Topic

2016 Election

1,227 petitions

Update posted 2 days ago

Petition to Sonoma County Board of Supervisors, Santa Rosa City Council, Sebastopol City Council, Cotati City Council, Rohnert Park City Council, Windsor City Council, Healdsburg City Council, Sonoma City Council, Cloverdale City Council, Petaluma City Council, Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch, Sonoma County Sheriff Steve Freitas

It Won't Happen Here - Sonoma County Resistance to the Trump Agenda

This is a call for people living in Sonoma County, California (PLEASE DO NOT SIGN IF YOU DO NOT LIVE IN SONOMA COUNTY, but create a similar statement for your elected representatives.) to endorse the following It Won't Happen Here Statement.  Email us at info@it-wont-happen-here.org for a hard copy of the petition. English followed by Spanish followed by explanation: WHEREAS, to safeguard the equal and inalienable rights and inherent dignity of all people that is the foundation of the relationship between a government and the people; AND whereas, we recognize that the rights and dignity of all people are under threat; WE, the undersigned individuals residing in Sonoma County, CA, call upon all Sonoma County governing authorities and law enforcement agencies to pledge in writing to protect all of the County's community members; FURTHERMORE, we call upon these authorities and agencies to proclaim publicly that they will refuse to cooperate with any demands from the federal government to institute detentions, deportations, registries, conversion therapies, imprisonment or any other acts that target or discriminate based on immigration status, race, ethnicity, religion, country of origin, ability, political affiliation, economic status, age, gender-identity or sexual orientation; FURTHERMORE, we, the undersigned individuals, in obedience to our consciences, pledge to protect, to the best of our ability, all community members and will support our local governments as they move to resist these undemocratic and un-American practices in order to reaffirm their commitment to inclusivity, respect and dignity. ESTO NO SUCEDERA AQUI - Resistencia del Condado de Sonoma a la Agenda de Trump CONSIDERANDO que, para proteger los derechos iguales e inalienables y la dignidad inherente de todas las personas, que es el fundamento de la relación entre un gobierno y el pueblo; Y CONSIDERANDO que reconocemos que los derechos y la dignidad de todas las personas están amenazados; NOSOTROS, los abajo firmantes que residen en el condado de Sonoma, CA, pedimos a todas las autoridades gubernamentales del condado de Sonoma y las agencias de aplicación de la ley que se comprometan por escrito a proteger a todos los miembros de la comunidad del condado; ADEMÁS, exhortamos a estas autoridades y agencias a proclamar públicamente que se negarán a cooperar con cualquier demanda del gobierno federal para instituir detenciones, deportaciones, registros, terapias de conversión, encarcelamiento o cualquier otro acto que apunte o discrimine basado en el estatus migratorio, Raza, origen étnico, religión, país de origen, capacidad, afiliación política, condición económica, edad, identidad de género u orientación sexual;ADEMÁS, los abajo firmantes, en obediencia a nuestras conciencias, nos comprometemos a proteger, en la medida de nuestras posibilidades, a todos los miembros de la comunidad y apoyaremos a nuestros gobiernos locales en su intento de resistir estas prácticas antidemocráticas y antiamericanas para reafirmar su compromiso con la inclusión, el respeto y la dignidad. *.     *.     *.     *.     *.     *.     *.     *.     *.     *.     *.     *.   *.    *.     *.      After the 2016 presidential election, so many people were talking about what might happen under a Trump presidency that a group of people came together to create a statement that would go to Sonoma County's city councils, the Board of Supervisors, the D.A., the Sheriff and the school boards letting them know that we expect them to protect all the people of Sonoma County (CA) from laws, executive orders and department regulations which would violate their civil rights. Through a Facebook announcement initiated by local activist, Susan Lamont, we ended up with more than 70 people from many communities working on the statement over the course of six meetings. We are currently involved in getting as many groups (95 groups have endorsed as of 1/9/17) and individuals as possible to endorse it before we take it to those elected bodies. This petition is the vehicle for support by individuals. We believe that these are not normal times and that people will make extraordinary efforts to be on the right side of history. We would like to make Sonoma County a county of resistance to all forms of discrimination. For those of us born in the years immediately following the end of WWII, we have heard people of all political persuasions say "Never again!" and "How did the German people allow that to happen?" We're essentially asking people to show that those reactions really meant something. We do not know exactly what the Trump administration will bring forth by law or executive order or department policies. But we should know what we will not allow or accept. The rhetoric of Trump and his appointees cannot be met with halfway measures or a wait-and-see attitude. We must be clear in our resistance and refusal from the start. Elected officials around the country are speaking up. The Mayor of New York City has been particularly strong in saying he will break the law to resist. Governor Jerry Brown has spoken out strongly, as well. We want the same from our elected representatives in Sonoma County. We can and should resist here. We can and should say “It won't happen here.” (This group is a loose affiliation of many people from many walks of life. We've been so busy promoting the statement that we haven't had time to create a formal organization - but we'll get to it! We do have a phone # -707-595-0153 - and an email address - info@it-wont-happen-here.org)    

