vol. 51, no. 3

aclu news

Volume LI

May 1986

No. 3

ACLU Fights Injunctions Aimed

_ At Anti-Apartheid Protestors

- Overnight Brief

Helps Pickets

On Waterfront

n over night legal brief from

the ACLU-NC legal staff on

behalf of anti-apartheid pro-

testers succeeded in preventing

a shipping company from stopping pickets

of South African goods at San Francisco's

Pier 80.

Early in the morning of March 10,

anticipating the arrival of a ship carrying

om Soak rival Cargo, more than 200 anti-

apartheid activists organized a mass

demonstration at the dock gates. The

demonstrators, from the Bay Area Free

`South Africa Movement, the San Fran-

cisco Anti-Apartheid Committee, the

Committee Against Apartheid and other

community groups and _ individuals,

protested the unloading of South African

cargo.

Mass Arrests

The following day, when the pickets

returned, the police quickly arrested 57

people and, within half an hour, cleared

the roadway. Some of those arrested did

not intend to be in the picket area, but

could not move out of the area quickly

enough. There were reports of police

violence. With the picket down, the

longshoremen went through the dock gates

and the ship was unloaded.

Still, the California Stevedore and

Ballast Company decided to seek a

`Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from

San Francisco Superior Court to stop this

and future anti-apartheid demonstrations

at the docks.

"Their action was as unorthodox as it

was speedy," said ACLU-NC staff attorney

Ed Chen. "The TRO sought not only

would have enjoined obstruction of streets

but would have severely restricted the

number of demonstrators, one every 20

feet, where the demonstrators could stand,

and what they could say.

"The law requires at the very least that

adequate notice must be given when

seeking a TRO. The company `gave notice'

by announcing over police megaphones to

the demonstrators at the pier that they

would be taking them to court. They also

sent telegrams to individuals they assumed

were involved in the protest-some of

whom were not even there," Chen added.

Protestors construct shanties at U.C. Berkeley anti-apartheid demonstration.

TRO Denied

Chen, Crew and legal assistant Cati

Hawkins worked late into the night to

prepare form the March 12 court hearing.

The ACLU attorneys argued that the

injunction sought by the shipping

company was overboard-both in terms

of whom it would prevent from activity

and the kind of activity it would prevent.

"It is impossible to issue an injunction

against the `general public," Chen noted.

The court denied the shipping company

a TRO against the demonstrators, stating

that the issue was moot for this demon-

stration because the South African cargo

had already been unloaded.

The court also refused to issue an

injunction with respect to any future

activity because it would be premature at

this time. However, Judge Victor Cam-

pilongo said that although it seemed the

- demonstration had been adequately

handled by the police, he would entertain

another motion for a TRO if the matter

arose again.

U.C. Officials

Seek Shelter In

Court Order

n injunction sought by U.C.

Berkeley officials against anti-

apartheid protesters "threatens

fundamental rights of expres-

sion and petition," ACLU-NC attorney

John Crew told an Alameda Superior

Court on April 28.

The University is asking the court to

enjoin three separate anti-apartheid

organizations (UC Divestment Coalition,

Campaign Against Apartheid, and United

People of Color), eleven named individuals

and 1000 unnamed individuals. Crew

called such a move "draconian."

The request for the injunction came in

response to major anti-apartheid demon-

strations on the U.C. Berkeley campus.

Many students and members of the

Photo: Paul Miller

Berkeley community, viewing U.C.'s

investment policy as complicity with the

South African regime, expressed their

opposition by erecting shanties on campus,

symbolic of the conditions under which

South African blacks must live.

The U.C. administration's response to'

the symbolic shantytown was a phalanx

of reprisal measures: summary banishment

orders, intimidating police pressure,

arrests, incarceration, felony charges with

high bail, and an attempt to obtain an

extremely broad injunction against further

demonstrations.

In an April 8 letter to U.C. Chancellor

Ira Heyman, ACLU-NC executive director

Dorothy Ehrlich and staff counsel

Margaret Crosby wrote, "By creating a

symbolic reproach to the administration,

the demonstrators chose a method of

dissent which could have been eloquent

and peaceful.

