"We are trying to construct a more inclusive society. We are going to make a country in which no one is left out." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
"At the end of the day, an inclusive society is a stronger society." [1] -- Tom Berryhill
Everyone knows who Tom Berryhill is, but what about this Franklin D. Roosevelt? Just kidding. Tom Berryhill is an integral member of TomCorps--that small group of Toms who represent me at all levels of government. On Capitol Hill, I have Tom McClintock, the U.S. Representative for California's 4th Congressional District. In Madera, I have Tom Wheeler, the County Supervisor for District 5. And in Sacramento, I have Tom Berryhill, State Senator for California's 8th Senate District.
To join TomCorps, you have to be 1) a white male, 2) named Tom, 3) Republican, and 4) based in or near the Sierras. Beyond that, you get some artistic license. For example, as I've written about elsewhere, Tom McClintock appears to have only taken interest in District 4 because he knew he could win there. His commitment to his constituents does not include wanting them as neighbors; he lives 22 miles outside of District boundaries. Tom Wheeler and Tom Berryhill, on the other hand, are long-term residents of their Districts. Tom Wheeler goes so far as to have an open ear to his constituents' concerns, even those who aren't members of his political party.
Tom Berryhill, I'm not sure about yet. The few phone calls I've made to his office have been met only with recordings, and I have yet to get a call back. Still, his positions don't seem to be quite as fascist as those of his senior Tom, the one we CA-04 residents lovingly refer to as McTrump.
 |
| Senator Tom Berryhill of California's 8th Senate District |
In June 2013, the U.S. Senate, led by the bipartisan "Gang of Eight," passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The bill provided a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants already living in the U.S., while increasing border security and adopting a points-based system for future immigration. The bill's walk through the Senate was not contentious by current standards; it passed 68-32, with 14 Republicans voting yea. The House was a different story. Swayed by the conservative bloc, whose idea of immigration reform did not include awarding legal status to those without, Speaker John Boehner let the bill stall.
Meanwhile, in California, where more than 2 million undocumented immigrants were living and working, the Gang of Eight bill had a particular urgency. In September 2013, Tom Berryhill and 14 other Republicans in the California legislature wrote a letter to their counterparts in the House, asking them to urge Boehner to put the bill to vote. "There is no policy debate more important to the future of California and America than passing comprehensive immigration reform," the letter read. "By providing legal clarity to the status of millions of people in California, we can spur an economic renaissance, solidify families, and create an entirely new population of full taxpayers." [2]
A statement on Tom Berryhill's web page at that time sounded the alarm on what might happen to California if the fate of its undocumented workers remained uncertain: "I have been in agriculture my entire life and there is absolutely no way this 36 billion dollar industry could survive without the hard work and skill provided by this community. For Congress to put off--once again--enacting a policy that allows a reasonable path to citizenship for a group of people that contribute so much to California's economy is irresponsible." [2]
The group letter was addressed to Tom McClintock and the remainder of the California Republican Congressional Delegation. With McTrump, we know it fell on deaf ears. Although some of the others may have been swayed, it wasn't enough to turn the larger Congressional tides. The Gang of Eight bill was never allowed to go to a floor vote. It expired at the end of the 113th Congress.
Coming from a Republican, I find Tom Berryhill's 2013 stance on immigration reform really refreshing. But how have his opinions held up under the current regime? Senator Marco Rubio, one of the celebrated Gang of Eight, revealed his chameleon nature during the 2016 presidential campaign, when he mocked Ted Cruz for not being tough enough on immigration, and said that the Gang of Eight bill, as written, was never meant to pass. [3] That was when Donald Trump was just a notion. Now that he is actually our president, and at the center of the human thunderhead of nationalists that constitute our Executive Branch, how many Republicans are willing to speak up for the undocumented?
A few days ago, California officially began its march toward becoming a sanctuary state. Senate Bill 54, introduced by California Senate leader Kevin de Leon in December 2016 as Trump loomed lurid on the horizon, finally passed the Senate on a party-line vote, 27-12. SB 54 would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including
school police and security departments, from investigating, arresting,
or detaining people for immigration enforcement purposes, or from
cooperating with federal agencies in such investigations.
Because it seems the feds are on a witch hunt. On January 25, Trump signed two executive orders that formalized his campaign-long villification of "illegal aliens." The first, Border Security and Immigration Improvements, put all 11 million of our undocumented neighbors on the administration's deportation to-do list. It also extended the reach of the expedited removal program, increased the degree to which state and local law enforcement would be deputized as immigration agents, and ordered up the border wall. [4] The second, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, defunded sanctuary cities, launched weekly publication of a list of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, and created the Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement (VOICE) office, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)-hosted support network for victims of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. [5] The two orders also provided for 15,000 new hires at ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
The only-slightly-underlying message is this: Illegal aliens--in particular, Mexicans--are dangerous. Illegal aliens are already lawbreakers by definition, and are likely to continue breaking the law. Illegal aliens don't belong here, and sanctuary cities put everyone at risk by keeping them around.
With this type of rhetoric pulsing continuously from the Oval Office, it's no wonder that SB 54 was slow to pass the California Senate. It had to be amended four times. Most recently, protections were removed for people convicted of serious or violent felonies. As the bill now stands, ICE must be notified at least 60 days prior to the release of such individuals from state prison; ICE may then investigate and pursue immigration offenders as it sees fit. Various other compromises were made in response to criticism from the law enforcement community. Still, after its trip through the wringer, SB 54 failed to garner the vote of a single Republican senator.
SB 54 will next go to the State Assembly, where Democrats hold a two-thirds majority. And then it goes to the desk of Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat. So for those opposed to Trump's thug tactics, those concerned about California's immigrant community, and those fearful of a collapsing labor force, things are looking up.
I am miffed, though. Why did Tom Berryhill, who spoke loud and clear for California's undocumented just a few years ago, cast a "nay" vote on SB 54 this week? Why do his words for the undocumented these days sound as if they were drawn from our president's playbook? In March, Berryhill introduced a proposal for a constitutional amendment that would require the California Department of Justice to report all people convicted of violent felonies to ICE. [6] This isn't an outrageous suggestion; it is essentially identical to language now contained in SB 54. But it's a departure from his 2013 message, which centered on the many contributions of our undocumented community to California's economy and social fabric.
As a natural-born optimist, I can't believe that all members of TomCorps are as bad as McTrump. That is why I'd like to give Tom Berryhill the opportunity to
explain himself. I will be sending him a link to this post, with a
request that he get back to me by phone, email, blog comment,
telegram--whatever--to clarify how his current position on California's immigrant community squares with what he has said in the past. Once
I have his answer, I will share it here.
Notes