It Won't Happen Here - Sonoma County Resistance
2,170 supporters
Update posted 3 days ago

Petition to Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, Joaquin Castro, Beto O'Rourke, Lindsey Graham, Joe Donnelly

Protect and Preserve Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

As a result of the recent election, the time to preserve vital progress in our nation has come. President-elect Donald Trump’s anticipated immigration plans pose a significant threat to undocumented immigrants nationwide. Undocumented high school graduates wishing to go on to college to further their education, wanting nothing more than to contribute to their communities and to the United States, face a harsh reality after graduating high school. DACA presented hope for a future for many undocumented students across the country. Young children and young adults with aspirations of becoming future doctors, teachers, lawyers, and countless other career paths were given an opportunity to pursue their dreams when Obama announced the DACA program. Donald Trump plans to terminate this, effectively ending all young undocumented students' hopes of obtaining driver’s licenses, work permits, and a college education and putting them at an increased risk for deportation. What is DACA?“Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a kind of administrative relief from deportation. The purpose of DACA is to protect eligible immigrant youth who came to the United States when they were children from deportation. DACA gives young undocumented immigrants: 1) protection from deportation, and 2) a work permit. The program expires after two years, subject to renewal. PLEASE NOTE: DACA does not grant a path to permanent residency or citizenship. The DREAM Act, which would lead to permanent residency, has NOT passed.”  http://undocu.berkeley.edu/legal-support-overview/what-is-daca/ “On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced that certain people who came to the United States as children and meet several guidelines may request consideration of deferred action for a period of two years, subject to renewal. They are also eligible for work authorization. Deferred action is a use of prosecutorial discretion to defer removal action against an individual for a certain period of time. Deferred action does not provide lawful status.” https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration-deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca DACA Eligibility RequirementsYou may request DACA if you: 1.     Were under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012; 2.     Came to the United States before reaching your 16th birthday; 3.     Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007, up to the present time; 4.     Were physically present in the United States on June 15, 2012, and at the time of making your request for consideration of deferred action with USCIS; 5.     Had no lawful status on June 15, 2012; 6.     Are currently in school, have graduated or obtained a certificate of completion from high school, have obtained a general education development (GED) certificate, or are an honorably discharged veteran of the Coast Guard or Armed Forces of the United States; and 7.     Have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor,or three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety.   DACA is not amnesty, nor a direct path to citizenship. DACA allows eligible immigrants to obtain a driver’s license, obtain a work permit, and stay in the country to work toward a path to citizenship without great risk of deportation. Thanks to DACA, these immigrants can share their experiences and talent while developing their skills and education as they work to establish themselves as U.S. Citizens. Pew Research Center estimates there are 11.1 undocumented immigrants in the country while the Department of Homeland Security estimates there are 11.4 undocumented immigrants in the United States as January of 2012—the number only continues to increase. These immigrants are our friends, neighbors, classmates, coworkers, and students. President Obama’s announcement of DACA: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RXSlMu5EDI   Obstacles Faced by Immigrants ·       “Most immigration lawyers charge between $5,000 to $7,500 to accompany a client through the green card process.” (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87996&page=1 ·       “Some cases can cost closer to $15,000 before adding on application fees and any potential family members.” (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87996&page=1 ·       “Applicants can spend years marked by a feeling of lost opportunity and helplessness as they wait for the process to conclude.” (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87996&page=1 ·       Many colleges do not accept DACA students ·       Out of state tuition for many DACA college students if they can find a college that accepts them ·       FAFSA cannot be utilized by undocumented students and many scholarships cannot be awarded to undocumented students, putting them at a major disadvantage when it comes to the college application process. ·       Constant association and comparison to terrorists and criminals—including racial profiling. While terrorists and immigrants with malicious intent do get into the country, this is a very small proportion and must not be overgeneralized to the population as a whole. Immigrants, legal or undocumented, tragically face a growing hatred that has been inspired by negative framing of immigrants, use of misleading information, and the strategy of using them as scapegoats. ·       Immigration raids in their communities ·       Being forcibly taken or separated from their families. Children are often separated from their parents because of the deportation process.     Without DACA:• According to the Migration Policy Institute, there are an estimated 1,932,000 DACA eligible immigrants in the U.S. If Donald Trump carries through with his plans to end DACA, these almost 2 million immigrants will be unable to obtain driver’s licenses and work permits, will not be able to work toward their educational dreams, and will be at great risk for deportation • We will be ending the work, progress, and achievements of young immigrants. All of their hard-work and progress will essentially be destroyed • According to the American Psychological Association, there are one million children under the age of 18 who are undocumented and 4.4 million under the age of 30. Those who currently are in the DACA program or are eligible for DACA, will be at major risk for deportation if DACA is ended. • We will be ending the educational paths of future doctors, businessmen and women, skilled trade workers, teachers, and more • We will be tearing apart and ruining families who only wish to work toward becoming U.S. citizens  Please pledge your support to prevent the termination of this vital program and show Donald Trump we do not want to see these young, hardworking, patriotic immigrants separated from their families and forced out of our country. Let us show President-elect Donald Trump that these young students want nothing more to contribute to our country by protecting the program that allows them to work toward their ultimate goal of becoming U.S. citizens. Please remember that DACA is just one program that is in place to help immigrants assimilate into our nation. With Donald Trump’s election, this is only one facet of the immigration progress that is at risk. There is much more that needs to be done. This is just one step. Please share this with friends, family, and coworkers, and remember that we must all come together as Americans or watch our great nation continue to grow divided and crumble before our eyes.  Resources and Further Information: https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states https://immigrationforum.org/ http://inthecountrywelove.com/ http://www.nationalimmigrationproject.org/ https://www.ilrc.org/ https://www.nilc.org/  http://saalt.org/policy-change/immigrant-rights/daca-stories/ http://unitedwedream.org/dreamer-narratives/daca-stories-arian/ https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2015/07/09/117054/results-from-a-nationwide-survey-of-daca-recipients-illustrate-the-programs-impact/ http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/deferred-action-childhood-arrivals-daca-profiles http://www.apa.org/topics/immigration/undocumented-video.aspx https://thinkprogress.org/heres-how-much-trump-s-mass-deportation-policy-would-cost-everyone-3e19f51ff8cf#.8ey83fmt6

Protect DACA
8,011 supporters
Update posted 3 weeks ago

Petition to Texas A&M University- Commerce

Texas A&M University- Commerce Sanctuary Campus Petition for DACA/Undocumented Students