"By threatening such punitive retaliation

for speech, the administration has

discouraged members of the university

from continuing to express their views on

the important apartheid issue," the ACLU

letter stated.

Banning Orders

"We are particularly concerned about

the large-scale use of summary banishment

orders-with no pre-banishment _hear-

ings-against protesters," said Crosby.

Crosby noted that the California Supreme

Court has authorized such exclusion

orders only in extreme emergencies against

individuals who have engaged in criminal

conduct which seriously disrupts the

university. "The university police had no

justification for serving banning orders on

all 89 persons arrested," Crosby said.

The University was unsuccessful in its

bid to obtain an extremely: broad

Temporary Restraining Order (TRO)

against the shantytown protest. On April

2, Alameda Superior Court Judge Henry

Ramsey denied that request, issuing

instead a narrow order which granted the

university fire marhsall discretion to

regulate the shanties to prevent a fire

hazard. On April 4, following a hearing

involving ACLU attorneys, Ramsey

further narrowed his order.

The ACLU amicus brief opposing the

preliminary injunction also asks the court

not to delegate authority to the university

fire marshal to decide the legality of the

shanties. The court should issue an order

regulating the shanties only if it determines

from expert testimony that regulation is

absolutely necessary to prevent a substan-

tial fire hazard, the brief states.

`aclu news

May 1986

Patient Dump

Bill Heard

estimony on an ACLU-supported

bill to end patient dumping was

heard in the Assembly Health

Committee on April 8. The legislation, AB

3403, sponsored by Assemblymember

Burt Margolin (D-LA), is necessary

because it prohibits transfers which pose

any medical risk to the patient, according

to ACLU-NC attorney Ed Chen.

The bill would amend the state Health

and Safety Code by adding:

cent stiff sanctions against hospitals and

medical personnel who transfer

uninsured patients when the transfer

creates a health risk;

cent protection from transfer for pregnant

women in advanced stages of labor;

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log a comprehensive definition of "emer-

gency" and assurance that all emer-

gency patients receive a proper medical

examination;

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log aresponsibility on the part of hospitals

to assure that their on-call specialists

are available for all] patients on a non-

discriminatory basis.

Among those testifying in favor of the

bill were Dr. Larry Bedars, president-elect

of the California Chapter of the American

College of Emergency Physicians; Robert

Sillen, Director of Santa Clara Valley

Medical Center; and several patient

victims.

Legislature's Crime War Fever

Threatens Financial Privacy

By Daphne Macklin

ACLU Legislative Advocate

he next victim of the legislature's

war on crime fervor may be the

state Financial Privacy Act.

Bank customers, particularly those who

transact business in cash, and some dealers

in commodities and securities, may find

their activities open to intense government

scrutiny, according to provisions of two

bills before the Legislature.

Sponsored by Attorney General John

_ Van de Kamp and the State Department

of Justice, the measures (SB 1470-

McCorquodale and AB 2570-Clute) are

modeled on the Federal Bank Secrecy Act

which requires that cash transactions of

$10,000 or more be reported to the Internal

Revenue Service. The sponsors claim the

requirement is aimed at creating an

auditing trail that law enforcement

agencies can use to trace suspected money-

laundering operations. More institutions (c)

would be covered than in the current

federal law.

Letters

Silent Pledge?

Editor: -

I am new to the ACLU, so I was

unfamiliar with the 1977 decision that "the

government may not compel an individual

to participate in a patriotic exercise over

any conscientious personal objection."

I'm glad the courts have recognized a

person's right not to say the pledge of

allegiance, but who is going to tell the

children? They go on with it day after day,

thinking they have to, not knowing they

have a choice or why they should. And

most of their parents don't know or care.

Perhaps before "Ready, begin," teachers

leading the pledge should tell them, "You

have a right to remain silent..."

Susan Gonzales

Children's Rights

Editor:

As a proud member of ACLU, I am

very disappointed with the trivial and

misleading treatment the discussion of

Show Me has received, both in Len

Weiler's testimony at the Alameda County

Library Advisory Commission meeting on

February 4 and again in the March, 1986

ACLU News. Perhaps it's fun to imagine

oneself trouncing generic "censors," but

there is real controversy here.

