🔥 Oak Flat Burns While Dems Debate: CD7 Candidates Split on Mining Sacred Apache Land (DEBATE VIDEO)
🪨 "There's No Clean Mining": Indigenous Candidate Exposes Environmental Racism in Heated CD7 Showdown ⚡ Gen Z Firebrand vs. Political Dynasty
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
🗳️ Five Democrats are fighting to replace Congressman Raúl Grijalva who passed away earlier this year. They had a big debate on 📺 right when the Supreme Court said companies could destroy a sacred Native American site called Oak Flat to mine copper.
The candidates disagreed most about whether these mining projects create good jobs or just ☠️ communities and destroy special places 🏞️. A 25-year-old activist named Deja Foxx argued that older politicians have failed on 🌍 change, while Grijalva's daughter Adelita wants to continue her father's progressive work.
Some candidates support the controversial mines while others stand with Indigenous communities 🧑🤝🧑 trying to protect their sacred lands from multinational corporations 🏢.
🗝️ Takeaways
🏞️ Debate centered around the destruction of Oak Flat, a sacred Apache site, for mining development.
🧑🤝🧑 Candidates differed in their support for controversial mining projects versus Indigenous rights.
🌎 Climate change urgency highlighted by young candidate Deja Foxx, demanding bolder actions.
💡 Discussion on economic inequality, with proposals ranging from progressive taxation to wealth caps.
🔥 Generational and ideological divides are evident in stance on Palestine and broader political engagement.
The Fight for CD7: Five Democrats Battle for Raúl's Legacy While Rome Burns
Let’s start with some good news: a Democrat is set to win in CD7, making these primary election debates extremely important. Hopefully, unlike Senator Gallego, they will vote against the Trump agenda.
En estos tiempos difíciles, the struggle continues—and apparently, so does the Democratic Party's talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Picture this: while Arizona PBS hosted a civilized debate among five Democrats vying to replace the irreplaceable Raúl Grijalva, the Supreme Court was simultaneously rubber-stamping the destruction of Oak Flat, one of the most sacred Apache sites in the Southwest. The timing couldn't have been more perfect—or more tragically ironic. Here we had candidates debating how to fight Trump while the highest court in the land was busy handing multinational mining corporations the keys to Indigenous sacred sites.
Nothing says "progressive resistance" quite like politely discussing policy positions while your opponents are literally bulldozing through sacred burial grounds, am I right?
Background on Oak Flat and the Supreme Court ruling this week.
Random fact: A Resolution Copper ad played at the beginning of the YouTube video of the debate when we watched it.
The stage was set at Arizona PBS on Tuesday evening for what may prove to be the most consequential political showdown in Southern Arizona this year. Five Democratic hopefuls squared off in their first televised gladiatorial match for Arizona's 7th Congressional District, each desperately trying to prove they could fill the enormous boots left by Raúl, who passed away in March after battling cancer with the same fierce determination he brought to fighting for our communities.
But let's be brutally honest here—watching this debate felt a bit like watching someone rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic while icebergs of fascism float menacingly on the horizon. Don't get me wrong, electoral politics matter. But when you're debating tax policy while Indigenous activists are literally preparing to chain themselves to bulldozers, you start to wonder if we're playing the right game.
Meet Your Contestants: Progressive Olympics Edition
The lineup read like a political science professor's fever dream of Democratic coalition building—each candidate representing a different faction of the party's ongoing identity crisis.
Adelita Grijalva entered as the anointed heir apparent, carrying both the blessing and the crushing weight of expectation that comes with inheriting a political dynasty. Because nothing says "progressive grassroots movement" quite like dynastic succession, right? But to her credit, Adelita didn't shy away from the comparison. "I am going to be another Grijalva," she declared with the kind of unapologetic confidence that would make papá proud. Her endorsement list reads like a party insider's Christmas wish list: Gabby Giffords, Mark Kelly, Ruben Gallego, Bernie Sanders, and enough union backing to make a Republican's head spin.
Daniel Hernandez Jr. positioned himself as the pragmatic progressive—you know, the guy who promises to work "within the system" while the system is actively trying to murder you. The former state legislator and Giffords shooting survivor has an impressive resume of actually passing legislation, which is refreshing in an era where most politicians seem to specialize in performative outrage and fundraising emails. But his enthusiastic support for mining projects, especially after the day’s SCOTUS ruling on Oak Flat, puts him in an awkward position for those opposed to the Resolution Mine.
