Recap on San Francisco Local Redistricting

May 11, 2012

What do the new Board of Supervisor (BOS) districts mean for SF and the Asian American & Pacific Islander community?

By Carlo De La Cruz, Voting Rights Coordinator  & Carolyn Hsu, Voting Rights Fellow at Asian Law Caucus

Once every decade, following the release of Census data, our democracy goes through a redistricting process in order to ensure that all residents are represented fairly and equitably. The basic principle of redistricting is to ensure that the population in each district is nearly equal in number, so that each person’s vote will carry the same weight. Voters of color are uniquely impacted by the redistricting process because districts may be drawn to fairly reflect minority voting strength, or districts may be dismantled to deny minority voters the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Furthermore, it is important that communities of interest, particularly minority communities, be kept intact. Communities of interest-a community or neighborhood with shared interests, views, or characteristics-benefit from being maintained in a single district because they can better promote responsive representation by elected officials and protect against policies that fracture their communities.

Redistricting takes place on all levels of government, from our local school boards districts to our federal Congressional districts. In August 2011, the Redistricting Task Force was convened to adjust the Board of Supervisor lines for the City and County of San Francisco. From January to April, the Task Force held numerous community hearings in each of the city’s districts, providing a forum for community input and feedback in order to ensure that the final map indicating district boundary lines would reflect the diversity of San Francisco’s communities.

San Francisco Redistricting Process

Throughout the redistricting process, ALC provided guidance to and organized support for Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities; worked with community based organizations and other stakeholders to minimize any contention that arose; and collaborated with leaders from other racial and ethnic communities to ensure that common interests and strategies were paramount from the outset. ALC concentrated its efforts on the communities of interest in Districts 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 11, providing trainings for people of color communities to increase participation, and conducting outreach to media and policymakers on concerns relevant to those communities. ALC’s primary focus was to ensure that the voting power of minorities would not be diluted or divided, and to keep recognized minority neighborhoods intact, taking into account the diversity of San Francisco’s communities of interest, based on such factors as ethnicity, race, sexual orientation, limited English proficiency, and economic status.

Neighborhoods

For a detailed map of the new Board of Supervisors boundaries visit: http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=3448

Chinatown (District 3)

San Francisco is home to one of the nation’s oldest Chinatowns, with a local history spanning almost a century. Chinatown is located at the geographic center of District 3, bordering the neighborhoods of Nob Hill, Russian Hill, North Beach, and the Financial District. Although the boundaries of Chinatown are generally understood as a compact neighborhood home to 15,000 residents, the vast majority of whom are Chinese Americans, many other Chinese Americans also live in the surrounding neighborhoods of North Beach and Nob Hill. Additionally, many important community institutions-health care clinics, public housing developments, schools, and community based non-profits-are located in these surrounding neighborhoods and make up the greater Chinatown community.

Throughout the redistricting process, maintaining the integrity of Chinatown’s extended community of interest was a top priority for ALC and other Chinatown community advocates who were involved in the process. Based on our collective testimony, the Task Force preserved the geographic integrity of Chinatown and its surrounding neighborhoods, including in District 3 important institutions that provide critical services to the community. Overall, many of the historic neighborhoods that have made up the core of the district’s community was preserved in District 3. Additionally, District 3 picked up several blocks in the Union Square area, while the northern boundary shifted slightly from Leavenworth to Jones Street.

Fillmore, Western Addition, and Japantown (District 5)

ALC provided critical support to a coalition in the northern District 5 area, which was primarily comprised of Japanese Americans and African Americans from the Fillmore, Western Addition, and Japantown areas. With ALC’s assistance, the coalition submitted several district-wide maps of District 5 to the Task Force, which supported their argument that it was possible to create a District 5 that included their community of interest as a whole. Additionally, ALC provided public comment during Task Force meetings to highlight the coalition’s community of interest and the importance of keeping together in one district all of that community’s resources, organizations, and housing associations, including: the Booker T. Washington Community Center, Japanese Community Youth Council, Westside Courts Housing Association, and Chibi-Chan preschool. The final Task Force map ultimately reflected the strength of the coalition’s efforts, as the Task Force went to great lengths to respect the boundaries requested, maintaining in District 5 all of that community’s key institutions.

South of Market and Tenderloin (District 6)

Among all of the districts, District 6 was expected to undergo the most noticeable shift in terms of population and neighborhoods that comprise the district, as the increase in population over the last decade had resulted in it having well over 20,000 residents above the ideal population size of a district. In District 6, the South of Market (SoMa) neighborhood is comprised of one of the city’s largest Filipino communities.

A number of community advocates testified as to the various ways in which District 6 boundaries could be drawn. Supporters and members from the Filipino and other Asian American communities urged the Task Force to keep whole the historic Filipino communities in SoMa. The final set of lines kept nearly all of the Filipino community intact in SoMa. However, despite negotiations between community groups from SoMa and northern Mission to keep the Districts 6 and 9 boundary line around 14th and 15th Streets, the Task Force adopted a more northern boundary line that runs along Central Freeway. As a result, some Filipino residents, mainly those located in northern Mission, now find themselves as the newest residents of District 9.

