Moreno’s Proposed Charter Amendment Could Allow Illegal Immigrants To Serve On City Commissions

[Cross-posted from OC Daily.net]

The latest chapter of Anaheim Councilman Jose F. Moreno’s progressive agenda unfolded this week when he proposed an amendment to the Anaheim City Charter that would allow for illegal immigrants to be appointed to city commissions such as the Planning Commission.

Moreno said he had planned to bring this up at the next meeting of his and Mayor Tom Tait’s “Welcoming Anaheim” immigration task force, but took the occasion of the Tait majority’s radical overhaul of city boards and commissions to drop this progressive bomb:

Here’s the transcript:

Moreno: Actually, I was going to bring this up at the Welcoming Anaheim task force so I might as well bring it up now since it is timely. Per the charter, it says for the four charter-based commissions, that to be eligible to serve one must be a qualified elector. What does that mean, exactly, City Attorney?

Acting City Attorney Kristin Pelletier: I’m going to defer to the City Clerk but I think it means a registered voter. [City Clerk Linda Andal nods in agreement.]

Moreno: So, I’d like…I’ll discuss the agenda item but I’d like to bring a consideration that we amend our charter so that we could expand the number of people who live in our city who may not fit that particular designation, so one could be a legal resident, one could be a U.S. citizen but not registered to vote. So I think that if you live in the city of Anaheim, you should be eligible to serve on its commissions.  I was going to bring that up in the welcoming Anaheim Task Force, but maybe I don’t need to anymore. I’d like to consider that a future agenda item how we might change that – I guess through an amendment of the charter.

Pelletier: and a vote of the people.

Moreno: And a vote of the people. So…but I do think that will allow for more folks to participate in our critical commissions.

Apparently, asking aspiring city commissioners to merely register to vote is too high a bar in Councilman Moreno’s opinion. The euphemistic verbiage fails to obscure the true purpose: allow illegal immigrants to serve on city boards and commissions. If Moreno’s intent is limited to opening commission service to legal residents and US citizens who aren’t registered to vote, he’d proposes expanding edibility to legal residents and US citizens who aren’t registered to vote.

Instead, he proposes lowering the eligibility bar to “residents” of Anaheim. What is the only additional population brought in by such an eligibility reformulation? Moreno’s proposal necessarily permits the appointment of undocumented immigrants to serve on city boards and commissions.

And that should surprise no one given Moreno’s own views on immigration, which are squarely in the mainstream – if it can be called that – of radical progressive politics, where immediate legalization and citizenship for all illegal immigrants is an article of faith.  Ancient, time-honored ideas of citizenship are considered archaic and reactionary – or worse. Citizenship is drained of meaning when its rights and privileges are bestowed on non-citizens.

Again, anyone who thinks this is far-fetched need only look northward to the progressive Eden of San Francisco, where voters last November passed a ballot measure allowing non-citizens to vote in school board elections. It would be instructive to ask Councilman Moreno and allies such as AUHSD Board of Education member Al Jabbar, Superintendent Mike Matsdua or AESD Board member Ryan Ruelas if they favor doing the same in their school districts?

Even discarding the current “qualified elector” requirement is short-sighted and wrong. Is it too much to ask that people seeking appointment to a city commissions also bother to participate in the electoral process? Think about it: are people who can’t even be bothered to register to vote really the stuff of which wise and vigorous commissions are made? Moreno’s ostensible pretext for changing the eligibility requirement withers under even cursory consideration.

Also, the fact that Moreno was planning to unveil this proposal at the next Welcoming Anaheim meeting should be big red flag for those who suspect it is a vehicle for creeping sanctuary city status.

If Councilman Moreno actually does ask the city council to place such a charter amendment on the ballot, they should oblige him. It would be clarifying to have the citizens of Anaheim weigh in on whether they support or oppose traducing the idea and meaning of citizenship in this Republic.