A useful ACLU position on Show Me

would weigh First Amendment concerns,

not against air, but against the rights to

privacy and personal autonomy of the

minors who were photographed nude and

engaging in sexual activities for the

economic benefit of the adults who

produced the book.

The authority and influence of interested

adults should not have been used to end

their privacy and sexual autonomy or to

prejudice the development of their own

sexual attitudes. Why should we not :

protect children from misuses of other

adults authority?

The main question was not who should

supervise children's reading, as conveyed

in your summary, but whether guarding

the First Amendment requires allowing

children's privacy to be invaded and

destroyed by those in authority over them.

Dave Kersting

Margaret Crosby, ACLU-NC staff attor-

ney, responds:

The ACLU was supporting children's

rights at the Alameda County Library

Advisory Commission hearing. We were

protesting young people's fundamental

right of access to controversial books.

Mr. Kersting's letter creates the

impression that Show Me! is a collection

of sexually explicit photographs of

children produced for the benefit of adults.

But Show Me! is a serious sex education

book produced for the benefit of children.

Designed for parents to read with their

children, Show Me! contains photographs

of two children looking at their own bodies

and those of babies, adolescents and

adults. (The parents of the young models

were present throughout the photography

sessions. )

Mr. Kersting apparently believes that

a book with photographs of nude children

never should be published, regardless of

its benefit to children needing sex

education. Some people may agree with

him. But the wisdom of producing Show

Me! (originally published 12 years ago in

West Germany) was not the issue before

the Alameda Library Commission. The

proposal before the Commission was to

remove the book from the county libraries

and restrict young people's access to other

controversial works.

These proposals do not raise "hard

issues." They call for censorship. Censor-

ship does not prevent the exploitation of

children. And limiting young people's First

Amendment rights does not benefit them.

Proponents of the bills insist that a state

reporting rule is needed to halt the flow

of illicit funds now being processed

through California banks and financial

institutions from states such as Florida and

Georgia which already have reporting

statutes.

ACLU Position

The ACLU position is that individuals

do not lose any privacy rights regarding

personal financial matters if, for example,

they store $10,000 in cash under the

mattress. Simply because a person chooses

to maintain the funds more safely and

conveniently in a bank and utilize credit

cards and checking accounts, the highly

personal information that may be derived

from these financial records should not

be subject to government scrutiny without

both probable cause and due process of

the law. Such a right flows from the Fourth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

which protects against unwarranted

searches and seizures.

California Privacy Rules

Currently, California's bank privacy

rules require either a subpoena or hearing

before individual financial records may be

reviewed by government agencies. These

rules stem from a 1974 state Supreme

Court decision (Burrows vs. Superior

Court) which held that an individual, by

choosing to maintain a bank account, does

not forego any reasonable expectation of

privacy.

Former ACLU legislative advocate

Charles Marson helped draft the proposal

signed into law in 1976. Like the Burrows

decision, the state Financial Privacy Act

is based on the right to personal privacy

which was added to California's constitu-

tion by a popular vote in 1972.

The Federal Bank Privacy Act permits

certain exceptions to the basic Fourth

Amendment principles. For example, the

bank itself and bank auditors, of necessity,

have access to all records. California's own

constitutional rules have provided for

greater security for personal financial

information.

Broader Reporting

The proposed financial reporting bills

include a mandatory reporting require-

ment for a broader class of institutions

than are included under the federal law;

an expansion of criminal liability to

retailers and others, including attorneys,

who may believe the funds used to

purchase the goods and services they are

providing are the profits of illicit activities;

and penalties that include forfeiture of

assets which are not directly connected to

criminal activitiy.

Both bills provide that attorneys may

be prosecuted only if it is shown that they

have accepted funds with the intent of

hiding the source of the monies or hiding

criminal activity which produced the

money.

Both bills also require that any

information which must be reported to the

federal government must also be provided

to the state; except under certain

circumstances the reports are to be

destroyed after five years.