Additionally, District 6 is home to the Tenderloin area, where a large Vietnamese and Southeast Asian population resides. The Tenderloin consists of many of the city’s public housing and Single Resident Occupancy developments. Because preserving not only the various ethnic communities, but also socio-economic communities of interest was at the heart of ALC’s involvement in the redistricting process, ALC, along with other community organizations and individuals, testified to keep the Tenderloin neighborhood intact with its sister working class neighborhoods in District 6. The final boundary lines shift the North-West boundary of District 6 from Gough Street to Van Ness Avenue, but still preserve in District 6 the low-income Southeast Asian community of interest. Although District 6 has more residents than any other district, it was able to maintain for the next decade the core communities and neighborhoods that have defined it.

Excelsior (District 11)

Throughout the redistricting process, ALC participated in and contributed to planning meetings held by the Filipino community to discuss their communities of interest in San Francisco, particularly in District 6′s SoMa area and District 11′s Excelsior neighborhood, one of the most diverse districts in the city. During the final stages of the redistricting process, the Task Force needed to lose population in District 11 and looked to the northeastern boundary of District 11 and southern boundary of District 8 to do so. Because a large number of Filipinos resided in that area, ALC spoke out on their behalf, requesting that the Task Force limit any boundary changes.

Simultaneously, ALC was supportive of the efforts by the community in Ocean View, Merced Heights, and Ingleside (OMI), to stay together. It was clear that one of the Task Force’s biggest hurdles process was maintaining in District 11 all its communities of interests, particularly OMI. Given the large population of OMI, the Task Force struggled to keep it intact in the district. Ultimately, the Task Force captured nearly all of OMI in District 11.

Portola and Visitacion Valley in District 10

ALC met frequently with members of the African American and AAPI communities in District 10 to discuss concerns surrounding: (1) reuniting the Portola area, home to a growing population of Chinese immigrants, which had been split into three districts during the last redistricting process; and (2) ensuring that the communities of interests that were primarily African American were not splintered. The Task Force was responsive to public comment and reunited the Portola area by placing it entirely in District 9. At the same time, the Task Force successfully kept together the African American communities in Bayview and Hunter’s Point.

Community Unity Map

Early in the redistricting process, several community groups came together to form a coalition to create a “Community Unity Map,” using the San Francisco Bay Guardian, a local progressive newspaper, as the platform. The coalition that transpired held several meetings throughout the process to receive feedback from supporters in San Francisco.

ALC played a crucial role in highlighting to the Community Unity Map group the growing coalition in the northern District 5 area. As a result, the Community Unity Map was subsequently revised to include the suggested District 5 boundary lines. Additionally, with regard to the area near the Districts 2 and 3 border, ALC provided input to the Community Unity Map, underscoring that the largely low-income Chinese American community could potentially be divided.

Implications for the future

Overall, the San Francisco redistricting process progressed smoothly and resulted in a map that ALC could support. ALC was successful in providing legal guidance, minimizing contention in areas that did arise, and serving as a bridge between communities so that common interests were identified and common strategies were pursued. By serving that role, ALC and its allies could provide constructive input to the Task Force members so they could redistrict San Francisco in a manner that was inclusive and reflective of its communities of interest.

Notably, the redistricting process went smoothly in large part because the Task Force members selected were not only diverse, active members of the San Francisco community, but also guided by principles of transparency and deference to the public, which they established at the beginning of the process. Notably, the Task Force’s draft maps were responsive to public comment, and closed sessions were held only to invoke attorney-client privilege over potential litigation issues. The Task Force revised their working map almost every other session and immediately posted their revisions online for community response. Furthermore, the Task Force’s collaboration with a non-profit organization to provide online mapping software was particularly useful, as the software was accessible to and helpful for all participants. As reflected in the final Supervisorial map that respects San Francisco’s communities of interest, the Task Force’s emphasis on transparency throughout the San Francisco process was key to minimizing conflict among the different stakeholders involved and to encouraging community input.

Leave a Comment » | Politics | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

“New Americans in California”: The #s on Our Growing Numbers

February 2, 2012

By Jenalyn Sotto, Communications Intern at the Asian Law Caucus

For longer than recent memory, every decade brings with it a plethora of changes: (r)evolutionary fashion trends, a series of technological advances, two (and a half) presidential terms, three Olypmic games, and the U.S. Census. The U.S. Census Bureau’s Facebook Page lauds itself as “[the] trusted source for quality statistics about people, places and our economy.” While its scope of information collecting remains unparalleled in its field–save for perhaps the State Government Tax Collections–rarely does the ordinary U.S. person (resident or citizen) see more of the U.S. Census’ data than the small, or sometimes lengthy, questionnaire during data-collecting.