Deja Foxx brought the heat as the 25-year-old Gen Z firebrand who went viral at 16 for making Jeff Flake squirm over Planned Parenthood funding. Ah, the good old days when our biggest worry was whether Republicans would defund reproductive healthcare instead of whether they'd install a theocratic dictatorship. Foxx represents the impatient energy of a generation that's tired of watching older politicians debate climate action while the planet literally burns around them. "Climate change is not theoretical to my generation," she declared with the kind of urgency that should make every Boomer politician deeply uncomfortable.
Jose Malvido Jr. came to the party as the Indigenous truth-teller, speaking with the moral authority that comes from watching multinational corporations destroy your homeland for profit. Growing up in Ajo during the Great Copper Strike of 1983, Malvido witnessed firsthand what happens when corporate interests clash with working families. His presence on the stage served as a living reminder that environmental racism isn't some abstract policy issue—it's a daily reality for communities across the borderlands.
Patrick Harris Sr. arrived with perhaps the most audacious economic proposal since someone suggested we actually tax billionaires: "Capitated Capitalism," a plan to cap individual wealth at $1 billion and force the excess into job creation. Wild idea, I know—what if we stopped letting 800 people hoard more wealth than entire nations while people die from rationing insulin? While critics might dismiss this as economic fantasy, it at least represents the kind of bold thinking that acknowledges our current system is fundamentally broken.
The Mining Meltdown: Sacred Sites vs. Shareholder Profits
The nuclear moment of the debate erupted over mining, specifically, whether Democrats should support projects that would turn sacred Apache lands into moon-sized craters to extract copper for the global market. This wasn't just a policy disagreement; it was a battle for the soul of progressive politics in the borderlands.
According to Howard Fischer's coverage in the Arizona Daily Star, Hernandez stood alone among the Democrats in supporting a rogues' gallery of extractive projects: the South32 mineral extraction in the Patagonia Mountains, the Hudbay copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains, and the Oak Flat project that just got the Supreme Court's blessing for environmental apocalypse.
"When people are struggling to make ends meet, they need someone who will stand up to make sure they have good wages, protections for their families, and make sure that they have a job to be able to go to," Hernandez argued.
But here's what makes this argument particularly galling: the Oak Flat project, which the Supreme Court just green-lit for destruction, will create a crater nearly 2 miles wide that will obliterate sacred oak groves, springs, and burial sites that Apache people have used for ceremonies since time immemorial. According to Inside Climate News reporting, the federal government's own environmental impact statement concludes this would cause "indescribable hardship" to Indigenous peoples.
Meanwhile, the mining companies—Rio Tinto and BHP—are foreign corporations with a documented history of environmental destruction across the globe. So we're literally talking about sacrificing Indigenous sacred sites to enrich multinational companies that will extract our resources, poison our land, and ship the profits overseas.
If this sounds familiar, it's because it's basically the same playbook colonizers have been using for 500 years—they've just gotten better at the PR.
Adelita Grijalva cut straight to the heart of the matter: "What's left in the aftermath is environmental destruction." She specifically called out the Oak Flat project, standing firm with Apache Stronghold in defending the site from corporate desecration.
But it was Malvido who delivered the most devastating testimony, speaking from lived experience that no amount of corporate spin could counter:
"I grew up in a copper mining town where sacred sites were reduced into a giant mine pit. We had, yes, it put food on the table, but at what cost? The environmental justice issues there, my hometown is a Superfund site. We have cancer clusters. We have asthma clusters because of the mine."
Funny how "good-paying jobs" somehow always seem to come with a side of cancer and environmental devastation when corporations are involved.
This divide illustrates the fundamental tension within the Democratic Party between labor politics and environmental justice. There's nothing progressive about supporting projects that poison Indigenous communities while enriching foreign corporations.
Fighting Trump: Beyond Hashtag Resistance
Every candidate agreed that Democrats need to fight Trump harder, but they offered wildly different visions of what that fight should look like. This matters because, as we've witnessed over the past decade, ineffective resistance theater can actually be worse than no resistance at all.