 

55 comments

  1. Sick of Politics

    How do we find out who is on this Welcoming Anaheim board? Are they all citizens and residents of Anaheim? Who selected them?

    • Um, go to a meeting like a lot of us did?

      • The last meeting was in the morning on a weekday. Some of us have jobs.

        • Yeah, but those of us who went reported. Between Matt’s reporting and mine, you have a pretty good idea who was there. (Though I didn’t get down every name.)

          • Shouldn’t this be an area the city is transparent about?

          • Actually I kind of agree with you on that. I’m like waiting-and-seeing if I can be convinced of what’s dangerous about transparency in this case.

            Still, none of you people here seem to grasp that this task force can only come up with recommendations; once those are come up with, they’ve gotta go to the council for a full public and noticed vote, so it’s NOT THAT BIG OF A DEAL RIGHT NOW.

            • Did you share the same view of the citizens advisory committee on district elections?

              • Exactly right. That committee could “only” make recommendations, and yet OCCORD, UNITE-HERE and the rest directed a lot of time, energy and expense into dominating that process in order to secure their preferred recommendations.

                The panel of judges charged with overseeing the mapping process could “only” make recommendations, yet the same progressive groups – as folks like Vern and Greg Diamond – invested a huge effort into controlling that process in order to secure their preferred recommendation.

                So the “they can only make recommendations” argument rings a little hollow.

              • Um, my bringing up “they can only make recommendations” is not an argument that they shouldn’t be transparent.

                It’s an argument that you guys don’t have to have fever dreams that they’re going to secretly make Anaheim a *gasp* “Sanctuary City” without a public vote of the Council.

                Which by the way, we already are anyway, if you happen to have read the Orange Juice Blog lately.

                • I’ve never said the city will “secretly make Anaheim a Sanctuary City” – and neither had any commenter (to my recollection).

                  So you can retire that particular straw man argument, Vern.

                  But I think you would agree that the reason Jose Moreno is ideologically de-clawing himself on this and issues like the anti-camping ordinance is because he’s facing re-election in 2018 – with its lower, more conservative electorate – instead of 2020. If Moreno carried out his campaign promises on those two issues alone, he would be cutting his re-election throat.

            • That was transparent as it should have been, even though hardly anybody went to it. My first instinct is this should be transparent as well. But Jose says they will be talking to a lot of people who need to feel free to speak openly and could be intimidated by public and media.

              I trust Jose more than you guys do, but I don’t trust any politician 100%. I’d like to see some of these meetings if they let me in, and re-assure myself that his reasoning makes sense.

              I hope to even report from them, while leaving out the identities of people who need their identities left out.

              Again, this is just coming up with recommendations which’ll be voted on publicly. And stop worrying your little heads about “sanctuary cities,” Anaheim already is one, just like all of OC.

              (Matt this is not “blog-whoring” because I link to YOU in this story and others) … http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2017/03/is-anaheim-already-a-sanctuary-city/

              • Gosh, thanks for the link, Vern. Would you like me to apply a derogatory description of you any time your name is mentioned in an Anaheim Blog?

                Furthermore, your claim that every OC city is a sanctuary city is just plain wrong. You’ve re-defined the term to apply to any city where the police force is not enforcing federal immigration law nor actively seeking to identify illegal immigrants in custody. That is very different from actively refusing to cooperate with federal immigration agents, or even impede them – which is what sanctuary status is commonly understood to be.

                • No, I am using the accepted definition that I find everywhere. You prefer to cherish the term as a bugaboo, but it’s what we’ve been living with for ten years – DE FACTO SANCTUARY – and our crime has decreased, and immigration has zeroed out.

                  • “Accepted” by whom?

                    You’re trying to re-define the political toxicity of issue away, and here you’re trying to establish irrelevant correlations with crime and illegal immigration levels (I’m assuming you meant illegal immigration, even though progressives tend not to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration).

                  • Vern, never mind these bozos. They are the types that support ICE raids at churches and places of worship.

