As a sort-of companion to the Sunday article profiling a Newhall day laborer, Jonathan Randles of The Signal also penned an article entitled “City lacks power to regulate illegal immigrants.”
Since the early 1990s, Santa Clarita officials have considered plans to address day laborers in the city, but the city can’t do much to address the problem because issues related to illegal immigration are handled by the federal government, city officials said.
In 1996 the Santa Clarita City Council adopted an ordinance that attempted to regulate day laborers in the city, said Mike Murphy, the city’s intergovernmental relations officer.
In a recent SCVTalk post (“Santa Clarita is Not Tecate“, Feb 1), a series of questions was posed to the SCVTalk community regarding the appropriateness of illegal immigration as an issue for the City Council:
- Before the roadshow from Antelope Valley and Hesperia rolled into town, was this a topic of concern for the City Council election? Is it now?
- What exactly do you expect the Santa Clarita City Council do about illegal immigration?
- Does illegal immigration trump the myriad other City Council priorities?
In the 45 responses to this post, not one answered the questions directly; however, there were two constructive suggestions:
Option 1 – “Enforce the Law”
From Rocky:
The City Council can direct the Sheriff Dept. to enforce the law, or if they are not, to ask why not. If they are not, it might be a good argument for Santa Clarita to have their own police department.
Currently, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s department protocol mirrors the LAPD – the Sheriff’s department only reports immigration status to the Feds when arrestees are booked. This has been upheld in court a number of times, including a January 2010 challenge. Sorry, Rocky, nothing the City Council can do here – and I’m not sure establishing our own police force to skirt this issue amidst an $817k deficit is particularly feasible. Supposing we went down this path, we’d end up in front of the same judges…
Option 2 -”Make Noise and Get Noticed”
As elected officials they have more access to more powerful people. They can make noise and get noticed.
It seems to me that the Santa Clarita City Council can issue a strong resolution directing the state and federal representatives to ensure enforcement of existing law and to make other legislation that deals with illegal immigration in a serious manner.
With due respect to SCVfan, we’ve already made noise and have gotten noticed (internationally, actually), though I’m not sure if the attention was all positive.
Rocky, if a resolution is all it would take to get this crowd quiet–much as I might possibly disagree with the message–it would be non-binding and therefore a meaningless paper tiger. It would also involve expense to outside counsel to review and advise on the wording.
Problem is, the outcome on passing a resolution like this is, at best, neutral. At worst, it would draw more attention to our City, possibly the kind that would make businesses think twice about relocating here. The business community already has jitters related to our esteemed foot-in-the-mouth Councilman.
Option 3: Prohibit Solicitation
For purposes of rounding out the list, I’ll add this one. The City Council could prohibit day laborers from soliciting work on the streets. Again, from Mr. Randles reporting, this was already tried in the mid-nineties:
Santa Clarita adopted the ordinance from Los Angeles County and other cities in Southern California with similar laws, Murphy said.
Federal courts determined the county’s ordinance violated citizens’ First Amendment rights, Murphy said.
As a result, the ordinance is not used by Santa Clarita, he said.
Some communities, most of which are outside LA County, have retained such ordinances. As referenced in the Feb 3 Daily Brief, Costa Mesa was recently slapped with a lawsuit from day laborers in response to an undercover police sting enforcing the rule. More lawsuits, more costs. Is there any doubt Costa Mesa will dial back the ordinance? I’ll bet they don’t even appeal a lower court ruling.
What is the end game?
Prolific contributor Berta González-Harper gave an impassioned, detailed narrative on why and how the US should deport those who are here illegally. Berta, I respectfully disagree (as you very well know 
) — but even so, can you please advise how the City Council can affect something that is clearly under the purview of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement?
Across town, Mr. Bossert goes so far as to implore attendees of the next CC meeting to “ask the question again during the public comment section; ask each Council member what their position is on illegal immigration.”
Why don’t we ask them about their position on healthcare, gays in the military, bank regulations, NASA funding? All of these issues affect SCV residents in some way, right? So WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO ABOUT IT ?!