Foxx delivered perhaps the most scathing indictment of Democratic leadership:
"When we look at the mess in DC from Republicans who have thrown rules out the window and Democrats who have failed to stand up, we require activists."
Translation: Stop sending strongly-worded letters and start building actual power.
Malvido went even harder, calling out the party's fundamental corruption:
"We need to have the courage to really address issues and not worry about the big money people that also fund the Democratic campaigns. A lot of Democrats, career politicians, all they really want to do is get elected. So they're not really going to address the issues and have the courage to fight in the way we need them to fight."
Harris focused his fire on economic inequality with characteristic bluntness:
"They don't know how to fight. They don't have a strategy. Trump is hitting all of us in the wallet, and I think I'm Trump's worst nightmare because when he has to get hit in the wallet by billions of dollars and invested back into society, that's going to hurt."
But it was Hernandez who delivered the most sobering reality check about Democratic failures:
"I think the biggest frustration that I'm hearing each and every single day when I'm talking to voters in CD7 is not only that Democrats aren't fighting back hard enough, it's that we're not delivering results."
Imagine that—voters want their representatives to actually accomplish things instead of just performatively resisting on Twitter. Who could have predicted such madness?
This critique hits at the core of why Democrats keep losing ground with working families. When your party's primary accomplishment is "not being as terrible as the other guys," you're not exactly inspiring people to storm the voting booths.
The Palestine Moment: When Progressive Purity Meets Political Cowardice
The most revealing moment of the entire debate came when Jose Malvido Jr. dropped what can only be described as a progressive purity bomb right in the middle of polite Democratic discourse. As the candidates were wrapping up their final statements, Malvido casually lobbed this grenade into the room:
"I think that it's really important to ask the question of the other folks what their stance is on whether they support the genocide in Palestine."
Chef's kiss to Malvido for turning a sleepy Congressional debate into a moral clarity litmus test faster than you can say "AIPAC donation."
The Responses (Or Lack Thereof)
Here's where it gets interesting—and by interesting, I mean painfully revealing about who has actual principles versus who's been coached by consultants to avoid anything that might upset major donors.
Deja Foxx was the only candidate who directly engaged with the question, immediately connecting Palestinian rights to broader issues of free speech and student activism. According to the transcript, she said:
"Thank you for your question and for raising that issue. It is the issue that has politicized so many young people in my generation who deserve to have their First Amendment rights protected on college campuses like the one here in CD7."
Translation: "Yes, I actually give a damn about Palestinian lives AND I understand that young voters are watching to see who has the courage to speak truth to power."
The Sound of Silence
The other candidates? Well, let's just say their responses were about as clear as Arizona's commitment to Indigenous water rights. The transcript shows that Adelita Grijalva, Daniel Hernandez Jr., and Patrick Harris Sr. basically treated Malvido's question like a live grenade they needed to step around carefully.
Nothing quite says "progressive champion" like frantically changing the subject when someone mentions genocide. Very inspiring stuff, truly.
What This Reveals About Democratic Politics
This Palestine moment perfectly encapsulates the broader crisis within the Democratic Party—the yawning chasm between progressive rhetoric and actual courage when it counts. Here you have candidates falling over themselves to prove their anti-Trump credentials, but when faced with a straightforward question about opposing genocide, suddenly everyone discovers the urgent need to discuss infrastructure policy.
It's almost like some forms of resistance are more politically convenient than others. Who could have predicted such shocking behavior from professional politicians?
The fact that only Foxx and Malvido were willing to engage directly with Palestine solidarity speaks volumes about generational and ideological divides within the party. Younger progressives and Indigenous activists understand that justice is indivisible—you can't claim to fight for environmental justice while ignoring ethnic cleansing, or champion civil rights while enabling apartheid.
The Broader Context
This Palestine litmus test matters because it reveals who's actually committed to anti-imperialism versus who plays one on TV during election season. In CD7—a district with significant Latino, Indigenous, and young populations—Palestinian solidarity isn't some fringe issue. It's a core test of whether you understand that the same systems oppressing communities in Gaza are connected to those destroying sacred sites in Arizona.
Funny how the candidates most willing to challenge corporate mining interests were also the ones willing to name genocide when they see it. Almost like having actual principles creates a certain consistency in your worldview.
The silence from establishment-backed candidates like Grijalva tells you everything you need to know about who's more concerned with donor comfort than moral clarity.