While the Assembly measure limits

access of the reports to district attorneys,

SB 1470 allows access by all law

enforcement agencies, an invitation for

fishing expeditions and harassments of

legitimate enterprises by overzealous

investigators.

"Smurfing"

A second key difference affects provi-

sions to prevent "smurfing"-schemes

designed to avoid the reporting require-

ment by limiting the amount of transac-

tions to fall under the trigger level. In AB

2570, these provisions would not apply to. ----.__ "

transactions under $5,000; the cutoff in

SB 1470 is only $1,000.

The ACLU and other opponents have

argued that unlimited anti-smurfing

provisions would apply criminal sanctions

to persons who were unaware of the illegal

source of funds. The legality of anti-

smurfing provisions in the Federal Bank

Secrecy Act was recently challenged in the

federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

ACLU-NC AIDS Policy

For one copy of our AIDS policy,

please send a _ self-addressed,

stamped (22cent) envelope, to AIDS

Policy, ACLU-NC, 1663 Mission, San

Francisco, CA 94103.

Volunteers Needed

For Press Department

Help our research files grow by

reading, marking and clipping news

items. Contact Jean Hom,

415-621-2493.

Michael P. Miller, Kditor

aclu news

8 issues a year, monthly except bi-monthly in January-February, June-July,

August-September and November-December

Second Class Mail privileges authorized at San Francisco, California

Published by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California

Nancy Pemberton, Chairperson Dorothy Ehrlich, Executive Director

Marcia Gallo, Chapter Page ao:

Elaine Elinson, Scribe

ACLU NEWS (USPS 018-040)

1663 Mission St., 4th floor, San Francisco, California 94103. (415) 621-2488

Membership $20 and up, of which 50 cents is for a subscription to the aclu news

and 50 cents is for the national ACLU-bi-monthly publication, Civil Liberties.

aclu news

May 1986 3

Ripston Leaves So. Cal

Board Selects UC Prof.

New ACLU of Southern California

Executive Director Gayle Binion.

ACLU Defending

Kids' Privacy

n April 28, a trial began in

Sacramento Superior Court in an

ACLU-NC lawsuit on behalf of

two children with developmental disabil-

ities who are challenging the state-policy

of maintaining permanent records of their

personal behavior in a centralized state

~-eomputer. ~~~ : oe

The children and their parents are being

represented by ACLU-NC cooperating

attorneys Mark White and Anna M. Rossi

of the San Francisco law firm of Rogers,

Joseph, O'Donnell and Quinn and ACLU-

NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby.

The ACLU contends that the storage

of the children's records in name-

identifiable form in the computer bank of

the state Department of Developmental

Services violates their constitutional and

statutory rights to privacy.

The ACLU-NC filed the lawsuit in

March 1985 following a new DDS policy

directive altering its previously confidential

client identification system. In December,

the Superior Court rejected the state

request for a summary judgment of the

case.

Gay Rights Chapter

Membership

lf you are a member of the Gay

Rights Chapter, please check to see

that the 3-letter code "CNG" is printed

above your name on the ACLU News

mailing label. If not, please notify

ACLU-NC Membership Department

to double check that you are listed |

as a Gay Rights member. We want

to make sure that you receive all the

Chapter notices and_ special

announcements.

If you are an ACLU member in

Northern California and would like to

join the Gay Rights Chapter, call or

write the ACLU Membership Depart-

ment at (415) 621-2493, 1663

Mission Street, San Francisco,

94103. Please mention your mem-

bership number located on the |

newsletter mailing label.

amona Ripston, executive director

Re the ACLU of Southern Cal-

- ifornia for thirteen years, resigned

from her post in December to become vice-

president of People for the American Way.

Ripston is succeeded by U.C. Santa

Barbara political science professor Gayle

Binion, who took up her post in April.

Ripston; the first woman director of an

ACLU affiliate, presided over some major

civil liberties battles during her tenure.

Most notable was the landmark 1984

settlement of the Los Angeles police spying

lawsuit which brought the broadest

restrictions on unlawful surveillance in the

nation.