It strikes me as odd that folks like Mr. Bossert and Mr. Jorge who don’t live in the City of Santa Clarita continue to advise City residents which issues are relevant.
I personally welcome the debate about a path forward on illegal immigration. In my view, mass deportation ignores the sanctuary policies that have accommodated many who have made a life here, and there are innocent, naturalized citizens that irrevocably complicate the problem. The US also would benefit from this fast-growing demographic as our boomers age–both in tax revenue and for the long term viability of this country. In my mind, for both practical and humane reasons, the United States needs to establish objective criteria for legalizing these immigrants, deport those that don’t meet the criteria, secure our borders, and punish employers who skirt the system. This is a great debate to have for our upcoming congressional elections.
In the interim, though, can we keep our City Council election to local issues — please?
Loading ...
Thanks NickelDime. Good points.
There is one thing that this City Council could actually do that would be meaningful. They can pass an ordinance that requires employers to use the e-Verify system in determining employment eligibility.
It is my understanding that many California cities require it, and enforcement comes with significant fines for violations.
However, I have no particular expertise in the subject. Others may want to opine.
ND: I apologize in advance for the length of my post but there is a lot of ground to cover. I do not purport to have all of the answers but I will offer some suggestions that the City of Santa Clarita could probably implement reasonably quickly:
When requesting bids from anyone wanting to do business with the City such as landscaping companies, contractors, architectural firms, sign companies, paving companies, etc, require that all persons working for those companies must provide documentation they are legally allowed in the United States. If the company fails to provide verification of the status of their employees, they are ineligible to do business with the city. E-verify is another tool used to determine legal status of employees in other cities. All employers in Santa Clarita should be required to use this tool. If preference can be given to “shop local” that concept can be extended to “shop legal” too.
Draft a resolution declaring Santa Clarita is not a Sanctuary City and send it to all of our elected officials as well as all churches within the city limits. Write a letter from the City to all of our elected representatives including President Barak Obama, Congressman McKeon, Senators Boxer and Feinstein, State Representatives Runner, Strickland, and Smyth and any others I may have missed. This letter should detail the concerns residents have enumerated regarding the failure of our Federal Government to enforce current Immigration Law and demanding that they address this issue in Washington soon. Review with City Attorney Carl Newton our contract with the Los Angeles Sheriff Department to ascertain whether there is more our City can do to require enforcement within city limits. I know there are cities in California and Arizona that vigorously enforce immigration law, detain illegal immigrants, and turn them over to INS for deportation. Referring to Sherriff Joe Arpaio in Arizona, Kris Kobach, former counsel to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and a professor of law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, told CNSNews.com that there is a federal statute that addresses immigration law and local law enforcement.
“Federal law does expressly authorize state and local police to make immigration arrests of previously deported felons who return to the United States and are in the country unlawfully,” Kobach said. “That federal statute is found at 8 U.S.C. 1252c. In addition, as the U.S. Department of Justice officially recognized in 2002, state and local police possess the inherent authority to arrest illegal aliens and detain them briefly in order to transfer them to federal custody,” Kobach added.
“Those are two forms of arrest authority that Sheriff Arpaio possesses, apart from Section 287(g) authority,” Kobach said.
If Sherriff Arpaio possesses that arrest authority so does Sherriff Baca.
Our Santa Clarita City Council can challenge the reported number of foreign language speakers within the City since I believe the methodology used is flawed. If accurate numbers reflect less limited English speakers than the percentage stated, where unfunded mandates kick in, then stop providing information in foreign languages and embark on a PR campaign to promote enrollment in ESL classes by non-English proficient speakers. Challenge the validity of these many mandates from Washington to provide services for illegals, which the Federal Government does not fully repay to California taxpayers. The Federal Government should pay for 100% of these services out of federal coffers such as housing illegal criminals, educating all these children, providing Medical, etc since we apparently have no say but are paying the tab as California taxpayers. If we can challenge the BLM on Cemex, we can challenge the feds on illegal immigration enforcement too.
