Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 31, 2011 1:00pm-1:30pm PST

1:00 pm
if we cannot cover them all individually. why are we not try to cover the different pieces together? we will be starting in the late spring to cover content, and once we start doing it, why not work with other organizations? >> all right, let's take another audience member. >> my name is berlin, but. -- [unintelligible] the quality of journalism, we feel that all of the people working in poverty, those people are always excluded. especially where corporate mainstream media is concerned. we do this in so many ways and so many forms.
1:01 pm
the real quality of journalism is the people. even though we are grass roots, always hanging by a thread, we never failed to be heard. i believe that the mayor of oakland said this, for one the government is pretty much run by large media corporations. when you are out there speaking the truth that they do not want to hear, just to make your media -- especially if you are pointing out your expos -- that you are exposed. we also believe that in media there should come education. the word minority is a derogatory term.
1:02 pm
believe it or not. thank you. >> we have a little bit of time left. i want to make sure all of the audience members are heard. >> my name is bruce grimes. i am an independent writer and producer of television, going back to "rolling stone." my question will relate to the comment about quality from dr. abraham. specifically about journalists today. 250 people, ranging in age between 25 and 35, pretty frightening. they were new media folks from a content perspective. what i came away with listening to them talk about their audience, reaching out, being writers, was scared me was how
1:03 pm
selfish the audience seemed to be. subway breakfasts, your comment about crime and people being tired of reading about it, they were reaching for people like this, this is how they were going to make money. it scares the hell out of me. i brought it back and brought it up, especially in the '60s and '70s, it was a extremely political newspaper magazine that used music to bring in an audience. so, my question, what about the new journalists today reaching out to the 20-year-old and 30- year-old? your comment about the two schools of journalism and reaching out, getting quality journalism to the public, how will we do that? >> we have a couple of issues here. the old school and the new
1:04 pm
school. i guess the question would be -- is there a standard? a single standard anymore for journalism? >> i do not know who sets that standard anymore. frightening, sometimes, to hear the fact that the most trusted name in news is jon stewart. but who can argue that there is not some good quality reporting and information that goes on on a show like that? i think it will be far reaching. we have young people, both in
1:05 pm
print and on the internet. it is a wide range of opportunity. i do not know that there is any one standard today that anyone could point to that would be the single source. >> what about the chronicle right now? reducing $1 million per week, what does that look like right now? >> thank goodness we are not losing $1 million per week today. i am happy to say that. to give you an idea, fourth quarter of last year, in the toughest economic times of this country that we have seen since the great depression, it was a record quarter for us for the decade. now, the bar was awfully low, but it was a profitable quarter. started out at the beginning of the year, in this type of environment, not making money
1:06 pm
today. but we are on our budget and on our plan. the last six months of the year looked to be a strong revenue environment for us. we think we will be fine overall for the year. >> we have gone over our time a little bit. one last question. >> this is for mr. frazier. the panel last night, it looks like there is no after the chronicle, so congratulations. we were talking about how people to get them to eat their broccoli with their ice-cream. reading city hall coverage with subway breakfasts. can you talk about ways you are experimenting with getting people to eat them both? making it palatable? concrete experiments that you will try? >> that will -- that sounds
1:07 pm
terrible. [laughter] >> maybe we can have broccoli with cheese? i do not think that there is a simple answer. i think that people come to read various news sources. there will be multiple sources. some for entertainment, some for other resources. the key thing about broccoli and in sustaining a democracy, it tells us what we need to know even if we did not need to know it. it is about the role that the journalist plays, telling the community what we did that no we needed to know. cheese, ice cream, it does not matter. that means editors. that means transparency. that means education about media. it means membership of junior journalists. without all of those things,
1:08 pm
there is no broccoli. no one will tell us what we need to know that we did now know we need to know. >> on that note we will have to conclude today's town hall forum. we hope that you enjoyed it. it has been presented by the northern california chapter of professional journalism. they've asked me to express thanks to tonight's panelists. thank you for being here today. [applause] thank you to the audience as well. give yourself a clap, making it on the tuesday evening from work or whatever. we would also like to thank the san francisco public library from -- for sharing this facility, the crew from sfgtv, thank you for joining us. we wish you good news in everything that you do. [applause]
1:09 pm
>> thank you very much for joining us tonight. i would appreciate it if folks would move into the lobby for conversation. >> i would like to call to order
1:10 pm
the november 9, 2009 meeting. will the clerk please call the roll? >> commissioner alexander. >> here. >> the vice chair. commissioner gonzales is absent. commissioner hill. >> here. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> present. >> commissioner perez is excused. >> thank you.