The ACLU-NC Board passed a reso-

lution to "honor, salute and thank Ripston

for her outstanding leadership." The

resolution noted that Ripston had "led

[her] affiliate in establishing an unequaled

record in pioneering civil liberties

advocacy, from impeaching a president to

impeaching police spies to putting the lie

to segregated schools."

New executive director Binion has, for

the past ten years, chaired the Law and

Society Program at U.C. Santa Barbara.

She has also been an active board member

of the ACLU-SC Santa Barbara chapter.

INS Quotes ACLU

Gets It Wrong

vice Commissioner Alan Nelson has

added new meaning to the slogan, "If

you can't beat 'em, join em." In his March

28 address to the Commonwealth Club

in San Francisco, the Reagan Adminis-

tration's chief spokesperson on immigration

and refugee matters cited the national

ACLU report, "The Fate of Salvadorans

Expelled from the United States," to back

his assertion that the tens of thousands

of Salvadorans deported have nothing to

fear if they return home.

[econ and Naturalization Ser-

The ACLU Political Asylum Project

report, first published in 1983, has been

used by many to prove exactly the opposite

conclusion.

With access to a limited amount of

information, the Project identified 112 .

likely cases of persecution, including 52

political murders, 47 disappearances and

13 unlawful arrests. According to Carol

Wolchok, director of the Political Asylum

Project, "What our report proved was that

there is enough information to show that

it is dangerous for people to be returned

to El Salvador."

Prior to Nelson's invocation of the

ACLU report, Reagan Administration

testimony before Congress and elsewhere

had attempted to dismiss the ACLU

findings. In 1985, the U.S. State Depart-

ment attempted to disprove the ACLU by

sending their own team to pursue the

matter of human rights violations in El

Salvador. They found only a few, but

admitted that their study was limited

because "there were many areas of the

country that it was too dangerous to travel

in{!]"

7 egal Briejs-

ACLU Wins Visa

Denial Suit

na ruling which will make it far more

[ sire for the government to bar

foreign speakers from this country, a

federal appeals court rejected the Reagan

Administration's assertion of unfettered

power to deny visas to aliens solely because

of associations with Communist

organizations.

The March 11 decision came in the

ACLU's challenge to the State Depart-

ment's denial of visas to Nicaraguan

Interior Minister Tomas Borge, former

Italian senator General Nino Pasti, and

two leaders of a Cuban women's organi-

zation, Olga Finley and Leonor Lezcano.

The ACLU filed suit in 1983 on behalf

of several U.S. Congress members,

- universities, and community groups who

had invited the foreign speakers. The visa

denials were upheld by a district court last

year.

A similar case, filed by the national

ACLU and ACLU-NC staff attorney

Margaret Crosby, when former Chilean

First Lady Hortensia Allende was denied

a visa, is still pending in federal court in

Massachusetts. The court rejected a

government move to dismiss the Allende

case last year. As a result of that lawsuit,

Mrs. Allende was allowed to speak in San

Francisco on April 11.

The appellate court opinion stated, "The

executive has broad discretion over the

admission and exclusion of aliens, but that

discretion is not boundless."

The court determined that if the State

Department has no reason other than

Communist affiliation for excluding an

alien, it must ordinarily recommend that

the visa be granted or certify to Congress

that the alien's visit would threaten

national security. The ruling is based on

the 1977 McGovern Amendment to the

Immigration and Nationality Act.

Over many years, the Reagan Admin-

istration has given various reasons for

denying visas to prominent left-leaning

foreign speakers. The State Department

has maintained during the litigation that

denial of visas to foreign officials such as

Borge may be a legitimate way of

expressing disapproval of the policies of

their governments.

Court to Review

Roadblock Case

he California Supreme Court

decided on April 3 to hear the

ACLU-NC lawsuit, Ingersoll v.

Palmer, challenging the use of drunk

driving roadblocks.

The suit was filed by former ACLU-

NC staff attorney Amitai Schwartz in 1984

when the police departments and the

California Highway Patrol set up road-

blocks around the state. Schwartz charges

that the use of random roadblocks without

reasonable suspicion is in violation of state

and federal constitutions.

Last December, after the Court of

Appeal upheld the use of roadblocks,

Schwartz filed the petition for review in

the state high court.