                    Wait….that didn’t really happen….

  2. Apparently, asking aspiring city commissioners to merely register to vote is too high a bar in Councilman Moreno’s opinion.

    I vote.

    Why would any council person want to push for illegal immigrants to be on city boards and commissions?

    Because LOOK at Moreno. He wants a sanctuary city, and he is what is wrong with Anaheim.

    GET OUT MORENO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. This welcoming task force is in itself “not welcoming”. Do they set the times to make it easy for people to go and view what is going on? No, they do not. The organizers have been very cautious with information. The citizens of Anaheim need to demand for full transparency of this board. Who made up the board? How was it formed? Who selects who is on the board? Who leads the board? The people of Anaheim must demand FULL transparency in Anaheim, to include all boards, commissions, task forces, focus groups, and especially the city council. They need to televise and post all of the aforementioned groups. Citizens of Anaheim must pay attention.

  4. This idea and the AUSD idea is so poorly thought out its laughable. The same folks who worry about federal immigration officials randomly detaining and then deporting folks from public places are basically providing a venue for that to occur. So now an unlawfully entered alien will serve on a commission where they could be detained at the very meeting they attend. And voter registration which is not private will provide the same ability by filtering it against county voter roles. AWESOME IDEA MORONS!!!!

  5. Moreno isfullofit

    He wants to include his people in all parts of the city so then they can make a disaster, as they have done to the school districts in Anaheim.

  6. A legal resident is not ILLEGAL. Why are we twisting the truth? Moreno wants a to define the language which/ or if we do we do need to include ILLEGALS CAN NOT be on any commission.

    • Councilman Moreno said he wants extend eligibility to “residents.” An undocumented immigrant who lives in Anaheim is a resident of Anaheim. If he wants to allow legal residents and citizens who aren’t registered to vote to serve on city commissions, he would ask for specific language to that effect. But reducing it merely “resident” encompasses all residents, regardless of their legal status.

      • Again, his action will only serve to ID those who are illegally present. So now they will be at a public place for detention. D. U. M. B.

        • Undocumented is another status completely. He said in the video legal resident if he stated UNDOCUMENTED the then has gone completely nuts.

          • He said anyone who lives in Anaheim should be able to serve on a commission.

            • Putting aside your obvious distain for the man’s position . . .

              Why shouldn’t any resident be able to serve?

              That doesn’t seem so unreasonable. Would love to hear what you think is so negative about that, particularly since it’s fairly common to have this standard in other cities.

              • The burden for making the case is on the proponent. Why shouldn’t the city require that commissioners be registered to vote? It strikes me as a pretty know bar to require that potential commissioners participate in the governance of the city by voting. Is there any evidence that limiting commission service to registered voters is creating a commissioner shortage? It requires very little effort to register to vote. Are we supposed to believe there are people out there who are too lazy to register to vote but are on fire to be an Anaheim city commissioner?

                Furthermore, Moreno’s proposal would permit anyone, even an illegal immigrant, to serve on a city commission. That’s privilege should be limited to citizens, as one of the prerogatives of citizenship.

                I am a proponent of immigration. It is good for the country. I support a pathway to citizenship for so-called Dreamers, a pathway to legal residency for otherwise law-abiding illegal immigrants, and think deportations should focus on criminal illegal immigrants.

                But I am opposed to those progressive activists out there who espouse policies that, in practice, erase the distinction between citizenship and non-citizenship.

                • I knew you wouldn’t answer the question.

                  Better than just deleting it outright I suppose.

                  In any case, heads up to the majority of OC cities that do not require an elector to serve their neighbors: Matt Cunningham thinks you’re erasing the distinction between citizenship and non-citizenship by not having over your papers before volunteering. It’s a miracle any of us have survived in puesdo anarchy for so long.

                  • Actually, I did answer it. Maybe you were too busy twisting my response to finish reading it.