Texas A&M University- Commerce Sanctuary Campus Petition Dear President Keck, In the wake of the recent presidential elections, many students at Texas A&M University- Commerce are uncertain of what is to come in the near future. In particular, DACA students at Texas A&M university- Commerce worry about what a Trump presidency could bring for them and their families. In light of this, we - students, faculty, staff and community members - call on the University to implement measures that will work to ensure the safety and protection of undocumented students at Texas A&M University Commerce. With inauguration of the Trump administration, we anticipate that protections afforded under DACA program will end, as was often promised during the campaign season. The prospect of what will eventuate in January 2017 has spread terror among DACA students and their families. In the next semester, we face the possibility of mass arrests, imprisonment, and deportation for students who have spent most of their lives in the United States and have been educated in American school classrooms. First, we ask that you consider implementing public support for DACA students and their families as they are our friends with whom we learn together. We offer our heartfelt assistance.Second, we ask the administrators of Texas A&M University- Commerce to provide the assistance that is within their power. Specifically, we request that you:• Develop protocol for Texas A&M University- Commerce to become a sanctuary campus. According to a 2011 memorandum, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are subject to restrictions in sensitive areas, such as University College Campuses. (see https://www.ice.gov/doclib/ero-outreach/pdf/10029.2-policy.pdf• Ensure that student privacy remains guaranteed.• Assign an administrative office the responsibility for counseling DACA students on their educational situation. Advertise that DACA student counseling services are available on a strictly confidential basis.• Continue in-state resident tuition for DACA students who have qualified previously.• In the event of arrest, imprisonment, and deportation, or due to student reluctance to travel to or appear on campus, have in place arrangements for online continuation of their degree programs.• Take these measures during the current semester (in other words, immediately) so that DACA students can be assured of institutional support towards continuing in school next semester, retention, and completion of their degree programs.• Make TAMUC DREAMers a UCSO (Unsafe School Choice Option), allowing them to be an advocacy group for undocumented students, ensuring continued advocacy for undocumented students as student leader’s graduate. Texas A&M University- Commerce is a school that prides itself on its sense of community and diversity efforts. The university’s vision for the future is to “provide a sense of community through a nurturing environment for ALL individuals in order to maximize learning, career and personal development”. So we ask that you fulfill that vision by insuring your support to DACA students on campus. The best way to make this happen is to create a setting with these policies in place so that our DACA students can feel safe on their own campus, just as any other student. Please show us how Texas A&M University- Commerce protects its undocumented community during their times of need and how it continues to strive towards a more inclusive environment for ALL students. Awaiting Your Action,

Stephanie Rodriguez
167 supporters
Update posted 3 weeks ago

Petition to Ken Paxton, Pam Bondi, Xavier Becerra, Mark Brnovich, Chris Carr, Eric T. Schneiderman, Lisa Madigan, Roy Cooper, Bruce Beemer, Mark Herring

Attorneys General: Ask U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate Winner Take All for electors