But during this election year, where the stakes are even higher for under-represented communities, it is vital that we know and acknowledge changing demographics.  The Immigration Policy Center released a detailed set of infographics on Latino and Asian immigrant populations taken from–you got it!–the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census. Updated from the released data and special reports from the 2010 Census and the 2010 American Communities Survey and re-released with state-specific infographics for distribution, the study entitled “STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY: The Economic and Political Clout of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in the United States” serves to breakdown, demystify, and debunk popular tropes about the growing immigrant populations with specific emphases on the Latina/o and Asian populations through numbers. Referred to as “New Americans,” the study enumerates the national and state-by-state economic and political growth of foreign-born naturalized Latina/o and Asian Americans as well as their native-born children.

For California:

California’s New American population is robust and makes California robust.

  • More than 1/4th of Californians are immigrants. *
  • More than 1/2 of Californians are Latina/o or Asian–and they vote. *
  • Immigrant workers, entrepreneurs, and taxpayers are integral to California’s economy. *
  • Immigrant, Latina/o, and Asian entrepreneurs and consumers add hundreds of billions of dollars and more than a million jobs to California’s economy. *
  • Most native-born Californians have experienced a wage gain from immigration. *

Therefore, California policies sensitive to the Latina/o and Asian populations should be considered with great legislative and community, grassroots care. Over half of the state identifies as Latina/o or Asian! But, as made evident by campaigns past and present, diversity in these groups causes mobilization difficulties. The issues of immigration policing in California alone makes heads spin–what more when it comes to small and medium business tax reform, redistricting, voting rights, language access, healthcare, education, public health and safety, and government representation?

This California infographic–and all other state infographics–is the proverbial tip of the iceberg, only going so far to as to whet your appetite by leaving that almost insatiable craving for clarification, qualification, and denouement. This offering by the Immigration Policy Center should serve as a first course for the type of awareness and data collection that our community organizations, legislators, and local officials should enact in order to better cater to the growing New American populations. Even more important, New Americans should become better versed in their numbers in order to harness that salient power. The national discourse has been long dominated by the see-saw of ambivalence and disfavor (heavy on the disfavor) towards immigrants and their progeny, but with the American imaginary increasingly interchanging “immigrant” with Asian or Latina/o it is high time for our communities to seize the day(ta) and make ourselves well and truly known.

*: These statements were taken from the Immigration Policy Center’s The Political and Economic Power of Immigrants, Latinos, and Asians in the Golden State (Updated January 2012).

Leave a Comment » | Asian American, Asian Law Caucus, civil rights, Immigration, Politics | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Trashing Transparency

December 19, 2011

NOTE: Originally published on the ACLU’s  Blog of Rights on December 19, 2011. This article has been re-posted with the permission of the author.

By Nasrina Bargzie, Staff Attorney at the Asian Law Caucus

In November 2005, U.S. marines in Iraq were involved in the killing of 24 civilians—including women and children. Shortly after the story became public, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for all documents related to the incident and other civilian casualties of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although we received thousands of documents in response, the government did not give us a single document relating specifically to the killings at Haditha.

Apparently, it threw them away instead.

Last week, The New York Times reported that it had found hundreds of pages of records relating to the horrific incident in Haditha . . . in a junkyard, being burned as kindling to cook a dinner.

The U.S. government could have turned these documents over and, in the process, helped Americans obtain the information they need in order to critically reflect on our conduct in Iraq and other theaters of war. Instead it chose to trash transparency, and as a result, strangle any chance of proper accountability.

The documents discovered by The New York Times reflect a disillusioned and tragically misdirected mission that resulted in death and suffering in Iraq and among the Marines themselves. Ironically, the military’s attempt to fog the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has worked doubly against the interests of the American people. First, the American public was denied access to records reflecting its government’s conduct for years. Second, its servicepersons were forced to operate in an environment where the death of innocent civilians was considered a “cost of doing business,” resulting in severe damage to the servicepersons themselves.

These documents should have been made public. Throwing away documents relating to atrocities in Iraq will not make those atrocities go away. Instead, it only breeds distrust in our government and deprives us of the information we need as citizens to hold our leaders accountable and to make informed choices about our policies.

Leave a Comment » | Asian Law Caucus, Asian Law Caucus Staff, civil rights, Politics | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

STATEMENT BY JU HONG UC BERKELEY DREAM ACT STUDENT

July 20, 2011

STATEMENT BY JU HONG

UC BERKELEY DREAM ACT STUDENT

“If not us, then who? If not now, then when? – John Lewis

My name is Ju Hong, and I am undocumented and unafraid.

On Tuesday, July 12, six other undocumented students and I conducted an act of civil disobedience to empower young undocumented immigrant youth and to protest the inhuman treatments of immigrants. We sat in the street nearby San Bernardino Valley College and submitted to arrest. We were taken to jail, and we are now being threatened with deportation. This is the first time in California, where undocumented youth participated in non-violent civil disobedience.

We chose to protest in San Bernardino County because organizations like the National Socialist Party (Nazis), the Minutemen, and anti-immigrant legislators have been terrorizing the immigrant communities. In San Bernardino, a 17-year old student was arrested and deported simply because he was riding his bike without the headlights on. Another student was arrested and deported because he was playing basketball on campus late at night. Where is the justice? Why are so many talented immigrant youth being targeted?

