An open letter to Elise Foley (Immigration and Politics Reporter –
The Huffington Post):
I read with great interest the article written by Ms. Foley at the
Huffington Post on 21 August 2015 titled, “Immigration
Activist Renew Focus On Local Battles After National Disappointments” and
subtitled, “We’re ready to fight”. My interest comes first as a compassionate
person with over 17 years working in the non-profit world and secondly as the
father of five. I am a veteran of the
U.S. Army, the first of my siblings to attend and graduate from college and
have always found myself drawn to the ideal of treating everyone with respect,
responsibility, trust and help. Sometimes
holding such wishful ideals has opened me to criticisms of being naïve and at
times I have been manipulated by those I worked to help. Through it all I have maintained the thought
that trying to assist the larger population that deserves respect off-sets
those who willingly manipulate and abuse the good will of those wishing to be
of assistance. Of course through the
years I have changed many of my thoughts and feelings on a variety of social
issues but my core still demands that all citizens are treated with respect, responsibility,
trust and help.
After reading your column Ms. Foley, I took some time to reflect
on what was written and wondered if you shared the same values for
everyone. I believe, like Pres. Obama,
that words have meanings and that it truly matters how they are written and or
spoken and as I read your column I was struck at just how the meaning and
intent of words were not treated with the respect and responsibility I would
hope they deserve. Early in the column
the presentation was made that, And after
activists helped convince more than 300 jurisdictions in recent years to limit
cooperation between police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an outcry
against those so-called "sanctuary cities" threatens to halt that
progress. Trouble is that there
is no “so-called” to the term “sanctuary cities”. The
Center for Immigration Studies website (cis.org) list maps of cities, counties
and states that they title “sanctuary” and as you know, they are not alone in using
this term. Your column cited the tragic
murder of Ms. Stienle in San Francisco as part of the backlash against such
policies and the fact is that the City of San Francisco ordinance is titled “Sanctuary Ordnance” at the
City and County of San Francisco’s webpage.
There really is no “so-called” but rather an honest, overt passage of
ordinances by municipalities to label their city as a “sanctuary” so it’s
confusing that you don’t acknowledge what they clearly do.
The column discussed how, advocates
with United We Dream and Immigrant Legal Resource Center are circulating a
toolkit to groups around the country that support immigrant rights with advice
for how to fight collaboration between ICE and local police, which they say is putting
their communities at risk.
Their plan came after a phone call in June, when activists
lamented that they were still losing community members to deportation. I find it startling that two groups, one
made up largely of legal professionals, could openly promote a “toolkit” with
the intention of helping local municipality’s subvert the application of laws
within the United States. Consider that
what is being promoted is requesting that local communities disengage from open
and honest conversations with our Federal Law Enforcement Agencies in an effort
to subvert the enforcement of our existing laws. I am sensitive to the idea of civil disobedience
and acknowledge that some laws seem very unjust however it is confusing that credentialed
officers of the court would willingly engage in promoting the open defiance of
the very laws they were sworn to uphold.
Further I find the use of the
term “fight” as an odd, shall we say, micro-aggression,
instead of showing respect and responsibility for the laws of the United States
we now have folks who not only advocate the open defiance of them but demand a
“fight” against those who have a Constitutional duty to enforce and uphold such
laws. Sure I know that some will say a
minority group and those advocating for such a group can’t be guilty of a “micro-aggression”
but when the term “fight” is used and it is coupled with an open demand that
local communities cease from assisting our federal officials just how is that
not an aggressive behavior? In reality
when your column proudly stated, Activists
helped take down the Secure Communities program, the implication is clear
that there exist and aggressive demand to dismantle or ignore the laws of the
United States and to “take down” those things which are found objectionable by
a minority group. Again I do understand
and have great reverence for social disobedience but to a great number of
Americans such open defiance appears to be nothing short of a hostility to the
laws and law enforcement agencies of our society and I question if those
advocating such policies truly understand how disrespectful, unhelpful,
irresponsible and untrustworthy what they are advocating comes across to a
great number of Americans. Maybe it is naive
but I believe the majority of Americans wish to do nothing but live peacefully
under the law and wish to have all of our community follow the grand societal
contract of shared values so eloquently written about by Alexis de Tocqueville
in “Democracy in America” and we are finding that shared commonality and values
in grave conflict with the aggressive demands of those who advocate open defiance
against not only our laws but those commissioned with upholding them. I found it odd that your column stated, A number of jurisdictions decided to stop
respecting ICE hold requests in recent years based on concerns that working
with ICE could damage relationships with the immigrant community. Stating this admits that relationships
are damaged by action yet the jurisdictions you cite seem to have no concern
with the damage failing to uphold the law has on the great many of Americans
who in our hearts still strive for the shared values of respect,
responsibility, trust and help.