1:11 pm
good evening. i am the chair of the immigrant rights commission. on behalf of the immigrant rights commission, i would like to welcome everyone to this symposium. four members of the public, the immigrant rights commission represents the voices of the san francisco immigrant communities. we are responsible for advising the mayor and the board of supervisors on any matters related to the well-being and concerns. the commission meets regularly on the second monday of every month beginning at 5:30 p.m. at city hall. in april of 2009, we have the joint hearing with the human rights commission to listen to the first 10 testimonies from san francisco residents.
1:12 pm
the purpose of tonight symposium is for the commission and for the rest of the city family to hear from national experts on comprehensive immigration reform, and to obtain guidance on how local governments, commissions, and community organizations can weigh in on the comprehensive immigration reform debate. tonight's information will be used to guide the commission's work and to help shape our recommendations on behalf of the city immigrant community. i would like to introduce our presenters for tonight's symposium. the office of assembly man is here. thank you. the northern california chapter of the immigrants lawyers association.
1:13 pm
the commission would also like to thank our symposium partners. the asian american justice center from washington, d.c. the center for state and local government law. the chief justice earl warren institute. the consulate general of mexico. the quality federation. -- equality federation. the national center for lesbian rights. san francisco chamber of commerce. the san francisco department of children, youth, and their families. san francisco department on the status of women. san francisco zero divided
1:14 pm
foundation. we would like to thank the city department heads that are here. the department of status of women. the human rights commission, and our own director, the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. you have an opportunity later in the meeting for public comment. please indicate if you would like to speak or write down your questions and return the cards to staff members. i would like to introduce an outstanding leader who has worked hard to bring the diverse segments of the san francisco community together to reach a common ground. since coming into office in january of 2009, he has brought
1:15 pm
thoughtful leadership to our city. we're pleased to welcome the president of the san francisco board of supervisors. thank you. [applause] >> good evening. i am pleased to be with all of you today. i want to think the immigrant rights commission and all of the many partners here to talk about a very important topic. 13 years ago, i lived in washington, d.c.. i worked for the senate judiciary committee during the last debate about immigration reform won the 1996 piece of legislation that we will hopefully overturned was passed. it was a fairly dark time in washington, d.c. the republicans controlled washington at that time. at least on the senate and house side.
1:16 pm
there are many things that immigration advocates were not able to get done. i moved here for many of the reasons that i think we're all here in san francisco. we're a city of compehensive immigration refoimmigrants. we know that san francisco was built on the backs of immigrant labor. we also know that for the past 10 years on so, it has been fairly dark nationwide for our immigrant community. we've had a new record number of rates belief had a tremendous backlog of applications of legal immigrants that are trying to become citizens. there have been countless stories of constitutional and civil rights violated of many of our family members and friends. i used to be an immigrant rights attorney.
1:17 pm
i can tell you firsthand that i would visit the ins detention center and see individuals who had been beaten by ice agents. this conversation cannot be more timely and more important with the new administration and a new recognition and importance of building an immigrants rights movement. hopefully we will soon get healthcare reform behind us. hopefully the next question that our nation grapples with is how do we tell you the constitutional and civil rights that all individuals must have. hopefully we will be able to some they put as an outdated statement the fact that there is some consideration to the concept that certain human beings are illegal. on behalf of the city and county of san francisco, i want to
1:18 pm
welcome you for taking part in this important conversation. obviously, the next person i would like to introduce is someone who has been a tremendous champion for many segments of our society, especially individuals and communities that have been marginalized. he has been fighting for immigrants for your entire life. certainly at every step during his political career. we have had a really empowered immigrants rights movement here. we are trying to extend that statewide. tom has been trying to put out the message that as we can do here in san francisco, living among tolerance, we can hopefully do around the country. i apologize.
1:19 pm
i need to leave. i have to go to another commission to talk about some legislation. i know you are in very able hands with him. [applause] >> good evening. thank you very much. it's an honor to be here. i want to commence the commission. i always championed the commission when i was on the board of supervisors. i remember when and this applingus applied. when you climb that ladder, it's important not to pull the lever up after you so the next person will not make up. was that close enough? it is very irish. politics and mighpoetry, my favorite. it is not the melting pot in the
1:20 pm
cliche way, the san francisco public schools, but it presents you with many opportunities to see what newcomers bring, to see the challenges they face. the institutions are not user friendly. i remember a principal not wanting to provide free breakfast to any kid that was undocumented. i remember we got notes from the principle that saidthis would be spoken on the play yard -- said that no spanish would be spoken on the play yard. i turned to the community. the school district was not responding at that time. they got a moratorium on iq testing because it was so culturally biased. i think one of the questions was they showed a toboggan and asked
1:21 pm
what was a toboggan. if you did not have snow or a certain privileges in your live, you did not know what a toboggan is. we have come a long way, but we still have contradictions. we get attacked for the sanctuary city. the id cards in san francisco and connecticut are very, very good. this is an issue that most elected do not want to deal with. in sacramento, it is not a user- friendly situation. people acknowledged that something has to be done, but then they run away from the. commissions such as this, cities such as san francisco, and basically the reality.
