Berkeley must continue fight against Trump’s xenophobic actions

CITY ISSUES: In the face of President Donald Trump's executive orders, the city must affirm its values and protect undocumented residents.

coloredited_willowyang_editorial
Willow Yang/Senior Staff

At 1951 Coffee, people whom our new president has labeled dangerous Trojan horses “who are definitely, in many cases, ISIS-aligned” serve coffee like any other baristas. The refugee-centric business embodies Berkeley at its best.

But with his executive order Wednesday to cut federal funding for sanctuary cities, President Donald Trump has fired the first shot in his war against liberal America. He has made his rhetoric into a reality, placing millions of people in danger.

Sanctuary cities such as Berkeley are not required to assist federal agents in enforcing immigration laws. City policy further states that officials cannot share any information Berkeley has obtained about the status of its undocumented residents. Berkeley’s status as a sanctuary city allows undocumented immigrants and refugees to work and live here without constant fear of deportation.

With his vague executive order, Trump aims to defile Berkeley’s unique history. His mandate is misguided and misinformed — not unexpected from his administration — but it imposes a real threat: “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.” Berkeley would risk losing $11.5 million in federal funding.

Berkeley could lose money to support homeless shelters, strengthen homes against earthquakes and build senior housing. Displaying a complete lack of empathy, Trump is endangering the human lives attached to these programs to coerce cities to comply with his administration.

Our city is not alone in this fight. Of the nation’s other imperiled sanctuary cities, New York stands to lose $701.6 million, Chicago $526.4 million, Los Angeles $466.2 million and Washington D.C. $20.4 million. An unsurprising pattern has emerged: all happen to be liberal havens. All happen to have overwhelmingly voted against a Trump presidency.

We must not succumb to his bullying. We must stare this unconstitutional abuse of power in the eye as we stand by the undocumented community. The 10th Amendment gives local jurisdictions the right not to enforce federal mandates. But under Trump, reality seems momentarily suspended. The city had better start looking for alternative sources of funding should Trump get away with his unhinged plans.

On the day Trump announced his anti-immigrant executive order, Berkeley Unified School District wasted no time in sending out an email promising to protect “the right of every student to attend public school, regardless of immigration status of the student or of the student’s family members.”

But further action is necessary. City officials should start developing solid frameworks to keep federally funded programs alive. And following in the footsteps of other cities’ police departments, Berkeley Police Department — one of the only local entities with protected funding under Trump’s proposal — should explicitly affirm it will not push anti-immigration law enforcement.

Our future does not look promising. We will have to make sacrifices. But the long-term consequences will be even more severe if we do not resist.

Editorials represent the majority opinion of the Editorial Board as written by the opinion editor.

Please keep our community civil. Comments should remain on topic and be respectful.
Read our full comment policy
  • Ed Oswalt

    It may well be that simply requiring state and local governments to enforce federal immigration law would violate the tenth amendment (a viewpoint supported by the liberally-dreaded Scalia in Printz v. U.S. in 1997), but the legality of the work-around of withholding federal funds seems to be rather established.

  • dnaxy

    I would like to have a slave. We should not follow the Thirteenth Amendment.

  • jim hoch

    So the President is NOT supposed to enforce federal law? When did that happen?

    • lspanker

      Liberals believe that the President should only enforce the laws they approve of.

  • Gaddy McGadfly

    You forgot to mention Miami was sanctuary city until a few days ago, they rolled over and now support Trump’s Executive Memorandum/Order. I say stand firm who knows maybe the next round of EO/EMs will require you to round up Muslims in our community and cart them off to internment camps. City of Berkeley you have a constitutional right to express disagreement and a right to protest without fear of retaliation, due process means it is decided in the courts, not by decree. The President serves in the office, not rules from the office.

    • lspanker

      I say stand firm who knows maybe the next round of EO/EMs will require you to round up Muslims in our community and cart them off to internment camps.

      Nothing like making up nonsense when you can’t deal with facts…

      • Gaddy McGadfly

        Read some history idiot, Roosevelt did just that to Japanese Americans with an EO and congress backed him on that.

        • lspanker

          So you think Trump is going to intern the Japanese-Americans again or what?

          • Gaddy McGadfly

            No, I think you are a barely functional illiterate fool who not only can’t read but cannot comprehend anything more than a bumper sticker slogan and a few traffic signs because they have different shapes.

          • lspanker

            Nah, you’re the fool here. FDR interned people who were in many cases US citizens. Trump is talking about banning entry to non-citizens from certain countries that pose a national security threat. Big difference, even in you’re one of those clueless Berkeley citizens who doesn’t know the difference between a US citizen and a foreign national.

          • Gaddy McGadfly

            True enough if I am a fool am so in good company. You may say what you want about the company you keep, but that is something upon which I cannot comment.