In a district where Raúl Grijalva built his reputation on fearlessly speaking truth to power, this Palestine moment served as a perfect test of who is actually ready to carry that torch versus who is just wearing progressive cosplay for primary season.
Climate Change: When Planetary Emergency Meets Political Theater
Nothing quite captures the Democratic Party's climate priorities quite like debating carbon offsets while Arizona literally becomes uninhabitable.
The climate discussion revealed a generational chasm that should terrify anyone who actually wants a livable planet. Here's how each candidate addressed our accelerating slide toward climate apocalypse:
Deja Foxx: The Generational Reckoning
The 25-year-old delivered the debate's most devastating climate truth-bomb, serving up a reality check that should have left every politician over 40 deeply uncomfortable:
"Every year we see summers get hotter here in Arizona, get longer because of the inaction of older generations. Climate change is not theoretical to my generation. We will have to live through your plans for 2050 and beyond."
Translation: "Thanks for torching the planet, boomers—we'll just be over here inheriting your climate catastrophe while you debate incremental emission reductions."
Foxx continued with the kind of urgency that should be standard but somehow feels revolutionary:
"We need bold, progressive action on climate change right here in CD7 and all across the country. And that means protecting sacred sites for cultural groups here and our landscapes, our public lands and our future environment."
She also delivered this generational gut-punch:
"When we talk about the environment, when we talk about climate change, I also often hear people say it is to protect for future generations. And I sit here on the stage, as a member of the future generation, that our elected officials were tasked with protecting."
Imagine that—the "future generations" politicians love invoking are literally sitting right there, wondering why their elders are still debating whether to stop poisoning the planet.
Daniel Hernandez Jr.: The "Sustainable Mining" Fantasy
Hernandez deployed the classic corporate greenwashing playbook, somehow managing to support planet-destroying mining projects while claiming environmental consciousness:
"You can both have good environmental laws and good jobs. You can't just say, we're going to have jobs or the environment. You have to be able to have both."
"Sustainable mining" is like "sustainable genocide"—a contradiction in terms that only makes sense if you're getting paid to not understand basic physics.
Random fact: The Oak Flat project will consume as much water annually as Tempe (185,000 people) in a drought-ravaged desert state.
Jose Malvido Jr.: Environmental Justice Reality Check
Malvido brought devastating credibility to climate discussions, connecting environmental destruction to the lived experience of environmental racism. While other candidates talked theory, he delivered facts:
"There's no clean mining. There's no clean mining. There's no such thing as that."
Finally, someone willing to state basic ecological truths instead of parroting corporate talking points.
His personal testimony packed more climate insight than most Democratic white papers:
"My hometown is a Superfund site. We have cancer clusters. We have asthma clusters because of the mine."
Random fact: The south side of Tucson and the Sunnyside school district are also Superfund sites, thanks to the presence of employers offering high-paying jobs in Tucson, located near the airport. The good incomes come with a huge environmental cost, however.
Adelita Grijalva: Green New Deal Name-Dropping
Grijalva mentioned climate action in the context of her progressive credentials:
"Fighting for Medicaid for all, for the Green New Deal, for environmental justice for all. These are progressive values that Southern Arizona believes in."
Ah yes, the classic "mention the Green New Deal in passing" approach to climate leadership. Very bold. Very inspiring. About as substantial as Arizona's monsoon season these days.
Patrick Harris Sr.: Wealth Concentration as Climate Driver
Harris offered the most intriguing climate-adjacent analysis, connecting wealth hoarding to environmental destruction through his "Capitated Capitalism" proposal:
"Eight hundred billionaires hold over six trillion dollars. If they each keep a billion and you cap the wealth, they're forced to reinvest into society."
Wild concept—what if we stopped letting fossil fuel oligarchs buy politicians and actually invested in renewable energy instead of mega-yacht collections?
The Climate Catastrophe Consensus
What emerged was a stark divide between those treating climate change as an urgent existential threat (Foxx, Malvido) versus those offering standard Democratic incrementalism (Grijalva, Hernandez) or economic restructuring (Harris).
While Phoenix transforms into an uninhabitable hellscape and our aquifers disappear faster than Republican ethics, we got a masterclass in how to discuss climate catastrophe without actually proposing emergency action. Because nothing says "climate crisis" quite like politely requesting that extraction industries consider maybe transitioning to sustainability sometime before the oceans swallow Florida.
