3.4 MILLION SERVED. EVERYWHERE SINCE 2009

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Alameda to study becoming a sanctuary city, hopefully before Trump inauguration

ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL | With some sense of urgency, the Alameda City Council unanimously voted Tuesday night to move forward an early proposal to become a sanctuary city. Included in the council instruction is for city staff to prepare a report on the matter, hopefully, before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated on Jan. 20. But whether the timeframe can be met is unknown.

“Our council needs to weigh-in and say, ‘We’re putting our stake in the ground. We’re going to stand to protect our most vulnerable people,’” said Councilmember Jim Oddie, the author of the sanctuary city referral. However, it is unclear whether a staff report will be ready before Trump’s inauguration.

City Manager Jill Keimach expressed uncertainty whether the short turnaround time—roughly seven days—will hinder the compilation of a suitable report. A discussion on sanctuary cities may not occur until early February, said Keimach.

Oddie said he could never live with himself if some of Trump’s heated rhetoric against undocumented immigrants and Muslims were actually implement while he stood idle. Around 80 percent of Alamedans voted against Trump. “There’s no mandate for breaking up families, terrorizing children and deporting valued members of our community,” said Oddie.

The referral offered Tuesday includes instructions for the Alameda Police Department and other city departments to refuse to honor or expend its resources for any request by the Trump administration that include mass arrests, internment or the registration of individuals based on their religious beliefs. It also asks for an analysis of possible financial impacts to the city for defying such federal requests.

The city’s police department already has an existing policy protecting undocumented immigrants against coordinating with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Councilmember Frank Matarrese said he worries the Constitution could be violated by the incoming administration and urged for not only a city council resolution but possibly putting the police department’s policies into city law.

“It’s practical and already an operating policy and there’s no convincing the police that it has to be done because it’s their policy,” said Matarrese. He added, codifying the police department’s policy into law will remain past Alameda Police Chief Paul Rolleri’s time in command.

Matarrese, and other councilmembers urged the city administration to be transparent about future requests from the federal government, for instance, hypothetically, a demand for data from the city’s license plate readers, video from its police body cameras “or any other insidious request that’s going to be used for things that are unconstitutional.”

Several public speakers voiced strong opposition to the proposal Tuesday night. Alameda resident Brian Kennedy displayed a large photograph of Kate Steinle, who was murdered last year in San Francisco by an undocumented immigrant with a lengthy criminal record. Steinle’s death was a major early campaign talking point for Trump, who strongly opposes sanctuary cities. “Because of this policy, which you are trying to bring here, is costing American lives and she’s not the only one,” said Kennedy.

And not every councilmember viewed the sanctuary city issue with as much urgency. Mayor Trish Spencer voted to move along the sanctuary city referral, but preferred for the issue to include the city’s Social Service Human Relations Board, which held a meeting on the topic last month.

Doing so, however, would likely slow down the process for enacting legislation, said Oddie. “We need to take the man at his word,” Oddie said of Trump and suggestions he would immediately begin deporting undocumented immigrants shortly after his inauguration. “I don’t think we can afford to wait.”

7 comments:

  1. By MW:

    However Alameda County DA Nancy O'Malley lives in the CITY of Alameda, and not all that long ago in regard to a proposed major road construction project, she was against it, since she felt the existence of that road would cause more people from Oakland to come into Alameda, and she said she believed that would have caused Alameda's crime rate to increase.

    So before the city of Alameda goes ahead with this, it should get O'Malley's "wisdom" on the issue.

    NOTE: It is always amusing when the phonies and windbags who pretend to be liberals are put in a situation in which the social programs they say they are in favor of will be implemented in their own neighborhood rather than only in someone else's. However, O'Malley is a lawyer. And since I want to keep my own neighborhood at least slightly respectable, therefore I am going to try to get a law passed making it illegal for lawyers to move into my neighborhood, or even come in for a visit.

    When I myself was a teenager and also still in my early twenties, I was one of the most extreme liberals to be found anywhere, and also was firmly convinced that high ranking Republicans were evil and/or stupid, and that the big boys in the Democratic Party were kind, good, and sincere people and dedicated to improving society.

