z********0
发帖数: 13 | 1 Don't just have an opinion, take action!
Between the time I get on the petition page
https://www.change.org/petitions/california-state-assembly-vote-no-to-sca-5
to when I finish my petition, there are 100 more people voted, but it's only
3998 people who took actions as of now, 46002 votes are still needed.
Don't you think this call for action worth your 3 minutes of time?
2014年1月31日， 加州参议院27:9通过了由拉丁裔Ed Hernandez提出的SCA-5，亚裔进
入加州公立大学的机会将由现在的36%降为13%！！ 而亚裔中又包含了不止华裔的印度
裔，菲律宾，越南，日韩等东南亚裔。
具体内容：http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml
由于我们华裔亚裔平时投票率极低，华人议员，亚裔议员的票仓是黑人和拉丁裔，
而非华裔。而这次SCA-5的直接受益人就是占人口比亚裔多的拉丁裔和非洲人，所以直
到现在还没有华裔议员出来为我们说话。更为严重的是，很多亚裔家庭还不知道这个议
案会对我们的孩子的未来带来的巨大负面影响。
如果众议院再通过，这个议案就会被列入11月的选票公投。考虑到亚裔和西语裔投
票率，一旦投票，一定会通过的。如果SCA-5变成法律，亚裔上UC和加大的机会就由36%
降为13%！
这个议案貌似要平权，但其实是要削减和限制少数族裔孩子上大学的机会，只能最
多13%，其实是一种变相的种族歧视！
我们为了ABC主持人的一句台词上街抗议，逼迫ABC做出道歉和改进（见后面），这
一次没有华人政治人物为我们出头，我们只能靠自己！
希望大家能够按照美国的政治运行方式表达我的意见，让社会以及议员更多听到我
们的声音，我们将成立新组织，专门从事为华人维护政治权力和利益，我们会陆续推出
以系列措施。
为了我们的孩子，请一起反对这个议案！
1，给众议员写信，要求他们反对SCA-5。
email模板，
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t2/SanFrancisco/34108335.html
2，参加网上签名，
https://www.change.org/petitions/california-state-assembly-vote-no-to-
sca-5
1/30/2014 marked the darkest day in California’s recent history of
politics. On this day, the California Senate approved SCA-5, which would
appeal provisions of Prop 209 and allow the State of California to
discriminate an individual or group's rights for getting public education on
the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
To understand SCA-5, we have to remember what Prop. 209 is. In November
1996, Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative)
amended the state constitution to “prohibit state government institutions
from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of 1)
public employment, 2) public contracting or 3) public education.” In the
18 years that Prop 209 has been in effect, California has become the most
diversified state in the US. Also, comprehensive measures have been
introduced to help students from disadvantaged families to obtain higher
education, which have our full support.
Now SCA-5 seeks to REMOVE any mentioning of “public education” in Prop
. 209. This will roll back the clock to unfairly discriminate a student
simply based on her/his race. If it succeeded, what will be the next in its
supporters’ mind to be removed among the the rest two areas (public
employment and public contracting) in Prop. 209?
The 14th Amendment of the US Constitution clearly states that no state
shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws. The SCA-5 is wrong and in violation of the US Constitution.
We hereby urge you to vote NO to SCA 5! |
|