False Complaint

Appeal Rejected

r `wo San Francisco police officers

who sued an arrestee for allegedly

filing a false complaint against

them with the Internal Affairs Bureau

failed in their attempt to appeal a superior

court's dismissal of their suit.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the

lower court judgment on March 21, stating

that the arrestee's complaint that the police

officers used unnecessary force "is a

subjective statement of opinion. ..and is

not actionable."

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Amitai

Schwartz, who represented the arrestee,

explained that the police officers' suit was

based on a state law passed in 1982 which

creates a special exception for police

officers to sue people who file allegedly

false police misconduct complaints against

them.

Voter Sign-Ups.

Discriminate

"Nhe ACLU-NC joined the Southern

California affiliate in filing ground-

breaking litigation demanding that

local government officials must institute

affirmative voter registration programs

where evidence of discrimination in voter

rolls is found.

The lawsuit was filed on April 9 in Los

Angeles on behalf of the Southwest Voter

Registration Project and other organiza-

tions. Barbara Facher, director of Human

SERVE, a national voter registration

group, stated that in at least two California

counties, Tulare and Los Angeles, voter

registration lists reflect extreme bias

against poor and minority citizens.

Guard Discharge

For Lesbian OK

n March 30, the U.S. Court of

Appeal rejected the argument

that former Air National Guard

lieutenant Julise Johnson was wrongfully

discharged from the service simply because

she wrote to her commanding officer that

she is a lesbian. The ACLU-NC and the

Lesbian Rights Project represented the

former officer in arguments before the

appellate court on March 13.

Johnson had received superior ratings

as an officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve

and National Guard. She was discharged

with no evidence of homosexual conduct,

solely on the basis of her written statement

identifying herself as a lesbian.

ACLU-NC cooperating attorney Donna

Hitchens called the ruling "very disap-

pointing. The involuntary discharge of Lt. .

Johnson on the basis of her assertion of

a homosexual identity violated her

constitutional rights to free speech,

freedom of association, due process and

privacy."

The appellate court affirmed a 1985

decision by the trial court.

aclu news

4 May 1986

--- ee rr cree ee cme eed

O, let America

be America

again:

the land that never

has been yet,

and yet must be.

LANGSTON HUGHES

We, the undersigned, believe that immigration legislation now before

Congress would create a class of people separate and unequal in the

: eyes of our government.

Should our government withhold basic

freedoms on the basis of whether a man,

woman, or child was born within or beyond

our borders?

Should undocumented aliens have

"inalienable rights to life, liberty and the

pursuit of happiness," named by our consti-

tution as a birthright of "all"?

Is the "crime" of being an immigrant

sufficient justification for...

cent The beating of Haitian women held in the

INS Krome Avenue detention center in

Florida by Border Patrol agents;

cent The shooting of a twelve year old boy by

the U.S. Border Patrol on Mexican soil:

cent Detainees shackled to beds, fed food that

makes them gag, denied toilet paper,

showers and mattresses, and forced to

sign "Voluntary Departure Forms";

cent Children incarcerated because the INS

wants to lure their parents into custody;

cent Central American refugees sent back to

possible torture and death...

Is the "crime" of being an immigrant

reason enough to strip people of their most

basic human rights?

YOU CAN DEFEND THE RIGHTS

OF IMMIGRANTS. We urge you to send

the coupons below to your elected represent-

atives and take a forceful stand in

opposition to the Simpson/ Rodino-Mazzoli

bill because:

cent The bill contains guestworker provisions

that undermine basic labor rights;

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log It targets immigrant labor as a major

cause of unemployment;

cent It proposes legalization schemes that

would trap thousands of people in a web

of bureaucracy;

cent It includes employer sanctions that turn

employers into police officers and

promote racist hiring practices;