    However eventually I came to the realizations that: one, most of the big boys in the DP were nothing more than phonies, windbags, and demagogues; and two, when it came to racial integration, most liberals were in favor of integrating someone else's neighborhood, but not their own.

    ReplyDelete
  2. By MW:

    For the highest ranking members of the Democratic Party, in other words the phonies who pretend to be liberals, there are at least three major pluses of having sanctuary ordinances.

    One, people who are poor and/or recent immigrants usually vote Democrat. And that is now even far more important to the DP, since it has been getting slaughtered in recent elections. For details, check the present number of D's vs. R's in the House of Representatives vs. about ten or twelve years ago. So especially with the DP also starting to lose the blue collar white vote, it desperately needs the Hispanic vote, and in fact an increasing Hispanic vote, if it is not to fade into oblivion.

    Two, the great liberals and wonderful humanitarians that compose the top leadership of the DP want easy access to plenty of extremely low cost slave labor, and for both themselves and their donors, on their major construction projects, and which generally means undocumented aliens of Hispanic background.

    Three, wealthy Democrats, and no matter how much they pretend to be great liberals and wonderful humanitarians, in their own households love to employ low cost undocumented alien slave labor as gardeners, cooks, maids, general household help, and live in babysitters.

    And the three above items are the real reasons the bigshots in the DP are in favor of sanctuary ordinances.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Oddie said he could never live with himself if some of Trump’s heated rhetoric against undocumented immigrants and Muslims were actually implement while he stood idle."

    All one has to do is look across the bay at SF to see the folly of another sanctuary city, all things considered. By that I mean: Ideologically, a sanctuary city MIGHT, make sense, but I'm no longer convinced of that. I was once a proponent and had deep compassion for illegal aliens as a whole. As the years have passed I have watched this group continue to gain power; learned of the astronomical and escalating amounts of money thrown at this group; their criminal element, which is formidable, violent and costly on many levels; the stripping bare of social services which they've devoured, etc., etc., my attitude slowly began to change. The deaths of three family members in '08: ""brutally and senselessly murdered" Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16, after mistaking one of the sons for a gang rival", turned me around completely. I refuse to invoke the name of the murderer but please google, if you somehow are not aware of this tragedy. I have to assume the majority of readers is familiar with the Kathrine Steinle case, if not the Bologna family.

    The sanctuary was to meant to provide safety to individuals who faced the possibility of imprisonment, torture or death in their homeland, due to their political activism. It was never meant to be extended to entire countries, such as Guatemala, for example. Nor was it EVER meant TO PROTECT gang members and MURDERERS. But, as most people should know by now, this is exactly how SF has come to interpret or apply the sanctuary city policy.

    For anyone who may doubt the amount of power this group and their advocates have gained, please go to Mission Local's site. After you've read through it for a couple of wks. you'll see what I'm talking about. One would think that the group would be grateful and express that but, unfortunately, that doesn't happen to be the case. In fact, it seems to me that they get what they want and then they want more.

    Salinas is twenty minutes from Carmel, where I live, and provides a very high percentage of the work force on the Monterey Peninsula. It's majority Mexican, a sanctuary city and a murder capital run by gangs. However, obviously most people who live there are decent, hard-working human beings and those individuals, whom I interact with daily, I continue support and have compassion for.

    Sanctuary city policy is terribly misguided and I urge the voters of Alameda not to support this policy. Educate yourselves as soon as possible so that you'll be prepared to argue against it with facts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If Oddie really wants to make a difference, perhaps he should begin to build a movement to oppose the Muslim registry. No one else is doing that and, imo, it's far more necessary than another sanctuary city that doesn't work. Of course that would not be anywhere near as popular and since this guy is pandering for votes, he won't do that. And, if he's serious when he says he couldn't live with not doing something about these issues, there are plenty of bridges around the bay. (JK)