After our arrest, we were held in jail for almost 12 hours. All seven of us were confined to a single cell room with one toilet, one roll of toilet paper, and two long wooden benches. It was very cold.

One of the youngest participants, 19-year-old student Jorge Herrera, led the unity clap inside the cell. With our eyes closed, everyone followed by the rhythm of the clap. I shouted, ‘Isang Bagsak!’ a Filipino unity cry, “one down, one fall!” – meaning we must stand together and fight for justice. Even in jail, the room was filled with energy and strong determination.

Several hours later, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer came to our cell to interrogate us. The ICE agent looked directly at me and said, “I will not detain you today, but I will detain you soon.” In reality, the ICE agent has the authority to deport us, to separate us from our family and friends, and to send us to a country that is foreign to us.

ICE was notified because of the “secure communities” program that allows local law enforcement to share information with ICE to initiate deportation proceedings. This is an unjust program, because it leaves immigrant communities vulnerable and distrustful of the police.

A year ago, my family’s home was burglarized. The door was broken into pieces, the windows were completely shattered, and our valuable belongings were gone. All of my family was terrified. My immediate reaction was to call the police, but my mother stopped me, “Ju, do not call the police,” she said. “What if you get deported?”

Like many other undocumented immigrants, I was living in the shadows and living in a constant fear of deportation. However, I have decided to stand up and fight back. I am sick and tired of remaining silent. Today, I am proclaiming to the world that I am undocumented and unafraid.

In the next couple of weeks, I will find out if ICE will start removal proceedings on our cases. If ICE decides to put me in deportation proceedings, I will take full action and I will fight until I regain my basic human rights.

I risked my life because I wanted to empower other young undocumented youth. In particular, I strongly encourage my fellow Asian American undocumented youth to take the next step and come out of the shadows. Start sharing your personal story to your friends, your relatives, your counselors, and your communities. This is only way we can empower our communities and fix our broken immigration system.

I risked my life because I wanted to show that this is not only a Latino issue; in fact, this is a human rights issue. I hope we can stand united as a movement, and not let divisions hurt our work.

We are calling on President Barack Obama to stop the deportation of all undocumented students throughout the country. Please join us.

This is our home, this is our country, and we want to contribute to make this nation a better place.

You can make our dreams come true.  Thank you.

Isang Bagsak,

Ju Hong

Leave a Comment » | Politics, Stand Up Speak Out! | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

re: “Redistricting worries San Francisco’s gay leaders”

July 14, 2011

On July 1st, 2011 the San Francisco Examiner published an article entitled “Redistricting worries San Francisco’s gay leaders.”  In response to that article, Benjamin Leong & Carlo De La Cruz Co-Chair & Political Awareness Chair of the Gay Asian Pacific Alliance wrote this letter to the editor on July 5th, 2011:

Your story last week regarding the redistricting “conflict” between the LGBT and Asian American SF communities oversimplifies a highly complex process.  Among other criteria, redistricting must comply with important factors including the Federal Voting Rights Act, contiguity, and, most importantly, population equality across all the districts.

At its heart, redistricting should be about the enfranchisement of all communities. While the LGBT community and Asian communities are quite different, there are many similarities between the two groups: namely, the constant struggle for fair and accurate representation in the Legislature.

Your framing inaccurately portrays the interests and values of the Asian American community and LGBT community as fundamentally conflicting with one another.  It also continues to make invisible the needs of the community that is both gay and LGBT-identified, many of whom reside in both LGBT and Asian American neighborhoods in our City.

We can find a solution that is win-win, but it takes commitment from both sides to make it happen.

Benjamin Leong
Co-Chair, Gay Asian Pacific Alliance

Carlo De La Cruz
Political Awareness Chair, Gay Asian Pacific Alliance

Leave a Comment » | Asian American, current events, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Undocumented and Unafraid: Steve Li

March 16, 2011

By Steve Li, ASPIRE (Asian Students Promoting Immigrant Rights through Education) Member

In honor of National Coming Out Week: Undocumented and Unafraid we are featuring stories of API dreamers.  The DREAM Act would provide undocumented students that arrived before the age of 16 in the US a pathway to legalization.

It was a sunny morning, and like any other school day, I was in the bathroom getting ready for school when there was a loud knock on the door. I didn’t want to answer it since no one ever comes that early in the morning without notice. So I woke up my mom to see if she was expecting anyone. She said no, but they kept knocking. She got up and went to answer.

That’s when five officials dressed in black rushed in and searched the apartment. I was brushing my teeth when one opened the door and told me to get out and get dressed. I kept asking what was going on, but they wouldn’t tell me anything. Finally one of the officers asked if I knew why they were here and told me that I was undocumented and they would be deporting me back to Peru.

This is the only home I remember; my goals and dreams have always been in the Bay Area. I followed their orders, thinking it was just a mistake and that I would be back at school later that day.

Outside I was searched and handcuffed. My mother was, too. I was separated from my parents, and we were taken to Sacramento and thrown into jail where I was treated like a criminal. I went to bed hungry every night, physically and mentally exhausted.