Tax Battles: Class Warfare in Polite Company
The taxation throwdown revealed deep philosophical chasms about how Democrats should respond to economic inequality. Hernandez launched a sustained attack on Grijalva for supporting a half-cent sales tax increase in Tucson, calling it "the height of being out of touch" during inflation.
But Grijalva's response revealed a more sophisticated understanding of fiscal federalism than her opponent gave her credit for. She explained that local governments have been forced to absorb costs that the Republican-controlled legislature used to cover, creating impossible budget situations.
"So the needs continue but the revenue decreased," she argued, highlighting how GOP austerity politics create lose-lose scenarios for local officials.
This exchange illuminated a broader problem with Democratic messaging on taxes. Instead of making principled arguments for progressive taxation, too many Democrats get trapped defending regressive policies because they're afraid to articulate a vision of economic justice that actually challenges wealth concentration.
The Working Class Problem: When Your Base Thinks You Suck
Multiple candidates acknowledged the uncomfortable truth that Democrats have hemorrhaged support among working-class voters, including many Latino families who should be natural Democratic constituencies.
Malvido didn't sugarcoat the party's failures:
"People are also fed up with the way the Democratic Party has been. The cookie cutter approach to creating new politicians to go to Congress, people aren't happy with the Democratic Party either."
Shocking revelation: people don't like politicians who take their votes for granted while serving corporate interests. Who could have seen this coming?
This rings painfully true in the borderlands, where I've witnessed firsthand how Democratic politicians can show up every two years speaking broken Spanish and expecting unconditional Latino support while failing to deliver on basic economic justice issues. The party's disconnect from working families isn't just about messaging—it's about fundamental priorities.
Closing Messages: Last Impressions in the Democracy Derby
Because nothing says "progressive unity" quite like five Democrats making their final pitches while the planet burns and sacred sites get bulldozed. Let's see who stuck the landing and who face-planted into corporate talking points.
Deja Foxx: The Generational Gauntlet
The 25-year-old delivered what can only be described as a mic-drop moment that should have left every establishment politician frantically updating their résumés:
"The question ‘Why not me’ is the question I had to ask. It's the question we should all be asking when there's a 34-count convicted felon in the White House. When billionaires are playing politician, right? We need to be asking why not us."
She continued with the kind of structural analysis that would make corporate consultants break out in hives:
"And there are structural barriers. I'm telling you, it's an uphill fight to be in this race at 25. As a young, working-class woman, a first-generation American, it is not easy to be in this race. I didn't inherit a donor list. I don't have a legacy last name or big money behind me. I have you."
Kudos to Foxx for basically saying, "I'm not here because daddy was a congressman or because Wall Street loves me—I'm here because regular people are tired of being sold out by professional politicians."
Her closing question packed more democratic theory than most poly-sci textbooks: "And so I'm asking folks, are we going to do things differently? And that is the question you have to answer with your vote in 2025."
Translation: "Are we actually going to try democracy for once, or are we sticking with oligarchy-with-progressive-characteristics?"
Adelita Grijalva: Dynasty Meets Destiny
The political heir apparent leaned hard into both family legacy and fighting spirit:
"When you grow up Grijalva, you learn how to fight. But it's not about fighting. It's about who you're fighting for. My name literally means Guerrera Warrior. And my parents named me that. I think they had an idea of what was coming."
Nothing quite says "grassroots movement" like invoking your political bloodline and literal warrior nomenclature. Very authentic. Very relatable.
She concluded with the kind of progressive promise that reads better than it probably polls:
"I'm going to fight for you. I'm going to demand that Trump not destroy our economy and our democracy, fight for Social Security, fight for working families, fight for Medicare, Medicaid, and for every community that is being targeted and villainized right now."
Standard Democratic resistance rhetoric, but at least she's promising to fight rather than "reach across the aisle" to fascists.
Patrick Harris Sr.: The Economic Revolutionary
Harris delivered perhaps the most ideologically coherent closing, staying laser-focused on his wealth redistribution message:
"I respect everyone on this stage. However, the truth of the matter is that I'm the only one with an economic plan to fund our shared priorities. ‘Cap the Cap’ is more than just a slogan. It's drafted legislation ready to be introduced."