In your column it was communicated that the murder of Ms. Kathryn Stienle
in San Francisco became a time of reflection for many. I believe that your writing again reflected a
dismissive tone as you asserted, So-called
sanctuary cities became a flashpoint after the fatal shooting of 32-year-old
Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco last month, allegedly at the hands of an
undocumented immigrant who had been deported five times. Again, there is no “so-called” with regards
to sanctuary cities, particularly with regards to San Francisco and the idea
that Mr. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez is somehow “allegedly” responsible for
Ms. Stienles death ignores not only the witnesses, including the victim’s
father, but also ignores Mr. Lopez-Sanchez own admission that
he killed Ms. Stienle. I respect the
idea under our system of justice that those charged with a crime are presumed innocent
until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt however in this instance referring
to Mr. Lopez-Sanchez as being “allegedly” responsible is fascinatingly
dismissive. While I am more than willing
to give you the benefit of the doubt in believing that you would extend the
idea of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” I can’t do the
same for the editorial staff of your employer, the Huffington Post. A simple “Google” search showed countless
articles where police officers involved in shootings were not given the same
presumption of innocent and while I believe that is perfectly acceptable
because it reflects the accuracy of the story, softening the language in the
case of the murder of Ms. Stienle and calling the perpetrator of that crime as
being “allegedly” the shooter seems odd to say the least. As I wrote earlier, I believe that words
matter and it struck me that in your article you willfully skirted the responsibility
you have as a writer to help the reader with regard to Ms. Stienles
murder. While I believe you correctly
mentioned that her death was a moment of reflection for those advocating
changes to immigration law and you mentioned the what (murder of Ms. Stienle),
where (San Francisco), and how (gunshot) you intentionally or inadvertently
left out the “whom” with regards to the actual witnessed, arrested, charged and
by his own words admitted perpetrator:
Mr. Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez.
Even more troubling to me is that
while the murder of Ms. Stienle is seen as an impediment for those advocating
changes to immigration laws by Mr. Lopez-Sanchezs own
admission to San Francisco television station (ABC
7) he knew San Francisco to be not a “so-called” sanctuary city
but a real place of sanctuary where he would not be pursued by immigration officials.
Full disclosure, I don’t believe, should be subjected to a selective telling of the facts and inadvertently or not,
that is what I have taken away from your column.
The reporting that the House of Representatives have voted to
block federal law enforcement grants to communities that provide sanctuary for
those deemed illegal aliens (which, offensive or not is the actual term under
the law) was left hanging open without telling that in truth such actions by
Congress is relatively typical. I am
old enough to remember when our Congress voted to withhold funding to states
that failed to pass a fifty-five mile an hour speed limit and the use of such “carrots”
(withholding or providing more support) was a big part of the Affordable Care
Act.
I am open to discussing and hearing any and all voices regarding
the desire to change, amend or completely rid ourselves of some of the current
immigration laws. Yet, I honestly
struggle when I read columns such as the one you wrote for the Huffington Post
that I believe not only softens the language intentionally but willfully leaves
out a complete telling of the truth.
Americans, I believe, are compassionate people and without
question we have an amazing history of welcoming others and of accepting
different cultures, religions and beliefs.
We are not perfect but we have desperately worked to move in a humane
and accepting direction. No westernized
nation has elected, appointed and promoted such a diverse ethnic, gender,
sexual orientation and religious leadership as has America. Imagine that just this past January when our current
Congress was sworn in they were the most diverse group of representative ever
elected in the history of the United States of America all while our sitting President remains the
first African-American President ever elected.
Understand this is not to imply that we can’t and shouldn’t continue to
strive for greater inclusiveness but it ought to serve as a reminder of just
how much progress America has truly made.
For many folks, myself included, I see the progress that America
has made as a great source of pride along with a tremendous recognition of just
how marvelous our nation is. But then as
I seek to do nothing more than fulfill the ideals of a collective society based
on the values of “Democracy in America” and to ingrain those values in my children
I am confronted by open aggression not just to my beliefs but the institutions
of justice in the United States of America when I am confronted with individuals who advocate not just
changing our laws but to request local elected leaders defy those laws by
giving adherence and acceptance to a “toolkit” intended to ensure cooperation
from our local law enforcement is thwarted all under the guise of “compassion”
while no respect or responsibility seems to be shown for the actual system of
law and government we have in the United States. Understand that I don’t make such statements lightly
but I feel that I am compelled to believe such when I hear activist quoted as
saying, "We're ready to fight, we've
been ready to fight," Carolina Canizales, an
organizer with the youth-led advocacy group United We Dream said.
"We're no longer going to be defined by a court decision. We're no longer
going to be defined by a policy." Honesty demands that such statements are
called exactly what they are; aggressive (“we’re ready to fight, we’ve been
ready to fight”), dismissive (“we’re no longer going to be defined by a court
decision”) and demanding ("we’re no longer going to be defined by a policy”) and
unquestionably such things fail in showing any level of respect, responsibility,
trust and help for the Citizens of the United States, the rule of law we all
live under and the government we elect to represent us.