Every day I woke up thinking that I should be going to school rather than locked up 23 hours a day. I kept asking what was happening, but I couldn’t get anywhere. Immigration officers never came to the jail. The thought of being forced to leave my home and go to a country where I no longer know anyone was devastating. It was mind-boggling, not being able to turn to any one for answers.

After three weeks in Sacramento County Jail, things started to sink in, and the little hope that I had left disappeared. I was flown to Arizona, far away from my family and friends, without being able to contact anyone.

There I spent three days in a room the size of the City College cafeteria with around 200 other people. We slept on the floor in our clothes, and I could smell the sweat and body odor of everyone around me. Some, caught crossing the border, still had mud and dirt on them; others were sick, coughing vigorously. We were packed in tight, only allowed to move to go to the bathroom.

The Detention Center in Arizona, in the middle of nowhere, was surrounded by high fences with razor blades and electrical wires with cameras and security guards everywhere. I told myself this was a nightmare and I would wake up any day now. But days turned into weeks and weeks turned into months.

The stories of others in the facility, from different parts of the world, really touched me. There were many young people like me. I met someone from Guatemala who had come here with his parents when he was very young. He had no say in immigrating and was just finishing high school when Immigration and Customs Enforcement took him into custody in Los Angeles. Now he, too, expected to be sent back to a country he had no memory of.

I was lucky to be living in the Bay Area and have my community organize to bring me home, eventually convincing Senator Feinstein to introduce a private bill to stop my deportation. But there are many DREAMers who are still incarcerated in Arizona and elsewhere. We want a chance to pursue our education, a chance to use our degrees, a chance to give back to the communities we grew up in and love.

This is not a Hispanic or an Asian issue. This is an issue that affects all of us. This will happen to more and more students, friends, and neighbors. We have a broken immigration system, and we need to fix it. I don’t want other students to go through what I went through. This is why is so important to pass the Federal DREAM Act. I’m Undocumented and unafraid.

1 Comment | Asian American, civil rights, Politics, Stand Up Speak Out! | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Why Asians (and Other Minorities) Must Get Involved in CA Redistricting

February 2, 2011

NOTE: Originally published on  New America Media on January 24, 2011.

This article has been re-posted with the permission of the authors.

By Eugene Lee and Deanna Kitamura, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center


LOS ANGELES—California has started a new experiment that will affect who represents you in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. Until now, the state Legislature has had the power to redraw the boundaries of state and congressional districts, a process known as redistricting. Because of recently approved ballot propositions, the Legislature’s redistricting authority has been delegated to a 14-member commission made up of California voters. The creation of the new commission presents the public with a golden opportunity to get involved in how the lines are drawn.

The commission’s job is to replace existing Assembly, state Senate, Board of Equalization and Congressional districts with new districts based on 2010 Census data. Over the last decade, some areas of the state, such as the Central Valley and the Inland Empire, have experienced significant population growth, while other areas have had stagnant growth or population losses. The commission’s task is to account for these changes and create new districts containing roughly the same number of people as other districts of the same kind. Although partisan considerations often dominate how redistricting is carried out, the population equality requirement is the reason why redistricting happens in the first place.

District boundaries drawn in the past have fragmented communities of color, including Asian-American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities. For example, in the 2001 redistricting, the San Jose neighborhood of Berryessa was split among four state Assembly districts, even though over half of Berryessa’s population is AAPI, sharing common interests and needs. When communities are divided, their ability to appeal to their elected representatives to address their needs is diminished.
By law, the commission must hold two sets of public hearings. These hearings are an opportunity for the public to educate the commission on how different communities believe the commission should draw the electoral maps. The first set of hearings is to receive input before any maps are drawn and the second set is to receive feedback following the drawing of the commission’s proposed maps.

Public input is important to the commission’s ability to keep together “communities of interest,” one of the factors the commission must consider. A community of interest is a population that shares common social and economic interests that should be kept together in order that the population’s interests are fairly and effectively represented. If divided, the community’s representation would be ineffective because it would be required to appeal to two or more elected officials, as in the case of Berryessa. Many different types of communities can make up a community of interest, such as an immigrant community with shared language-access needs, a low-income neighborhood with specific educational needs, or a geographic area where many of the residents work in the same industry.

Communities of interest are not generally labeled on maps. That’s why it is crucial that local community members come forward to educate the commission. Without public input, the commission is unlikely to know whether a specific community of interest exists and is even more unlikely to know the geographic parameters of the community of interest.

If you are interested in ensuring that the commission keeps together AAPI communities of interest, there’s a simple way to get involved. The Coalition of Asian Pacific Americans for Fair Redistricting (CAPAFR), anchored by the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, is holding meetings throughout California to focus on AAPI communities of interest. CAPAFR’s goal is to submit proposals that show the commission how AAPI communities of interest can be best kept together, while also respecting other communities of interest. To see a calendar of CAPAFR meetings or to learn more about redistricting in general, please visit www.capafr.org.

