding the scope of the program (26). Finally, NDLON quotes Jennifer Lynch of the Electronic Frontier Foundation regarding S-Comm’s effect on privacy rights. Exploiting the lack of defined scope of the program, Lynch reveals.

It now appears that the FBI is using [S-Comm] to accumulate a massive store of personal biometric information on citizens and non-citizens alike. Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act litigation … have exposed the concerted efforts of the FBI and DHS to build a massive database of personal and biometric information…the FOIA documents show for the first time how FBI has taken advantage of the DHS Secure Communities program and both DHS and the State Department’s civil biometric data collection programs to build out this $1 billion database (30).

NDLON documents that one area of strength for local communities opposed to S-Comm is the voluntary nature of ICE holds, or forty-eight hour detention holds of arrested immigrants requested by ICE. Because ICE is a federal agency, the tenth amendment prohibits ICE from using local law enforcement to detain individuals over immigration enforcement. Thus, many Sheriffs have refused to perform ICE holds on those charged with minor offenses. NDLON claims that such “hold campaigns constitute a key form of resistance available to localities concerned about the dangers of police-ICE mergers” (33).

“Restoring Community” concludes with a series of powerful personal accounts of those affected by the S-Comm program. In addition to documenting the real-life sentiments of those families torn apart and threatened with deportation by the program, these accounts also include those of victims of violent crimes and abuse who were threatened with deportation. In addition, the report includes a number of additional resources and citations for further critiques of the S-Comm program.

The San Jose Peace and Justice Center commemorated the sixty-sixth anniversary of the tragic nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on Friday, August 11^th, at the Joyce Ellington Library in San Jose with the “From Hiroshima to Fukishima to California” anti-nuclear event, part of the Center’s “no-nuke summer”. After a moment of silence for the victims of Hiroshima, San Jose Peace and Justice Center President Sharat Lin commented on contemporary developments regarding nuclear weapons. Lin pointed out that even supervised nuclear power is not safe, as the world witnessed during the Fukushima disaster after Japan’s recent earthquake; that a recent Global Zero report estimates that nuclear powers will spend one trillion dollars on nuclear weapons developments within the next decade; and that, unlike during the Cold War, now nuclear powers – specifically the United States and Israel – -have threatened to use nuclear weapons for a first strike. Lin also noted that there was little reasoning for the nuclear weapons used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as Japan had already approached the USSR during World War II to surrender.

The first speaker, Marylia Kelley, executive director of Tri-Valley Cares, discussed contemporary nuclear weapons research, especially at Lawrence Livermore Labs in Berkeley. Tri-Valley Cares functions, among other purposes, as a watchdog for the Lab. Kelly commented that even under the Obama Administration, the United States was moving in “the wrong direction,” as the 2012 nuclear weapons budget is significantly larger than the nuclear weapons budgets under George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan. She noted that Livermore Labs was one of two locations in the United States that had designed every nuclear weapon the United States has used, and that of the 1.2 billion dollar budget requests at Lawrence Livermore Labs, 89% were for nuclear weapons, while 0.06% were alloted for alternative energies. In addition, the Lab’s nuclear waste has had serious health effects on employees of the labs, as well as local residents and the environment, which Tri-Valley Cares has mobilized to clean up.

Ed Ehmke of the Pacific Life Community (PLC) spoke next, primarily discussing civil disobedience and the assembly of nuclear weapons at Building 181 at the Lockheed Martin facility in Sunnyvale. Ehmke promoted the PLC’s monthly vigils outside the facility every fourth Friday, and pointed out the long history of jailing anti-nuclear activists. Lockheed Martin, along with a myriad of other corporations, says Ehmke, assembles nuclear warheads for the Trident Missile, capable of causing an explosion roughly the size of “3800 Nagasakis” or 475 kilotons. The vast majority of Lockheed Martin’s business is for the United States government, while the remaining twenty percent involves exporting military equiptment; Lockheed Martin has not manufactured a commercial airplane since 1983. Ehmke also suggested that the government has provided poor and unsafe security at nuclear assembly sites, which have been penetrated by non-violent peace activists in the past.

The final speaker, Barbara George of Women’s Energy Matters, discussed several aspects of nuclear power and local control of utilities. George discussed the successful implementation of a government energy-purchasing authority in Marin as an alternative to the PG&E monopoly, and previous attempts by PG&E to prevent locals from retaking control over energy distribution. She noted that San Jose is currently looking to follow in Marin’s footsteps in doing so. George also spoke about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) failure to address earthquakes during emergency planning for nuclear power facilities, and that due to the size and intersection of earthquake fault lines in California, an earthquake could have devastating Fukushima-style consequences for Californians. George also pointed to a recent Guardian report that suggested that government officials were collaborating with nuclear power companies in order to head off anticipated criticism from anti-nuclear activists. Finally, George suggested drafting anti-nuclear city and county resolutions for residents to promote.

Some thirty people were in attendance for the event. The event was sponsored by Code Pink (San Jose), the Green Party of Santa Clara County, the Nihonmachi Outreach Committee, our developing world, South Bay Mobilization, Veterans for Peace (Chapter 101), and the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (San Jose).

Cafe Guancasco, an 8 member musical and political group of Honduras, and its audience were brutally attacked by the Honduran government. Government agents released teargas onto the stage and into the crowd as well as destroying and stealing musical equipment rented by Cafe Guancasco. The damages caused by the government cost over $30,000. The government attack seems to be caused by Cafe Guancasco’s involvement with the National People’s Resistant Front which works against the current Honduran government.

In order to help Cafe Guancasco pay the rental company from which they rented their musical equipment, Pavel Nunez, a member of Cafe Guancasco has been touring the U.S. San Jose Peace and Justice hosted the San Jose event on Sunday, June 12th, 2011 from 6pm to 9pm in the Mission City Coffee Roasting Co. on the Alameda. Many other local artists performed to set the stage for the main event, Cafe Guancasco’s Pavel Nunez. Pavel captivated the audience with his words and catchy melodies. He spoke of Cafe Guancasco’s message that they tell through their music and his hopes for people to hear the story and support them.

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=219881961369317