Allocating electoral votes by Winner Take All is unfair and may be unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment (one person, one vote). Before the 2020 presidential election, Attorneys General especially of populous states like California and New York should take this to the U.S. Supreme Court to challenge the Winner Take All system. "Lessig's equal protection argument…[is] on the right side of history and logic."—Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law and cofounder of American Constitution Society (December 5, 2016, on Twitter) Law professor and activist Lawrence Lessig writes (emphasis added), 'Yes, the Constitution creates an inequality because of the way it allocates electoral college votes. A state like Wyoming, for example, gets 3 electoral votes with a population of less than 600,000, while California gets 55 electoral votes with a population of more than 37 million. Thus…California has a population that is 66x Wyoming, but only gets 18x the electoral college votes. 'But the real inequality of the electoral college is created by the “winner take all” (WTA) rule for allocating electoral votes. WTA says that the person who wins the popular votes gets all the electoral college votes for that state. Every state (except Maine and Nebraska) allocates its electors based on WTA. But that system for allocating electoral votes is not mandated by the Constitution. It is created by the states. And so that raises what should be an obvious and much more fiercely contested question—why isn’t WTA being challenged by the Democrats in this election? 'The strongest argument about why it isn’t is an argument of reliance (some people gussy this up to a point about “the rule of law” but that’s just confused rhetoric): The election was waged assuming WTA; it’s not fair now, the argument goes, to change the rule for how electors will be counted. 'No doubt, it is unfair to the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. They spent money in reliance on the existing system. But that’s not the only “unfairness” at stake here: What about the unfairness being felt by the millions of voters whose votes were effectively diluted, or essentially disenfranchised? Why doesn’t their harm also weigh in the balance? 'It’s perfectly clear that the Attorney General of New York or California could walk into the Supreme Court tomorrow, and ask the Court to hear the case. Delaware tried to do this exactly fifty years ago, but the Court ducked the question. But based on that complaint, were I a citizen of California, I’d ask my current AG (and future Senator) why hasn’t CA done the same thing? And were I a citizen of New York, I’d ask my AG the same. Why are these big states standing by quietly as their voters are essentially silenced by the unconstitutional inequality?' Lessig quotes a statement of the argument written by Atlanta lawyer Larry Sims. Salient parts of Sims's argument (emphasis added): 'a winner-take-all system of allocating Electors by the states denies the minority of voters within each state any representation whatsoever within the Electoral College and ultimately in the case of the 2000 and 2016 elections, denies the plurality of voters nationwide their choice for President under circumstances in which the constitutionally established small state advantage made part of the Electoral College would not. This is neither a reasonable nor a rational result in a representative democracy. This result was dictated by the winner-take-all method of allocating Electors used by the states. It is this state law method of allocating Electors that is an unconstitutional violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and its bedrock principle of one [person] one vote. … The winner-take-all allocation of multiple Electors (ranging from 3 Electors in our smallest states to 55 in our largest) denies any voice whatsoever to each state’s minority voters, no matter how substantial their vote may be. The distortion of presidential election results by the winner-take-all apportionment of a state’s Electors is an unconstitutional denial of the equal protection of the law.' Donald Trump threatens the U.S. Constitution itself through his aggressive statements against the press (threatening to "open up libel laws"), against free speech (suggesting the government should revoke citizenship as punishment for protest-burning the American flag, which the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld as protected speech), against religious groups (notably Muslims), promoting cruel and unusual punishment (Trump has spoken multiple times in support of waterboarding, which international and U.S. law have deemed torture, which is illegal), and against other institutions protected by the U.S. Constitution. Not only is Donald Trump apparently ignorant of the Constitution, his attacks make clear that he does not care to understand it or intend to uphold it. Given what is at stake, Attorneys General should take the argument against Winner Take All, which is not in the Constitution, to the U.S. Supreme Court. (Photo credit: AP/Evan Vucci/Getty/artisteer via Salon.com) Related articles: How the Electoral College Became Winner-Take-All Why James Madison Wanted to Change the Way We Vote For President Five presidential nominees who won popular vote but lost the election Updated 8/29/17 to edit recipients to match the top 10 states (as of 2008) whose voters are most impacted by biased representation due to Winner Take All. I also added links to a few related articles. While Democrats may be most aware of the unfairness of Winner Take All electors after the 2000 and 2016 elections, the 14th amendment of the Constitution is meant to apply to all U.S. citizens regardless of party affiliation, hence this is not a partisan issue. It's time to amend this undemocratic process that has allowed (at last count) five presidential candidates to win the most votes but lose the presidency. Updated 3/4/17 to replace Kamala Harris, now a U.S. Senator, with Xavier Becerra, acting Attorney General for California. Updated 12/14/16 to add emphasis and another example of Trump's attacks on Constitutional institutions. A New York Times op-ed today titled "Buck Up, Democrats, and Fight Like Republicans" by Dahlia Lithwick and David S. Cohen mentioned the Winner Take All unconstitutionality argument (emphasis added): "There’s no shortage of legal theories that could challenge Mr. Trump’s anointment, but they come from outsiders rather than the Democratic Party. Impassioned citizens have been pleading with electors to vote against Mr. Trump; law professors have argued that winner-take-all laws for electoral votes are unconstitutional; a small group, the Hamilton Electors, is attempting to free electors to vote their consciences; and a new theory has arisen that there is legal precedent for courts to give the election to Mrs. Clinton based on Russian interference. All of these efforts, along with the grass-roots protests, boycotts and petitions, have been happening without the Democratic Party." Updated 12/13/16 to add additional Attorneys General, per commented suggestion.

R T
441 supporters