When will we know how this new redistricting experiment turns out? August 15, 2011, which is the commission’s deadline to adopt final redistricting plans. Before that deadline approaches, the commission must hear from the public. If the public does not come forward, communities could get divided in the redistricting process.

The next CAPAFR community meeting in San Francisco and San Mateo will be held February 24th 5:30pm-8pm at the Asian Law Caucus 55 Columbus Ave. San Francisco CA 94111. To RSVP please contact CAPAFR2011@gmail.com or visit http://www.capafr.org/sf-san-mateo-3rd-community-mtg1

Eugene Lee is the voting rights project director at the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian Center of Advancing Justice. (www.apalc.org). He directs work on voter protection, Voting Rights Act compliance, and ballot access policy and is currently working to strengthen the voice of AAPI communities during the 2011 redistricting process.

Deanna Kitamura is the statewide redistricting manager at the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, a member of Asian Center of Advancing Justice. She works with community partners to ensure that AAPI communities in California are engaged in the redistricting process.

Leave a Comment » | Census, civil rights, current events, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Perspectives: Birthright citizenship; Chinese Americans have stake in safeguarding this right

January 19, 2011

NOTE: Originally published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on January 15, 2011.

This article has been re-posted with the permission of the author.

By Assemblyman Mike Eng

For many Asian Americans, and especially Chinese Americans, the current debate about birthright citizenship is a debate our community already knows. That is because the vast majority of Asian Americans would not be U.S. citizens today save for the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed that the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment applied even to U.S.-born children of Chinese and other foreign nationals who were legally barred from naturalizing.

Thus, as a legislator, an immigration attorney and a descendant of Chinese immigrants, I am saddened and alarmed by the vitriol surrounding the birthright citizenship debate and the current push to strip away citizenship from the children of undocumented parents.

From the beginning, the history of Chinese Americans in the U.S. has been intricately tied to the debate around the right to citizenship.

Like so many immigrants, Chinese Americans, including my family, came to the United States to pursue the American Dream and to build a life for themselves and their families. Yet when Chinese immigrants arrived in the United States at the end of the 19th century, many were detained, incarcerated and repeatedly interrogated, sometimes for years.

What was the reason? The xenophobic Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the only law in U.S. history that explicitly prohibited entry into America on the basis of race and nationality, prevented them from stepping foot into the country. The Act was part of a widespread campaign to drive out predominantly low-wage Chinese immigrant workers, who were accused of driving down wages for “real Americans” and for failing to assimilate.

Consequently, Chinese immigrants ostensibly became the first undocumented immigrant population in the United States. After the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, there was just one method by which most could gain entry to the U.S.: by becoming “paper sons” – erasing their real names, family ties and ancestral connections, and adopting false identities claiming to be the overseas offspring of Chinese who were already in the United States.

The current birthright citizenship debate resurrects the malicious spirit of the Chinese Exclusion Act. It is unfortunate that in today’s ugly debate around immigration, an immigrant child is not seen as a symbol of hope, but as an “anchor baby,” demonized as a way for parents to gain legal status in the United States. The legal reality is that these parents still face deportation, even if they have U.S.-born citizen children. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has deported more than 100,000 parents of children who are U.S. citizens.

Instead we should celebrate the right to citizenship, as granted by the 14th Amendment, a quintessential cornerstone of American civil rights in itself. Obtaining citizenship is the important last step to being fully integrated in American society, where being a citizen gives one the right to vote, the permanent right to work in the U.S., and the right to travel freely abroad. It encourages civic participation and activism, and is a way for immigrants to show that they are proud to be an American. That is why every year, hundreds of thousands of immigrants gather at oath ceremonies throughout the country to pledge allegiance to the United States and to become U.S. citizens.

Immigration has also helped to drive the growth and prosperity of our nation. Throughout California, businesses owned by Latinos and Asians comprise more than one-quarter of all businesses in the state. And in Los Angeles alone, immigrants account for 34 percent of the area’s total economic output.

Instead of directing our energies toward stripping citizenship from children, we need to focus on achieving comprehensive immigration reform. Our broken immigration system has contributed to the undocumented population, because getting a visa to enter the United States takes up to 20 years.

Many of the estimated one million undocumented immigrants in the Asian American community include those whose family members have died while awaiting reunification through the overburdened family system. Would you wait 20 years to reunite with your loved ones?

The denial of citizenship runs counter to our values and what America is all about – a free and democratic society that welcomes its victims, treats people as individuals and respects their civil and human rights, and does not discriminate based on race, culture or country of origin. Instead, let us focus our energies together on achieving real and humane immigration reform.

Assemblyman Mike Eng represents the 49th District, which includes the cities of Alhambra, El Monte, Monterey Park, Rosemead, San Gabriel, San Marino, and South El Monte. Eng is the author of Assembly Concurrent Resolution 76, which designates December 17 as the “Day of Inclusion” in California and memorializes the historic Magnuson Act, which repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and was signed into law on December 17, 1943.

Leave a Comment » | Asian American, civil rights, Politics | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Is ‘Muslim’ a Dirty Word?

