Sometimes there are some legislative ideas that just make sense. SF Supervisor David Campos hit upon one such idea when he suggested renaming San Francisco’s International airport “Harvey Milk San Francisco International Airport.”
Now, the idea is not without its detractors. In an editorial against the change, the SF Chronicle actually gives a fairly reasonable argument against.
“San Francisco” is a name with meaning and magic. It stands alone as a place of natural and architectural beauty that attracts and accepts people of uncommon imagination and unconventional lives, like Harvey Milk, in pursuit of dreams that can take flight only here.
It should stand alone, simply and proudly, on the name of San Francisco International Airport. (SF Chronicle)
As a San Franciscan for nearly ten years, I don’t necessarily disagree with the sentiment. Just the name San Francisco has some outstanding connotations as a place of freedom. Heck, we’ve been a bastion of progressiveness (in both good and obnoxious forms) for over a century.
And I get their point elsewhere in the editorial that Milk wasn’t involved in the construction of the airport. But, as we’ve seen with John Wayne in Orange County and others, that hardly seems important. But while the Chronicle dismisses that point, I think it is actually more important. They argue that Milk has received plenty of attention. And perhaps that is true, but the airport has a greater level of acclaim. It is more noticeable in random lives. Or, as Sup. Campos said:
“There are already a number of things honoring Harvey Milk, including schools, but nothing of this national and international scale,” said Campos, who is gay. “It’s time to send a message that members of the LGBT community are treated with dignity and respect. … In places all over the world, including Europe and Asia, people of all walks of life look up to Harvey Milk.”(SF Chronicle)
Now, there will be haters. Jon Fleischman of the FlashReport has dubbed him the “FlashReport Idiot of the Week.” Honestly, if I were Campos, I would consider that a pretty big honor. Apparently Fleischman doesn’t like that it “takes up time” or some such nonsense. He throws out some nonsense about waste of money as well, but the fairly minimal expense should be pretty easy to cover through private contributions.
Interestingly, I don’t recall Fleischman calling out Sen. Mark Wyland (R-San Diego) or Asm. Martin Garrick (R-Carlsbad) for the rather similar concept of renaming the Coronado bridge the “Ronald Reagan Coronado Bridge” back in 2011. Wonder why that is?
Today the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in a resounding vote with only two nays restored due process to immigrant youth. Facing a full audience of over 100 immigrant right supporters, clergy, community members and high school children, only Supervisor’s Sean Elsbernd and Carmen Chu voted no. Despite their lack of support, it looks as if the board will have a veto proof majority when it reaches Mayor Gavin Newsom’s desk.
Back in July 2008 Mayor Newsom instructed the Juvenile Probation Department to immediately begin reporting youth to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation at the moment of their arrest for a felony allegation. Under this new policy, juveniles would receive no hearings, no trial and no due process. Anyone taking a Civics 101 class could see how draconian and dangerous this new policy was for any juvenile regardless of their citizenship. Under this policy youth who were merely suspected of being undocumented are immediately taken from their families and sent to detention centers across the country while deportation proceedings are initiated. Since July, over 160 children have been referred by San Francisco to ICE.
Through the leadership of Supervisor David Campos, a total of eight Supervisors introduced a balanced resolution to restore due process rights to the children. The proposed legislation which was approved by the City Attorney’s Office, many prominent law professors and civil rights organizations, amends the current policy to ensure that juveniles are not reported to immigration authorities until after they receive a fair trial and due process.
Even though Mayor Newsom’s office leaked the SF City Attorney’s memo legal experts from prominent civil rights organizations were quick to unveil a key legal brief that responded to City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s memo. The legal brief found that the proposal passed by the Supervisors was legally defensible and would save San Francisco from costly civil rights violations lawsuits and models good public policy.
Angela Chan, staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus, one of the authors of the brief explains, “The reference to possible legal challenges in the memo, however, should neither be overstated nor dissuade the Board from exercising its policy making role.”
Angie Junck, staff attorney at Immigrant Legal Resource Center, another co-author of the brief said “The proposed legislation does not change our legal position with regards to any of the issues the City Attorney memo raises. We cannot continue with an unjust policy for the sole purpose of ‘looking tough’ on immigration, especially when San Francisco has a vibrant immigrant history and community that we are proud of.”