He hammered home the economic justice angle: "It puts trillions of dollars back into our economy, lowers taxes, and invests in the people who build this country. I'm not here for rhetoric. I have a real plan, and I'll fight for you in Congress."
Imagine that—a candidate who understands that you can't tax your way to prosperity while letting 800 people hoard more wealth than entire nations.
Daniel Hernandez Jr.: The Pragmatic Progressive
Hernandez went full establishment-friendly with his closer, emphasizing electability and experience:
"My name is Daniel Hernandez. I'm running for Congress for people like my mom and dad, people who worked hard each and every single day to put food on the table."
He continued with standard Democratic messaging: "Right now we are in a crisis, and what we need is someone who is battle-tested, who knows how to fight against MAGA Republicans and Donald Trump, and actually win and deliver results."
Jose Malvido Jr.: The Transformational Vision
The Indigenous candidate delivered the most systemically critical closing, going beyond Trump resistance to fundamental party transformation:
"I think that it's really easy to talk about Donald Trump. That's a given. But what we need in Congress is a long-term vision to transform the Democratic Party in order to take back Congress."
Ding ding ding! Someone finally said the quiet part out loud—the Democratic Party itself needs fundamental restructuring.
He continued with the kind of structural analysis that makes party consultants nervous: "Not just to win it back, to lose it again, but back and forth. We need to transform the Democratic Party."
Malvido concluded with a concrete policy vision: "So part of this is proposing a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all, and really supporting the people in that way. Affordable housing, all these different issues that people need."
Imagine proposing actual solutions instead of just promising to resist Trump harder.
The Closing Verdict: Visions of Democratic Futures
These closing statements perfectly encapsulated the ideological spectrum within progressive politics:
Foxx channeled generational fury and anti-establishment energy
Grijalva balanced dynasty legitimacy with resistance theater
Harris offered a concrete economic transformation
Hernandez deployed standard electability pragmatism
Malvido called for fundamental party restructuring
The fact that the two most transformational visions came from the youngest candidate and the Indigenous activist tells you everything about where real progressive energy lives versus where Democratic consultants think it should.
What's striking is how these closers revealed who is actually thinking systemically about power versus who is just promising to be a better cog in the same broken machine. While Foxx and Malvido talked about transforming structures, others offered variations on "elect me and I'll fight harder within existing systems."
Because nothing says "revolutionary change" quite like promising to work within institutions that are actively facilitating fascism and environmental collapse.
The closing messages presented five different theories of change—from generational overthrow to dynastic succession, to economic revolution, to pragmatic incrementalism, to party transformation. Voters now get to choose which vision of Democratic politics they want to bet their democracy on.
No pressure or anything—just the future of representative government and planetary habitability hanging in the balance. But hey, at least everyone promised to "fight for working families," so that's something.
What This Means for You: Beyond Electoral Theater
As we barrel toward the July 15 primary, this debate revealed both the promise and the profound limitations of electoral politics in the fascist era. Because let's be real—when one party is actively dismantling democracy while the other debates tax incrementalism, maybe it's time to expand our definition of political action.
On the positive side, we have candidates like Foxx and Malvido who understand that business-as-usual politics won't defeat authoritarianism. We need organizers, agitators, and fighters who will challenge corporate power directly, rather than politely requesting incremental reforms.
But we also see the persistent gravitational pull of corporate money and establishment thinking. When Democratic candidates can position themselves as progressive while supporting multinational mining companies over Indigenous communities, it demonstrates how far we still need to go in building a truly anti-corporate Democratic Party.
The timing of this debate—coinciding with the Supreme Court's Oak Flat decision—serves as a brutal reminder that elections are just one front in a much larger war. While these candidates debated, Apache activists were preparing for civil disobedience to protect their sacred sites. While they debated tax policy, climate activists were organizing direct actions against fossil fuel infrastructure.
Here's the uncomfortable truth nobody wants to say out loud: if we're relying on electoral politics alone to save us from fascism and climate catastrophe, we're already lost.
Building Real Power: Beyond the Ballot Box
La lucha continues far beyond the comfortable confines of electoral politics. Whoever wins this seat will face a Republican-controlled Congress and a Trump administration determined to complete their authoritarian project. They'll need more than good intentions and strongly-worded press releases—they'll need mass movements with the power to make their demands impossible to ignore.