1:22 pm
sometimes i make a joke about immigration. we are here already. we are not going to go away. if you're worried that we have h1n1, then give us health care. i went to washington and ask what is going to happen with health care reform? you have to think of ways. you have to give us more funding for community clinics so people will not be worried about getting deported and not be worried about getting health care. and not be worried about somehow being identified as a criminal. we have a lot of responsibility to all our brothers and sisters who made this country great. we cannot be intimidated. we are a productive people. i walked on the picket line the
1:23 pm
other day. almost everyone there had a different background. their children are here. yet they are still quibbling over whether or not they can get health care, and who cleans their toilets, and who makes their bets. there's a lot of class issues within the immigrant community. they need to be remedied as well. there are people in the immigrant community and we're very well educated. they get very high-paying jobs. when it comes to other infrastructure jobs, we cheat people. we have a lot to do, but i'm always very helpful. if san francisco is anything, is a city of opportunity. i salute you. anytime you need anything, you can call me. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you.
1:24 pm
and thank you, president chu. before i go further, i would like to take care of a little more. i would like to recognize a few more people. harry it from the office of speaker pelosi. forgive me. dominique from the office of congresswoman barbara lee. thank you for coming. office of congresswoman barbara lee.
1:25 pm
office of congressman mike honda. thank you for coming. the juvenile probation department. thank you for coming here this evening. thank you for coming. ok. we are now going to begin tonight's program. first we'll hear from one of the nation's leading legal scholars on the long-term economic impact of immigrant rights policy and reform. we will hear from a panel. after the panel discussion, we will have time to hear from the local elected officials. then we will open the meeting
1:26 pm
for public comments. if you would like to speak during the public comment section, please fill out a yellow card and return that to a member of our staff. i would like to introduce adrian, who has done amazing work for this commission. she's the executive director of the office of immigrant affairs would you introduce the speakers and panelists. thank you very much. >> thank you, chair mccarthy. it's truly a pleasure to introduce tonight's keynote speaker. the professor is a highly respected legal scholar. he is an sbure, he is an author and an expert on immigration law. among his many leadership roles at stanford law school are director of the arthur and tony rock center for corporate
1:27 pm
governance, associate dean for executive education and special programs, co-director of the director college and if that wasn't enough, he is also co-founder of the open source corporate governance reporting system project. he is an overachiever. the professor is a frequent commentator on the long-term impact of immigration policy and reform and he has provided expert testimony to the u.s. senate and the house of representatives. prior to joining stanford law, he was founding executive director of the immigration outreach center in phoenix, arizona. in his former life, he also launched and led several businesses including law logic group which is considered today to be an industry leader in technology and data security. so it's my pleasure to introduce the professor. [applause]
1:28 pm
>> wow, i am going to have my mom send my bio to you more often. very good. the panelists are in so many ways much more detailed and oriented and qualified than i am to speak to the specifics of immigration. i'm just the guy who speaks to economists, lawyers, and policymakers and then translates into human. i think that's why i have landed this particular role. what i'm going to try to do is frame the immigration debate. this is a fairly friendly crowd. what i think i am going to ultimately achieve is to give you some ideas that get at the immigration issue and the potential and the need for reform in a way that is a little bit less traditional in that it's almost clinical. i'm going to try to present some economic arguments. i'm going to present some kind of structural social arguments and i'm going to worry you a little because to have the economist law professor opening
1:29 pm
with an analogy to a science fiction film. don't worry, it works out ok. some may have not seen this film. it's one of my favorites. it starred uma thurman and jude law. it's a near future in which individuals are gentically engineered and it's the story of two brothers. one is enneared to be terrific and great and wonderful and one is not. it's a story about their efforts to succeed. there is one part of the story that resonates so well and is a strong metaphor for immigration and it's the following -- they would have a contest as adolescents and as adults they would swim out in the ocean, and the first one to turn back would lose. it was a simple contest. and in theory, in every possible way in theory, the engineered brother should have won. he was stronger, bigger, better, more fit. yet the older brother, the impct