ACLUN_1981.MODS ACLUN_1981.batch ACLUN_1982 ACLUN_1982.MODS ACLUN_1982.batch ACLUN_1983 ACLUN_1983.MODS ACLUN_1984 ACLUN_1984.MODS ACLUN_1984.batch ACLUN_1985 ACLUN_1985.MODS ACLUN_1985.batch ACLUN_1986 ACLUN_1986.MODS ACLUN_1986.batch ACLUN_1987 ACLUN_1987.MODS ACLUN_1988 ACLUN_1988.MODS ACLUN_1989 ACLUN_1989.MODS ACLUN_1990 ACLUN_1990.MODS ACLUN_1991 ACLUN_1991.MODS ACLUN_1992 ACLUN_1992.MODS ACLUN_1993 ACLUN_1993.MODS ACLUN_1994 ACLUN_1994.MODS ACLUN_1995 ACLUN_1995.MODS ACLUN_1996 ACLUN_1996.MODS ACLUN_1997 ACLUN_1997.MODS ACLUN_1998 ACLUN_1998.MODS ACLUN_1999 ACLUN_1999.MODS ACLUN_ladd ACLUN_ladd.MODS add-tei.sh create-bags.sh create-manuscript-bags.sh create-manuscript-batch.sh fits.log It increases funds for border enforcement

rather than addressing the root causes of

immigration.

The ACLU-NC is initiating this campaign to educate

the public about the serious implications of the

Simpson/Rodino-Mazzoli bill. The text of our ad (above)

will appear in several Bay Area newspapers during

the middle of June, followed by names of individuals,

organizations and major sponsors who support this

project.

Yes, | want to help fill the page! Add my name to

those supporting

O Individuals - $5-$99

L] Organizations $25-99

L) Major Sponsors $100 and Up

$ ; Enclosed

Print name as you want it to appear:

(Anonymous donations accepted)

Name

Organization

Address

City

Phone

Make checks out to ACLU- Deadline: June 1

Zip

Return to: ACLU Signature Ad, 1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103

Field Program Calendar

B.A.R.K. BOARD MEETING: (Usually

fourth Thurs.) Volunteers are needed to staff ,

hotline. Contact Florence Piliavin,

415-655-7786.

EARL WARREN BOARD MEETING:

(Third Wed.) Next meeting, Wednesday,

May 21, 7:30 p.m. Guest Speaker: Rachel

Kreier "Oakland City of Refuge." Contact

Beth Weinberger 415-839-2743.

FRESNO BOARD MEETING: (Usually

third Wed.) Contact Sam Gitchel for details:

209-486-2411 (days), 209-442-0941 (eves).

GAY RIGHTS BOARD MEETING:

(Usually first Tues.) Tues., May 6 and Tues.,

June 3 at 7:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663 Mission

Street, #460, SE Watch for Gay Rights

Chapter booth at the Lesbian-Gay Rights

Freedom Day Parade, Sunday, June 29. Cail

Doug Warner for more information:

415-621-3900.

MARIN COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Third Mon.) Citicorp Savings, 130

Throckmorton, Mill Valley. Tues., May 13,

7:30 p.m. Marin Committee for Independent

Judiciary at West America Bank, Straw-

berry Shopping Center, Mill Valley. Annual

Meeting: Sunday, June 1, 1:00 p.m. Potluck

Picnic at Miwok Picnic Area, China Camp

State Park. Election of new board members;

presentation of Benjamin Dreyfus Award;

Marshall Krause featured speaker. Enter-

tainment and more. Contact Milton Estes

415-383-6622 (days).

MID-PENINSULA BOARD MEETING:

(Usually last Wed.) Next meeting, Thurs.,

May 22. Guest speaker: Marcia Gallo,

ACLU Field Coordinator, "Update on

ACLU." Contact Harry Anisgard,

415-856-9186.

MONTEREY BOARD MEETING: (Usu-

ally fourth Tues.) Tues., May 27 and June

24, 7:30 p.m., Monterey Library, Pacific and

Jefferson Streets, Monterey. Contact

Richard Criley, 408-624-7562.

MT. DIABLO BOARD MEETING:

(Usually third Wed. or third Thurs.) Wed.,

May 21 at Dave Bortin residence, 117 Los

Altos Avenue, Walnut Creek. Thurs., June

19 at Rossmoor, guest speaker from the San

Francisco Bar Association. Contact

Andrew Rudiak, 415-932-5580. Fundraiser:

Sat., May 24 at 7:00 p.m. Buffet and Play

Cards on the Table by Agatha Christie.