By passing this amendment today, the Board of Supervisors ensured that San Francisco’s sanctuary law which celebrates its 20th anniversary this month remains a critical tool to build trust between City officials and immigrant communities. They also ensured that San Francisco’s children remain with their families without the threat of abuse or intimidation that the new policy had exacerbated. The final vote on this issue is going to be October 27th at 2 pm, stay tuned to see if Mayor Newsom is forced to sign since he has threatened to veto this measure.
Update:
According to the San Francisco Chronicle Mayor Newsom plans on ignoring the legislation. According to his Press Secretary, Nathan Ballard:
“The Campos bill isn’t worth the paper it’s written on – it’s unenforceable and he knows that. “We are not going to put our law enforcement officers in legal jeopardy just because the Board of Supervisors wants to make a statement.”
Mr. Ballard obviously has not read the federal law because as the Legal Director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, Robert Rubin, who helped write San Francisco’s Sanctuary ordinance in 1989, said:
“Federal law does not require state or local authorities to report on anyone’s immigration status.”
Professor Bill Ong Hing at UC Davis Law School states that:
“Local officials are not required by law to expend limited local resources on federal immigration enforcement.”
B, a friendly 16 year old who lives with his single father is one of the 160 children who have been reported to ICE. He is charged with tagging the word “calm.” He’s currently facing deportation to a country where he has no family who can care for him. The felony charge he received for tagging is just one of the grossly inappropriate illustrations of the abuse that is occurring with Mayor Newsom’s stance that children be reported to ICE before they receive due process. All youth have a right to their day in court if they are accused of a crime. Juvenile court judges are experts in evaluating which incidents are felonies and which are misdemeanors. With out due process, Mayor Newsom is robbing the youth of the checks and balances that the juvenile justice process provides. If children are a danger to society they can be dealt with in Juvenile court, turning them over to ICE before even being convicted, is against the fundamental basis of our society. Each and every person is innocent until proven guilty.
Supervisor Campos said it best when he said,
“The fact that you’re undocumented doesn’t mean you’re not a person under the United States Constitution. If we can’t stand up for the Constitution in San Francisco, then where can we stand up for it in this country?”
I hope Mayor Newsom who is currently running for Governor of California remembers the Constitution if he wins. There are plenty of Young Democrats and older Democrats in the state who would be appalled at his current stance against a fair policy.
Because I couldn’t get enough of the debatin’, I headed down to SF’s Mission District for the D9 Supervisor debate. John McCain and Barack Obama move to the back, I’m listening to Mark Sanchez and David Campos ask each other questions about the decriminalization of prostitution, and who will be Board President next year (never mind that 7 of the 11 seats are up for election, but whatevs). It’s a blast. I promise.
The debate was hosted by Sweet Melissa, so it was definitely a must-see. By the way, she would have done a better job than Tom Brokaw. Check the flip for a few points of interest from the debate.
The debate began with 3 min intro statements from each of the 6 candidates in attendance (of 7 total candidates.) Now, you must understand that the district, currently represented by future Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, and is a very mixed neighborhood. It ranges from the picturesque hillside cottages of Bernal Heights to the challenging neighborhoods surrounding the two BART stations in the district. This district needs a strong leader like Sup. Ammiano who knows how to work within the system to produce results for the area.
The format was rather interesting in that after the intros, we got a barrage of Yes or Nos on the SF ballot measures. The third round was a series of questions between the candidates. There were some interesting points between the candidates. BOE President Mark Sanchez elicited reactions from his opponents by asking about the future Board President. But, it was clear the main issue in the district was public safety.
There has been a recent rash of murders in the district, and the Mission St. corridor shows the wear and tear of the drugs and prostitution that is so easy to attain. All of these candidates are searching for solutions.
With so many candidates at the debate, it would be hard to call this debate for anybody. While these debates are interesting, it seemed that a large majority here were already decided. I look forward to this particular election as there are really several people who have a good shot at it.
Sup. David Campos plans to put measure on ballot