Our Federal Government must vigorously enforce current immigration laws, deport those here illegally, or residents throughout states like Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas, which are unfairly burdened with these costs, should form our own tea party and stop paying federal taxes.
Additionally our City Council can pass and enforce local ordinances regarding how many people can live in one residence. The Boarding House Ordinance is a step in the right direction but we need something which addresses the maximum number of people to a house even if they are related which the BHO does not address.
I am sure the Sherriff’s Deputies can enforce public health and safety laws when persons gather without adequate toilet facilities and are urinating and defecating on public or private property, public intoxication, and nuisance and noise ordinances. They can also perform more gang sweeps where they apparently do ask legal status and turn people over to INS. I believe there probably is more, even with the current Federal restrictions notwithstanding, our City can do but I do not think there has been the will to it. That must change.
The people need to make their voices heard at all levels of government until our government is responsive and protects the interest of those in this country legally and paying the bills.
The INS has statutory authority under Title 8 USC Sec. 1357, and designated officers or employees of the Service have the power without warrant to interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to their right to be or to remain in the United States. The INS simply ignores this obvious opportunity to remove illegal aliens from the United States. The official policy of the INS, now Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (BICE), is to target employers of illegal aliens in an attempt to remove the reason why illegal aliens come to the USA. They are not even doing a very good job of that. The City can demand more BICE enforcement sweeps within the City.
Council Candidate David Gauny said, “There is case law that supports stronger enforcement locally and it should be discussed if our public wants to discuss it”. We should discuss this issue as a city. This could be an item for a City Council meeting Agenda. Well in advance of the meeting, the City Attorney can review case law and City Staff can review what other cities around the country have done or attempted to do to address the issue of illegal immigration.
I am sure there are plenty of other ideas out there. We just need to get the discussion going and get our elected officials at all levels of government to listen and act on our behalf!
Rocky:
Since that is a federal program, currently voluntary, the City could only enforce it with their own contractors and vendors, who could then probably skirt it by using subcontractors.
Ironically, with the full on Depression in construction nearly all of these companies could E-verify probably upwards of 95% of their current employees. Not so sure about the restaurants and small manufacturers in town.
Kudos to BGH for laying out a number of solid ways to address this issue locally. She cites attorney and Professor Kris Kobach who has successfully lobbied for stronger immigration enforcement at the local level. Some of his work has been appealed and upheld and are now case law.
Our city’s “nothing more can be done” approach is very flawed and it’s a cancer that’s spread to other important issues like consideration of small business needs and over-development without a plan for high paying jobs. We are late to the party in many areas and the self-congratulating needs to stop.
We love to say we’re a small town and fill council meetings with talk of dog licensing and mag-lev trains but both are arguably much further off the mark than dealing with local impacts of illegal immigration on our City Council agenda.
And please don’t misquote me: I agree that there are more pressing local issues and I never planned to make this a campaign agenda item. However, I do not want the “do nothing” answer rammed down my throat any longer. Stories of hurting illegal immigrants should not replace our legitimate public’s right to have our council hear and discuss this issue on an agenda. This is an obligation to our citizens – burying it is a disservice.
There is no question that more can be done. This may not mesh with your agenda and it’s up to you whether you want to include the facts in your writings. Unfortunately, our City Council does not have this same privilege and ducking them is wholly unacceptable.
While I believe illegal immigration is an issue, I don’t want my city to spend money on enforcing regulations that is to be done by the federal government. That is why I pay federal taxes. Should the City regulate gays in the miltary? Same concept in my opinion.
I rather have our City spend money on improving local transportation infrastructure, building and maintaining parks, and police that protect our city from actual crime like robberies. This is what I want my sales and local property taxes to pay for.
Anything more the City does would be an inefficient use of local taxpayer funds.
Mr. Gauny, I am very tempted to vote for you for the next election, but this stance on illegal immigration in pushing the City to infringe on duties of the federal government and potentially wasting the City’s money has lost my vote.