                    Do you think simple residency – which would include undocumented immigrants – is sufficient to serve on an Anaheim city commission?

                    • Simple residency may be an appropriate hurdle for certain commissions, yes. It may be too much for others. Many cities allow people who work in a community, non-resident property owners, or non-profit representatives to serve on a commission, which may add an important perspective to the advice being rendered to the body of elected officials actually charged with making decisions.

                      The standard of a qualified elector isn’t a bad one. Not using it also isn’t wrong, nor does it equate with eroding the definition of a citizen, which is ridiculous.

                      Rather than focus on some obscure idea about errosion, maybe focus on contrasting value generated by the change versus unintended consequences. You look like a stick stuck in the mud rejecting all change because you hate what the guy proposing the change represents.

          • Apparently the charter requires registered voters now. Changing to anything else will simply allow us to sift out who isn’t supposed to be in this country.

  7. Those who live and vote in Anaheim should be the ones that have a say in what happens in Anaheim. How is this even a question?

  8. What is happening in Anaheim? or should I say What is happening to Anaheim?

  9. Where is the District 4 leadership?

  10. Next comes voting for local elections in Anaheim (and elsewhere) for those in our country illegally. I said this a couple of years ago.

  11. News flash. Vern Nelson says Tom Tait behind deportation of 100 Katino immigrants. Film at 11. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Donna Acevedo’s first husband was one of them?

    • Um, Councilman Tom Tait along with a LOT of other people – I also mentioned Loretta – as well as probably the whole Anaheim council at the time and the police leadership.

      And there’s no humor to the part about Donna’s first husband, who you may not realize got stabbed to death in Mexico and his kids never saw him again and had to grow up without a dad.

      And no, you’re not the first to think of this. Mayor Tait sincerely apologized to Donna for backing the policy that got her husband deported and killed.

      • Anaheim has less than 400 officers on staff. This includes the cadets in training which lowers the actually number of officers that are ready and able to serve. We need to “band the drum on that.” Why is this number an actual when our city is so large. Who is running our city and allowing these things to happen? Why do we have so few? Why is it a question to have voting residents on task forces? Who is running our city? Why are we allowing this and how do we stop it? Please write about the police force numbers and how we are expected to have a lawful existence when we are outnumbered?

  12. Matt: “You’re trying to re-define the political toxicity of issue away…”

    Well you’re half right. I’m trying to defuse the political toxicity of this (really) non-issue. I’m not re-defining anything. Go look for a definition of “sanctuary city” that Anaheim and the rest of OC doesn’t already fit. You’ll have to look hard.

    Matt: “… and here you’re trying to establish irrelevant correlations with crime and illegal immigration levels…”

    No. Insecure white people are terrified of “sanctuary” because they’ve been taught by Trump and FOX that it will lead to another Kate Steinle in everywhere every day. Defuse: We’ve had sanctuary everywhere and crime has gone down. (Also, read my story more closely, and watch the funny but true Samantha video – crime is a little bit lower in OFFICIAL sanctuary cities.)

    Matt… “I’m assuming you meant illegal immigration [has zeroed out] even though progressives tend not to make the distinction between legal and illegal immigration”

    No. Why would you think that? ALL immigration from south of the border zeroed out years ago, between Obama’s stringent enforcement, their improving economy, and our stagnant economy. Do you not know that? Read some things you don’t typically read, I try to.

    • Vern:

      Again, there is a very big difference from municipal police forces not proactively enforcing federal immigration laws (not really their job) and city councils directing their police departments to actively refuse cooperation with federal immigration authorities in order provide maximum sanctuary from deportation for people living here in violation on the law. The latter is what ordinary people think of when discussing sanctuary cities – your spin notwithstanding.

      “No. Insecure white people are terrified of “sanctuary” because they’ve been taught by Trump and FOX that it will lead to another Kate Steinle in everywhere every day.” What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Nice display of condescending progressive bigotry, Vern. Then again, it’s just that sort of progressive snobbery that helped elect Donald Trump.

