Kring Calls For Up-or-Down Vote On Sanctuary City Status

At last night’s Anaheim City Council meeting, veteran Councilmember Lucille Kring – who represents District 4 – called for an up-or-down vote on sanctuary city status for Anaheim at the next council meeting, scheduled for April 25.

The question of Anaheim becoming a sanctuary city has been bubbling up since the 2016 council campaign. Kring, an opponent of sanctuary cities, made the request during the first council communications segment of last night’s meeting, stating she wanted the matter settled.

Sanctuary cities have become a front-burner political issue since the Donald Trump’s election. The Trump Administration has made immigration law enforcement a top priority, and seeks to cut-off federal funds for sanctuary cities. The progressive Democrats in charge of state government are determined to make California the center of “resistance” to the enforcement of laws against illegal immigration – a radical determination embodied in Senate President Pro Tem Kevin De Leon legislation to make California a sanctuary state.

While there’s no precise legal definition of a sanctuary city, to paraphrase Justice Potter Stewart definition of pornography – you know if when you see it. Generally speaking, the public understands sanctuary city status to mean active non-cooperation with federal immigration authorities in order to prevent or interfere with the deportation of illegal immigrants.

District 3 Councilman Jose F. Moreno is most immediately impacted by having a yes-or-no vote on sanctuary city status come before the council.  He narrowly defeated Councilman Jordan Brandman last year, winning 36% of the vote in a presidential election with historically high Democratic turnout. Moreno has to run again in 2018 since he drew the two-year seat in the post-swearing in casting of lots.

Moreno has long advocated a fairly radical position on illegal immigration, and at progressive candidate forum last year he expressed his support for making Anaheim a sanctuary city.  However, he has cooled his rhetoric since drawing the two-year council seat. Although he frequently speaks from the dais about how Trump Administration impact undocumented immigrants in Anaheim, he has stopped short of fulfilling his pledged support for sanctuary city status. Instead, he and Mayor Tom Tait are piloting a “Welcoming Anaheim” immigration task force that many residents suspect is a Trojan Horse for advancing sanctuary city policies.

While California voters have a moderate attitude when it comes to aspects of illegal immigration such as pathways to legal status or citizenship for undocumented residents who otherwise law-abiding de facto Americans, they’re generally hostile to sanctuary cities since it entails official government support for violating immigration law, and associations with criminal behavior.

When Moreno runs for re-election in 2018, he’ll face a significantly smaller and likely more conservative  electorate than the one which narrowly elected him in 2016.

Moreno was nonplussed with Kring’s request: during council communications at the end of the meeting, he challenged her to define a sanctuary city. Mayor Pro Tem James Vanderbilt ruled that was a discussion more appropriate for when the agenda item and resolution are actually before the council.

 

63 comments

  1. They are voting California a Sanctuary state so it is inconsequential.

  2. We would have to be insane to have a sanctuary city anywhere in the US. By definition it means OPEN BORDERS for anyone to come in regardless of place or background. These racial nuts wants to destroy everything that make us great. Absolute fools have been elected. VOTE NO

    • Sanctuary City status simply means local law enforcement will not assist federal agents tasked with enforcing immigration laws. Local resources are thin enough. If you’re undocumented and there’s a warrant for your arrest, Sanctuary city status will not protect you. The Democratic Party passed a resolution calling on all OC elected – regardless of party – to support Sanctuary city status in their cities.

  3. Are we prepared to lose our federal funding? To have the state declared a “Sanctuary State” it has to pass three hurdles. Make no mistake no one is going to win here. With this vote and the gas tax Brown wants passed I am sad for us all.

  4. Wikipedia definition

    In the United States and Canada a sanctuary city is a city which permits residence by illegal immigrants to help them avoid deportation. Leaders of sanctuary cities want illegal immigrants to have less fear of deportation, so they will be more willing to report crimes, use health services or social welfare benefits and enroll their children in school. Municipal policies include prohibiting police or city employees from questioning people about their immigration status and not cooperating with the national government to enforce immigration law. [1] Such policies can be set expressly in law (de jure) or observed in practice (de facto), but the designation “sanctuary city” does not have a precise legal definition.[2][3] Supporters of local immigration enforcement argue that it supports the mission of federal agents, while opponents argue that the duty of federal agents does not belong to localities. [4] Legal opinions vary on whether immigration enforcement by local police is constitutional.

    • Dan Chmielewski

      Sanctuary City’s definition is far more definitive than the definition of a “Welcoming City.” It’s not about Open Borders at all.