Bertha, I know you’re a big fan of only giving out accurate information as pointed out in SCVTalk’s KROQ post. I need to point out that you incorrectly spelled the President’s name. Its spelt Barack not Barak.
Dave, if there are more pressing local issues, why haven’t we heard you address any of them in weeks? It seems that you found a sexy wedge issue and have tied your campaign to it. Along with that, you’ve embraced far-right extremists like Roger Gitlin and posted partisan material like the videos from NotaFerryFan.
At the moment, your campaign looks uninspired, unoriginal, divisive and under-funded. Choking on smug.
You never did elaborate on your magical powers of spotting illegal immigrants on the street. How do you do that?
Linda Brown says: “I rather have our City spend money on improving local transportation infrastructure, building and maintaining parks, and police that protect our city from actual crime like robberies. This is what I want my sales and local property taxes to pay for.”
I understand your position but it’s worth reminding that $1.5 Billion (with a “B”) of our property taxes are being spent directly on school, healthcare, and welfare to pay for illegal immigration; this in LA County alone. RE: your desire to fight crime, talk to a Sherriff about the impact of SoCal gang’s and the roots that many have in illegal immigration. Our city did not approve the recommended gang task force in the last budget and that is becoming a problem in our city.
That said, let me clarify my stance on illegal immigration and hopefully save your vote: I think we should put it on the agenda. 90% of the problem here could be solved if we simply allowed our people to speak to the issue, share ideas, and be heard.
I have not advocated spending money in enforcement but I do personally wonder if there are more low cost ideas to enforce the laws than our sitting council members have discovered. If there is case law on the books, the cost to put them into action may be very cheap. Other than a few hours, what cost is there to any of us in hearing it at a council meeting?
Yes, my position is that we uphold our laws but I agree with you that it is largely a federal issue. But refusing to even hear new ideas on the topic is bad process and that is a VERY pervasive local problem in our city.
Mike: I’ve answered your question again and again. Agendize it and see what’s possible – nothing begets nothing. To say that I am using this as a wedge issue is simply laughable. I went to an endorsement meeting the other night with every other serious challenger in this race – you know what? EVERY question asked of us dealt with illegal immigration! Way off topic and keeping us from the many issues where the incumbents are weak. Not my choice by a long shot.
Request for platform points is duly noted – had a plan to get this out at the beginning of the month and have just been bombarded with 100s of email regarding Kellar and illegal immigration. Stay tuned…
For those advocating amnesty (i.e., those with a short or selective memory):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986
Ask yourself if the problem was “solved” in 1986.
David,
Thank you for taking the time to reply back to me. While you bring up good points regarding the funds spent for healthcare, school, and welfare; I guess it just doesnt irritate me that much.
What irritates me are others that think the City should spend every dollar possible to fight off illegal immigration. While I acknowledge your comment that some funds are being spent now that benefit illegal immigration, I just don’t see the extra expenditures to justify a small segment of the population that the City estimates is 7,000.
David, I know this is going off on a tangent but to me its exactly the same thing if someone said the City needs to close its borders to keep people who live in the unincorporated areas from using the City’s park and recreational programs or other city facilities.
I really dont see illegal immigration as a local issue. While people are entitled to their own opinion and I’m not trying to change it, I think it would be best for the people who felt strongly about illegal immigration take it to the appropriate forum (i.e., federal government).
Einstein’s definition of insanity is “doing the same thing and expecting different results.”
So I am waiting to hear “the new HOW.”
Like in the halftime show… “Meet the new boss… same as the old boss.”
I don’t think anyone is looking to our City Gov’t to provide Amnesty or the cost of enforcement of illegal immigrants. Just putting it on the agenda and opening it up for discussion would be nice. But they wont even do that.
@Nickel: You took Spine’s post way out to left field ….
Dave,
Glad to see that you will be moving on to more important things with this campaign, that you won’t be stoking this distraction any further. I’m glad that you’re such a rational and fair minded guy that would never share a stage with deranged racists. Right?
Right?
See you in a few of weeks.
Pingback: SCVTalk.com » Blog Archive » February 9, 2010 – Daily Brief