    Bringing this looooong post to an end, I'd like to say this. One of the BIGGEST CONCERNS of mine regarding all the $$$ thrown at illegal aliens is that, as I see it, the low-income AFRICAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES are the biggest losers in this equation. The money to support all the programs benefitting illegal alien communities, around the bay and beyond, has to come from somewhere. Since there is a finite supply of money, I believe it's evident that other programs are cut in order to finance this. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that most of the money comes from cutting programs for other groups of people. Clearly, and particularly in East Bay cities, programs for low-income and disadvantaged AFRICAN AMERICANS take the biggest hit. I'm talking about US citizens versus illegal aliens, and this disturbs me immensely because it is clearly WRONG and it needs to end. My goal is not to pit one group against another but to RIGHT A WRONG. Please, good people of Alameda, educate yourselves on this issue now, if you haven't already. IT'S A AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AND TIME IS OF THE ESSENSE (from the sound of it). Perhaps consider it as a NY's resolution to learn about the illegal alien issue and how the programs that support them are funded.

    To anyone who bothered, thank you for reading. Mele Kalikimaka one and all and all the best in 2017!!!

    Peace

    ReplyDelete
  5. No Sanctuary City!

    We will not tolerate hate crimes in our community. Neither will we tolerate hate hoaxes, nor any “false-flag” acts designed to enflame public anger.

    We want to be protected from violent criminals, regardless of their immigration status, and want to ensure that no policies are adopted in Alameda that would prevent the police from doing so.

    We do not want to see well established hardworking families disrupted, but neither do we want to promote Open Borders. After we have secured our borders, we want to see a comprehensive solution that includes how to deal with the immigration status of the tens of millions of illegal aliens. But, not before.

    We understand the difference between legal and illegal immigration, and strongly support legal immigration. We want secure borders, and believe that referring to each group simply as “immigrants” insults the tens of millions who have worked diligently to secure their legal residency or citizenship.
    We are tired of the clichés, slogans and sophomoric bumper sticker philosophies, including “No human being is illegal”. Is Francisco Sanchez welcome here? Are pedophiles welcome here? Would you welcome President Donald Trump here?

    We have been told that Alameda must act immediately without due study, consideration or public comment. That the projected need is so urgent, that we must strike first before even knowing what specifically we are reacting to.

    If the Federal Government issue mandates that are clearly unconstitutional, we will stand with you shoulder to shoulder to oppose them. But, we will not support policies that respond to fear mongering nor hypothetical scenarios. We have heard tales of “mass arrests”, “internment camps”, and repetitions of the Holocaust, all unfounded. We have grown increasingly frustrated by State and local governments legislating privileges and benefits for illegal aliens while adamantly refusing to enforce Federal Law.
    I would remind you of your Oath of Office: “I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”. Article 1 Section 6 Clause 4 of the Constitution clearly states: “Congress shall have the Power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization.” Congress, NOT City Councils.

    ReplyDelete
  6. By MW:

    If Donald Trump is smart, he will drastically reduce federal funding, and especially including in regard to infrastructure repairs, to the insane asylums that want to be basically sovereign states by declaring themselves sanctuary cities.

    And since the fire at the Ghost Ship warehouse, and which caused thirty-six deaths, will cause a demand for extremely increased funding for building inspections, homeless shelters, and more firefighters, and lately the Bay area has also been hit hard by old underground water mains breaking open, an item that all by itself will cost a fortune in infrastructure repairs, it shall be fascinating to see how long the demagogues and charlatans in the local city halls will continue calling for their towns to be sanctuary cities.

    ReplyDelete
  7. By MW:

    As a followup to my immed above post, within the last two weeks a large underground water main in SF broke wide open, and it supposedly had been installed in 1895, in other words about 120 years ago, another large water main in SF also broke open, and that one was "only" about 80 or 90 years old, a very old underground water main in San Jose also broke wide open, and most likely probably also plenty more very old large underground water mains in the Bay area broke open that I didn't hear about.

    And for years it has been estimated that in many of our older cities, and such as for instance NY, Chicago, and SF, etc, of every three gallons pumped only about two gallons actually arrives, in other words one gallon, or about one-third, is lost to underground water leaks.

    So a very large percentage of the US is extremely old and is falling apart and needs to be rebuilt.

    However the phonies who pretend to be liberals want to spend huge sums we cannot possibly afford on issues related to sanctuary ordinances and various other "liberal" nonsense.

    ReplyDelete