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”
SCVfan:
As elected officials they have more access to more powerful people. They can make noise and get noticed.
Rocky:
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?