December 16, 2010

By Veena Dubal, Staff Attorney, National Security and Civil Rights Program

In late November, we at the Asian Law Caucus received a fax from a company that works to defend the internet reputation of other companies.  They alerted us to the fact that there was a derogatory comment posted to the Google search under our listing.

The fax read, “It is in your best interest to address this problem as soon as possible.  Every time someone clicks on that derogatory link, the link has the potential to move-up in the listing.”

The next page of the fax included an image of the link the company was referring to.  It was a Yelp review of our non-profit which reads, “Bunch of the members came out to do a presentation for the Muslim community in Oakland on a Friday night.  They have done a lot to inform others of the[ir] basic rights.  Really a great group of individuals, I would love to work with them and see more of their community organization in the future.”

What exactly was derogatory or reputation-marring about this glowing review?  The word MUSLIM.  Yes, this company had marked “Muslim” as a derogatory tag word – a basis for which they could contact companies and solicit business.

This year, we have all been a part of or borne witness to the incendiary debates over Quran burning, the Park 51 Muslim community center, “home-grown terrorism,” etc.  For those of us raised on ideals of pluralism and who cherish religious freedom and diversity, these are no doubt extremely troubling times.

However, for many Muslim Americans, the concerns rise well above “troubling.” Many community members feel that their basic freedoms have been stripped of them.  They fear going to mosque because of the presence of informants.  They fear voicing their political opinions because critiquing U.S. foreign policy while being Muslim may get them labeled a terrorist.  They fear wearing religious garb, traveling, and donating money to charities.

And all of these are well-founded fears.  Just this month, two Muslim American youth were charged with attempted murder after being entrapped in an elaborate ruse set up by the FBI and community informants, a Sikh American cab driver in Sacramento was physically assaulted by a passenger who called him a “Osama bin Laden” and yelled “Muslim,” and the Washington Post published an expose on an FBI informant who was paid almost $200,000 in Irvine, California to infiltrate mosques.  And these were just the incidents that captured the attention of the national media.

When our Communications Director brought the news of the fax into my office, alerting me that an outside company asserted that our reputation was in danger because “Asian Law Caucus” had been associated with the word “Muslim,” I was speechless, and despite myself, surprised.  In some ways, this knowledge served as a tipping point in how I was thinking about the events of this past year.  This wasn’t just a debate about that reflected our fears of terrorism.   If the word “Muslim” has made its way into the dirty dictionary, then not only are Muslim Americans under siege, but we are all living in a state of moral emergency.

The United States cannot continue to see itself as the harbinger of global democracy and freedom when an entire religious population is being targeted by both civil and political society within our borders.  Stripping one community of its civil rights to the extent that a religious identifier becomes a dirty word beckons memories of totalitarian regimes.

Our deepest held values are being tested . . . and we are failing.

1 Comment | civil rights, Politics | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Blessed Are the Meek

November 30, 2010

NOTE: Originally published in the Washington Post on November 30, 2010.

This article has be re-posted with the permission of the author.

By Rajdeep Singh

Washington Post political reporter Karen Tumulty wrote Monday about the growing use of the idea of “American exceptionalism” by political conservatives as a “battle cry from a new front in the ongoing culture wars.”

Sarah Palin and many other prominent conservatives assert that “God has granted America a special role in human history.” It is this belief about America’s destiny that they say is “under attack” by liberals who downplay America’s distinctiveness.

Are these leaders saying that America has a special relationship with God?

How do you interpret this?

It is fashionable (and cliché) for politicians to pump bromides into the air about the uniqueness and superiority of American ideals. One simple way to measure the sincerity and seriousness of these politicians is by challenging them to resolve some festering obstacles to American exceptionalism, especially in the area of human rights. With respect to these core values, we can be peerless, but only if we stop acting like our peers.

Consider some examples:

America still puts people to death for crimes. This is hardly exceptional. The point here is not that human life is sacred. The point here is not even to suggest the impossibility of reconciling the death penalty with a belief in the sanctity of human life. The point here is much simpler: that, in the realm of capital punishment, according to Amnesty International, we presently keep company with such ingloriously led countries as Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, while much of the civilized world has abolished–or is moving toward abolition of–the death penalty.

American politicians still use hateful rhetoric against racial and religious minorities. According to a recent report by South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), elected officials and some also-rans in American politics have repeatedly mocked and stereotyped Muslims in the post-9/11 environment. Perhaps this explains the recent spate of anti-mosque protests around the nation and why 39% of surveyed Americans believe that Muslims in our country should have to carry special identification cards naming their religion. Sadly, none of this is exceptional. If we continue to alienate Muslims, we will become more like France, which is hardly a fountain of optimism. If we oppose the construction of mosques in America, then we are morally in accord with Saudi Arabia, which forbids non-Muslims from building houses of worship. If we require Muslims in America to carry special identification cards on the basis of their religion, it should not surprise us to learn that there are historical antecedents for this in Afghanistan and Germany.