This means building power through:
Labor organizing that explicitly connects environmental justice with workers' rights, because there are no jobs on a dead planet
Direct action to protect sacred sites and stop destructive projects, because some things are too important to leave to the courts
Mutual aid networks that meet people's immediate needs while building political consciousness and community resilience
Electoral organizing that goes beyond candidate campaigns to build lasting progressive infrastructure
The CD7 debate revealed that the Democratic Party is still grappling with internal battles over its fundamental purpose.
As Indigenous and Chicano communities in the borderlands, we can't afford to wait for politicians to save us. We need to build our own power while supporting candidates who will amplify our voices rather than ignore them. The Oak Flat fight demonstrates exactly what's at stake—our sacred sites, our clean water, our children's future, our very survival as distinct peoples.
En tiempos como estos, we need representatives who will stand with Indigenous communities against multinational corporations, who will choose environmental justice over corporate profits, who will fight for a Green New Deal instead of defending fossil fuel interests with a smile.
The July 15 primary will determine not just who represents CD7, but what kind of Democratic Party we're building for the future. Will it be a party that challenges corporate power and fights for environmental justice? Or will it continue prioritizing compromise with forces that are actively destroying our communities and our planet?
La respuesta lies with us, la gente. We have the power to demand better from our representatives and to build the movements that will make progressive change inevitable, regardless of who wins in Washington.
Keep this critical analysis and grassroots organizing coverage coming by supporting Three Sonorans Substack. Independent journalism and progressive organizing rely on community support—help us continue exposing the stories that mainstream media won't touch and building the resistance our communities desperately need.
What Do You Think?
The conversation doesn't end here, compas. What's your take on the candidates' positions on mining versus environmental justice? How can progressives build meaningful power beyond electoral politics in the borderlands? And which candidate do you think would actually fight hardest against Trump's authoritarian agenda?
Drop your thoughts in the comments below—vamos a platicar about building the movement we need.
Quotes:
Jose Malvido Jr. on genocide litmus test: "I think that it's really important to ask the question of the other folks what the stance is if they support the genocide in Palestine."
Daniel Hernandez defending mining: "When people are struggling to make ends meet, they need someone who will stand up to make sure they have good wages, protections for their families, and make sure that they have a job to be able to go to."
Jose Malvido on mining devastation: "I grew up in a copper mining town where sacred sites were reduced into a giant mine pit. We had, yes, it put food on the table, but at what cost? The environmental justice issues there, my hometown is a Superfund site. We have cancer clusters."
Deja Foxx on climate urgency: "Every year we see summers get hotter here in Arizona, get longer because of the inaction of older generations. Climate change is not theoretical to my generation. We will have to live through your plans for 2050 and beyond."
Adelita Grijalva on progressive identity: "I am going to be another Grijalva. I don't think you can be too progressive when you're on the right side of history."
Patrick Harris on Democratic failures: "They don't know how to fight. They don't have a strategy."
Jose Malvido on Democratic Party problems: "People are also fed up with the way the Democratic Party has been. The cookie-cutter approach to creating new politicians to go to Congress, people aren't happy with the Democratic Party either."
Have a scoop or a story you want us to follow up on? Send us a message!
I wish you would send separate newsletters, since you span across a number of topics. I'll reply on a couple of points, nevertheless.
(1) The arguments that "it's good for business" and that "it will create jobs" lost their relevance long ago. I am reminded of Ibsen's play, AN ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE. The harsh, ugly reality is that we have run roughshod over the environment for decades, and we now face unparalleled levels of pollution and global warming.
(2) These specious arguments are yet more offensive when they ignore the human casualties and consequences. Whether we refer to violations of sacred lands or pollution of air, soil, and water, the fact that "it will create jobs" is irrelevant.
(3) Finally, the Democrats lost everything in 2024, in large part because the Biden administration supported genocide. Alas, few liberals and far less than 100% of the progressives are willing to use the "G-word," yet the numbers speak for themselves (cf., loss of Arab-American and Muslim-American voters in swing states). In fact, a number of "liberals" have been ominously silent about the obscene notion that those who are critical of Netanyahu and Israeli foreign policy are somehow "anti-Semitic."