      Opposition to sanctuary cities isn’t a phobia particular to your imagined population of “insecure white people.” According to polling, large majorities in every demographic and partisan group oppose sanctuary cities.

      Furthermore, the stabilization of illegal immigration, while welcome, isn’t really material vis-a-vis sanctuary cities – which are established with the goal of preventing the deportation of illegal immigrants already here.

      • “What ordinary people think of…” nice display of conservative bigotry, Matt.

        When I say “insecure white people,” I’m sure you play that two-adjectives trick to gin up your outrage. Of course I’m talking about white people who are insecure, not saying they all are.

        And I don’t know about this polling that says everybody hates sanctuary cities; if it’s there, I’d like to see how the question was asked. If true, it’s because of how YOUR side has redefined Sanctuary as something radical and dangerous, when we’ve all mostly had it for a decade.

        Poor Mark Lopez. He answered right!

        • Oh boy – is “ordinary people” now a “racist” phrase? When did progressive censors add that to the canon of forbidden phrases?

          As for polling: Google “sanctuary city polling.” It shows that your everyday person understands exactly what sanctuary cities are and what their proponents intend them to be – regardless of how much you complain or explain it away.

          So, if ICE contacted the Anaheim PD or Orange PD or Fullerton PD or the OCSD and said, “You’ve got so-and-so I custody. He’s in the country illegally” and asked the PD to honor the detainer request, then those PDs would REFUSE? Because that is what a sanctuary city is.

          But hey – if that is all it is, then please go to the next Anaheim City Council meeting and ask Jose Moreno to agendize a resolution declaring that Anaheim has always been a sanctuary city.

          • “So, if ICE contacted the Anaheim PD or Orange PD or Fullerton PD or the OCSD and said, “You’ve got so-and-so I custody. He’s in the country illegally” and asked the PD to honor the detainer request, then those PDs would REFUSE?”

            Um… you could still learn a bit from actually reading my story.

            • I did read it, Vern. As I noted earlier, it’s your attempt to re-define sanctuary city status because it’s another progressive nostrum that winds up hurting your side politically – because it exposes how out-of-touch progressives are with most Americans.

              Sorry, Vern – for most Americans, having their local governments actively obstruct the deportation of illegal immigrants is not a priority.

      • Jeez, that reminds me: I gotta go look up what Mark Lopez actually said, as you reported. As I remember, it was a good description of what Anaheim already does. And you, along with a lot of the GOP (and me!) used that to prove he “backed Sanctuary Cities…” and he was forced to make a very awkward robocall retraction.

  13. Crime has not gone down in Anaheim. Check your crime statistics, crime is up and Anaheim’s crime rate is up in particular.

  14. Matt: “for most Americans, having their local governments actively obstruct the deportation of illegal immigrants is not a priority.”

    Goob. I agree. Then we can both stop talking about this non-issue.

    The status quo in regards to local law enforcement and immigration has served us well for a decade, whatever we want to call it. (With the exception of Santa Ana, which wanted to, and was able to, go farther.)

    So, you stop waving that bloody rag, and I won’t have to keep writing tomes to debunk you. Good day, sir.

    • You’ll have to pardon me for declining to accommodate your political agenda.

      Also, my comment pertained to regular folks, not elected officials.

      Sanctuary cities are an issue because they are being pushed by progressives. It is an issue in Anaheim because progressive political forces have pushed it. The progressive coalition that organized that candidate forum explicitly asked candidates to support making Anaheim a sanctuary city (apparently the undocumented immigrant panelist who asked that question was unaware of your judgment that Anaheim and every other OC city are already sanctuary cities). Jose Moreno raised the roof with his answer; and there’s no reason to believe his current approach is anything more than a change in tone and tactics.

  15. Anaheim makes the first Declined Detainer Outcome Report.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Skip to toolbar