Tickets: $14. Contact Guyla Ponomareff,

Contact Hotline 415-939-ACLU.

NORTH PENINSULA BOARD MEET-

ING: (Second Mon.) Organizing a coalition

for Independence of the Judiciary. Brunch

May 4, in honor of Emily Skolnick; keynote

speaker: Doron Weinberg, Bar Association

of San Francisco. Contact Sid Scheiber

415-345-8603.

SACRAMENTO VALLEY BOARD

MEETING: (Usually second Wed.) Contact

Jerry Scribner 916-444-2130. Civil Liberties

Issues and AIDS Workshop, May 10,

9:30-12:30 p.m. University Theatre, CSUS.

Free parking, Lot #1, $5 donation requested.

Contact: Mary Gill, 916-457-4088.

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD MEETING:

(Usually fourth Tues.) Tues., May 27 and

June 24, 7:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663 Mission

Street, #460, San Francisco. Contact

Suzanne Donovan, 415-642-4890. Fifth

Forum on Independence of the Judiciary:

"Problems and Methods of Choosing

Judges." Thurs., June 5, 7:00 p.m. at Golden

Gate University, Second Floor Auditorium.

Guest speaker: Elaine Jones, NAACP Legal

Defense and Education Fund: "Federal

Method of Selecting Judges." Armando

Menacol, attorney with Public Advocates,

Inc.; former Commissioner of State Bar's

Judicial Nominee Evaluation Commission:

"California's Method of Selecting Judges."

Annual Meeting to be held at reception:

following forum at Golden Gate University,

Third Floor. Contact Suzanne Donovan

415-642-4890.

SANTA CLARA BOARD MEETING:

(First Tues.) May 6 and June 3, 7:00 p.m.,

Executive Conference Room, Community

Bank Building, 111 West St. John Street,

San Jose. Contact Michael Chatsky,

408-379-4611. Annual Membership Meeting:

May 18, 1:30 p.m. Neighborhood Center,

208 East Main, Los Gatos. Program Chair

Ed Steinman will introduce prominent local

jurist who will give overview of why an

independent judiciary is important. A

representative of the legal profession will

explain relationship between the November

retention election and independent judiciary.

Contact Bob O'Neil, 408-377-6864.

SANTA CRUZ BOARD MEETING:

(Second Wed.) Contact Bob Taren,

408-429-9880.

SONOMA BOARD MEETING: Contact

Andrea Learned, 707-544-691].

STOCKTON BOARD MEETING: (Third

Wed.) Contact Eric Ratner, 209-948-4040

(eves).

YOLO COUNTY BOARD MEETING:

(Fourth Thur. of each month) Contact

Larry Garrett, 916-758-1005.

FIELD COMMITTEE MEETINGS

FIELD COMMITTEE: Thurs., May 8,

6:00 p.m. ACLU, 1663 Mission Street, SE

Contact Marcia Gallo, 415-621-2493.

PRO-CHOICE TASK FORCE: Tues.,

May 6 and Wed., June 4, 6:30 p.m. ACLU,

1663 Mission Street, #460, SE Contact

Marcia Gallo or Deborah Shibley,

415-621-2494.

IMMIGRATION WORKING GROUP:

Wed., May 14 and Thurs., June 12, 6:00

p.m., ACLU 1663 Mission Street, SE

Contact Marcia Gallo or Cindy Forster at

415-621-2494.

INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY: (Usually

first Sat. of each month.) May 3, 10:30 a.m.,

ACLU, 1663, Mission Street, #460, SF

Contact Marcia Gallo, 415-621-2493.

DRAFT OPPOSITION NETWORK:

Tues., June 17, 7:00 p.m., ACLU, 1663,

Mission Street, #460, SE Contact Judy

Newman, 415-567-1527.

|

Save the date!

ACLU of Northern California

Annual Conference

August 8-10, 1986

sonoma State University

Thought-provoking...Challenging...Timely...Fun