            You might have more credibility were it not for you’re tendency to distort what you read to support your delusions and to repeat what I’ve already said (perhaps not as plainly as you need) as if it were your own. “Japanese Americans” already describes American-citizens-of-Japanese-descent, does that make it clear for your limited comprehension. That you did not understand is no fault of mine, but points to a deficiency on your part.

            What’s more clueless than arguing from the fallacy of a false dilemma. Pitiless fool, the issue at hand has nothing to do with the difference between a US citizen and foreign national. It is a question of equal protection under the law a constitutional guarantee. Guilt has to be proved, innocence is a foregone assumption under the law. Too bad that’s the way it is. Many entitled to equal protection, by treaties and agreements with those countries, are being detained and sequestered without due process and assumption of guilt. The courts are already on to that, it remains to see how much spine they have to do the right thing.

            Here’s a relevant portion of Trump’s ban (you can read the rest elsewhere):

            “Suspends the entry of all “immigrants and nonimmigrants” from Iraq, Iran, Sudan and Libya for a period of 90 days. This may also apply to citizens of Libya, Yemen and Somalia depending on the interpretation. Bars all Syrian refugees for an indefinite period.”

            Note most of the restrictions are temporary and the operative word “all”. It does not ban Afgani, Pakistani and Saudi Arabian nationals (do I have to explain that to you?). It is clear Trump has no clue what do do and instead casts the largest net he can to pander to his constituencies.

            As yet his order is not numbered, so for the time being it is an Executive Memorandum, when it is numbered then it is considered an “Order”. If it remains a Memo we may never see the actual text of it until he leaves office and it becomes one of his “Presidential Letters”.

            Before you cast aspersions, it appears you don’t know the difference between a Berkeley resident and US citizen. Berkeley’s mayor or city council cannot bestow special citizenship on its residents, but one may reside freely within the city limits without special permission or dispensation, now who’s clueless.

          • TNT

            He doesn’t think, mostly regurgitates tin hat conspiracy theories.

          • Gaddy McGadfly

            Are you saying citing historical fact is a conspiracy theory?

          • TNT

            Your initial post if void of any citations. Furthermore, your second comment makes a vague reference to President Rooesevelt (a Democrat). You do realize that the US is not currently engaged in a world war and the current president is not rounding up citizens. Learn to make meaningful distinctions between historic events before trying to insinuate that they are similar.

  • Woolsey

    Question – if the goal is more immigrants, then why not support upping the quotas of legal immigrants. Why this battle to support illegal immigration? Why conflate the two. We do not have “anti-immigration law enforcement,” we have (occasionally) anti-illegal immigration law enforcement. Virtually all of us are immigrants or the offspring of immigrants. Hard to believe this misleading editorial “represents the majority opinion of the Editorial Board.” Or maybe, the Daily Cal staff is happy just parroting one of the political memes of the day. No wonder, no one believes the media anymore. I suppose it’s silly to expect something better from Cal.

    • JimRossi

      Definitely. Instead of sanctuary for illegal immigrants, let’s get the vast majority – brave, hard-working, terrific people – legal. Having lots of illegal immigrants in sanctuary cities is a handy supply of cheap labor, people with lesser rights, to work for rich people.

    • lspanker

      Question – if the goal is more immigrants, then why not support upping the quotas of legal immigrants.

      The pro-unrestricted crowd doesn’t merely want to increase the number of legal immigrants. They WANT illegals because they want individual who have NOT been screened/vetted, who are NOT interested in becoming responsible citizens, and who do NOT feel any sense of loyalty or gratitude towards the citizens of this country. It’s all about growing the dependent underclass and increasing the number of potential allies in their ongoing cultural war against America, nothing more.

    • Gaddy McGadfly

      “…why not support upping the quotas of legal immigrants”, many times legal immigrants take jobs from Americans who already work those jobs (with the blessing of the State Department and Congress) or brought to work one job, but end up working unintended jobs. Illegal immigrants with rare exceptions mostly work off the books jobs earn less than minimum wage and may or may not be paid for their labor. The reason enforcement is sporadic there are only around 21,000 agents and Congress doesn’t fund the program as it should. Technically speaking Border Patrols is under the umbrella of Homeland Security. Enforcement if you want to call it that is left to vigilante and self styled deputies whose ranks are filled with racists and white supremacists. Illegals fortunate enough to work on the books jobs pay into our system.

  • lspanker

    “Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars.” Berkeley would risk losing $11.5 million in federal funding.

    Excellent! Break federal law, lose federal funding. That’s EXACTLY how it should work…

    • Gaddy McGadfly

      No idiot, due process – goto court, argue case, judge rules; appeal case,argue case judge rules; appeal case, argue case and so on until SCOTUS accepts case, hears arguments makes it oen determination maybe or maybe not upholds prior court decisions — maybe SCOTUS tosses case back to lower courts maybe lose funding. More or less like it or not that’s how it does work. Since you have such an agile legal mind may you ought to get your own tv show.

      • James Clemons

        Yes, however, they will lose funding during the litigation. You are so smart though.

Tags No tags yet