Being exceptional is not simply a matter of believing that we are better than others by way of divine entitlement. Being the best requires effort and humility. Politicians who celebrate American exceptionalism should walk the talk on human rights. Anything less would be lip service and laziness, both of which are fundamentally out-of-step with the American character.

1 Comment | civil rights, Politics | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Flip-flopping About a Bad Policy

October 15, 2010

NOTE: Originally published in the Huffington Post on October 14, 2010

This article has been re-posted with permission of the author.

By Margaret Huang

Last week, the Arlington County (Virginia) Board sent a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) notifying the federal agency that the County does not wish to participate in the “Secure Communities” Initiative (SCI). The letter is a result of a resolution adopted by the County Board on September 28th expressing the County’s intent to withdraw from SCI. Arlington County adopted its resolution based on the repeated public statements by DHS that local jurisdictions could choose not to participate in the program. Very little is known – or understood – about the “Secure Communities” program, in large part due to contradictory information disseminated about the program by DHS. What Arlington County residents do know about “Secure Communities” is troubling for supporters of community policing, civil liberties and human rights.

Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment » | Asian American, Asian Law Caucus, civil rights, current events, Politics | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Violence Against Asian Americans in SF and Oakland Highlight Need for Safer Neighborhoods for All

May 5, 2010

By Titi Liu, Executive Director

Over the past several weeks, hundreds of Asian American residents in San Francisco and Oakland have testified at city hall meetings and participated in community rallies against violence and demanded action be taken to improve safety.  Founded in 1972, the Asian Law Caucus has a long history of speaking out against violence and harassment against Asian Americans, including addressing crimes against Vietnamese residents in San Francisco housing projects in the 1990’s and the targeting of South Asians, Arabs, and Muslims before and after 9/11.  The ALC also has provided know your rights and anti-violence trainings to thousands of youth, parents, and educators.

The ALC applauds the efforts of community members who have worked to draw attention to this important issue.  The ALC also calls for a thorough investigation of each of the incidents against Asian victims that have occurred in the Bayview and in Oakland.  Effective solutions to prevent these incidents from reoccurring can only be developed if the individual causes are investigated and addressed.

In addition, while these cases are being investigated, proactive steps, both short-term and long-term, need to be taken to improve public safety for all residents as acts of violence create fear in the hearts of all community members, African American and Asian American alike.  The San Francisco and Oakland police departments need to strengthen relationships with community members to ensure victims of crime feel safe coming forward and reporting incidents.  This includes, but is not limited to, improving language access services and cultural competency of officers, which is a project the ALC has been working on in San Francisco for the past several years.  The police also need to be clear about what they can do if incidents are reported.  Violence prevention and intervention programs that have been shown to have positive results in both cities need to be fully funded and supported rather than being the first to be targeted for cuts each year.  Structural changes also are needed to preserve and expand safe and affordable housing in these communities for all residents.

We also must be vigilant as communities move forward in working together to create safer neighborhoods to not reinforce stereotypes about one another, but to instead enter this difficult yet important dialogue with an open mind and an open heart.

1 Comment | Asian American, Asian Law Caucus Staff, current events, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Protecting Speech, Preserving Charity: Why the High Court Should Refine “Material Support” Provision

April 5, 2010

This article has been re-posted with permission of the author from http://www.acslaw.org/node/15739

By Sahar Aziz, a civil rights attorney with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee. Ms. Aziz previously served as a senior policy advisor with the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard argument in Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder. The plaintiffs, a human rights organization and a retired federal judge, sought to teach international human rights law and provide training on nonviolent conflict resolution to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Both organizations are designated as terrorist by the U.S. government.

Oral argument focused on whether such training and advocacy aimed at promoting peace constitutes pure speech protected by the First Amendment, thereby shielding plaintiffs from prosecution under laws that prohibit material support for terrorism. But rather than delve into the complex constitutional questions presented, the Court should follow the established doctrine of constitutional avoidance by interpreting the challenged provisions to require a showing of intent to further illegal activities. The avoidance doctrine dictates that if a case can be resolved on an alternative basis, the court should refrain from ruling on constitutional issues.

In the 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, the Supreme Court held in Scales v. United States that laws criminalizing membership in the Communist Party must be interpreted Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment | civil rights, current events, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

Liberty and Justice for All, Except for Immigrants

March 8, 2010

By: Christopher Punongbayan

In the last week, the cases of two immigrant families surfaced in the mainstream media and highlighted the ways our federal immigration system is failing our country.  In New York City, the New York Times covered the story of Qing Wu, a young Chinese American man who committed an offense from which he has completely turned his life around.  His reward? Deportation. Read the rest of this entry »

1 Comment | Asian American, civil rights, community organizing, Politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

AAPIs Needed for California’s New Redistricting Commission

December 21, 2009

Originally posted on APAs for Progress.

Every ten years, we draw new district maps for Congress, the California legislature, county boards of supervisors, and city councils.  These maps show the boundaries of each district.  When we redraw the maps every ten years, we change the boundaries so that each district contains the same number of people.  This process is called redistricting. Read the rest of this entry »

2 Comments | community organizing, current events, Politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by asianlawcaucus

« Previous Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.