      • Wikipedia definition

        Exactly my point! They should not call it a “sanctuary city” and if Julio and his gang wants to propose an ordinance he should deffinetely have the 40,000 anaheim employees he represents chip in to propose and bring in all the necessary documentation to back up such an ordinance.
        They are clinging on “sanctuary city” but is something more than just that, I may be wrong but I am sick and tired of all the hate and the violent rally’s they are havin ( they are deffinetely not afraid) Julio should change that narration.

  5. Moreno's shadow

    Jose needs to back up his campaign rhetoric. He’s a coward if he votes against this. Take note. He ought to wear a yellow tie for the next meeting. No courage.

    • Moreno never campaigned on the issue. That’s inconvenient, for anyone wanting to make this argument, but true. Check out his archived campaign website to see what he DID campaign on. This isn’t even mentioned, though plenty else is.

      Meanwhile, I’m just going to enjoy the comic spectacle of someone posting slams under a pseudonym calling Dr. Moreno a coward. Matt, EVEN YOU don’t think that makes sense, right?

      • You’re being disingenuous. Moreno came out in support of sanctuary city status for Anaheim in public, at a candidate forum. Just because he didn’t put it on his campaign website or include it in a mailer doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. According to your logic, an elected official can only be held accountable for statements and promises on his or her website, and not what they say on the campaign trail.

        • Greg made no such claim.

          Lucille Kringle did though. You had absolutely nothing to say about it either, Matt.

          • *Kring.

            Unintentional, but funny, auto-correct

            • The author is presumably talking about when Kring said that she didn’t have to honor the pledges that she had made to Tom Tait, in exchange for his (decisive) help getting her elected in 2012, because it wasn’t in her literature and she “never campaigned on it.”

              This situation isn’t anywhere near that bad. He was asked a question at a forum and answered it. BUT: the term “Sanctuary City” is ambiguous — as anyone who reads both you and your friend Dan C. knows from your wildly different interpretations of it — and there is no reason to think that he answered with an eye towards the expansive interpretation of the term that you ascribe to him.

              Now throw me a bone, Matt, and admit that the clandestine armchair ninja “Moreno’s Shadow” calling Dr. Jose Moreno a “coward” is pretty comical. Please, show that you haven’t lost ALL of your moorings!

  6. It’s true, if this vote happens Jose will have to vote yes. He did say he supported it during the campaign, and the world calls Lucille a liar for breaking all her campaign promises that weren’t in writing. So if Jose doesn’t want to be as notorious a liar as lucille, he’ll have to vote yes.

    But still, the real show is going to be police leadership and other city staff explaining what our policies already are, and the slippery efforts to actually define what sanctuary is and isn’t. Buckle your seatbelts all you long-meeting haters! You’re getting what you asked for.

    • If he isn’t allowed to specify EXACTLY WHAT HE MEANS BY THE TERM OPERATIONALLY AS PART OF SUCH A RESOLUTION, then not only does he not HAVE to vote “yes,” but he SHOULDN’T! If Lucille thinks that she’s going to get away with playing games with him, he should abstain.

      Luckily, Jose probably has the votes to replace whatever cockamamie resolution Kring introduces with a proper and legitimate resolution on the topic that is interested in the substance rather than the label. And then SHE can abstain. Kris can join her on that — and help Kring out by working up a good strong pout.

      • Shouldn’t even go to a vote.

      • Dan Chmielewski

        There is a DPOC resolution calling for all OC electeds to support Sanctuary Cities. Jose should proudly vote yes on this

        • And, by that reasoning, sole-Democrats-their-respective-Councils Melissa Fox in Irvine, Sergio Contreras in Westminster, Rose Espinoza in La Habra, Leticia Clark inTustin, Tita Smith in Orange, Jill Hardy in Huntington Beach, etc. should be introducing and trying to shine through ordinances in various cities as well, without regard to the political consequences for them or for the underlying issue. Yet somehow you are not busting *their* chops….

          I think that it should bother you more that nominal Democrats Miguel Pulido and Jose Solorio, after voting to don the pro-“Sanctuary City” sweatshirts, voted *directly in opposition to* that principle a few meeting afterwards. I read stinging criticism of both of them on one of the local blogs – having written it – but I don’t recall seeing it on your blog? Sort of strange, that – it’s like you don’t hold all Joses to the same standards.

          Anyway, I expect that it is of great comfort to you that at least one named person here – Matt – agrees that Jose should go out on a limb to support the label of “Sanctuary City” in Anaheim without regard to how to move public opinion there in the direction of supporting the most critical and central *content* of what those defending the rights of unauthorized residents of Anaheim care about most. It’s sort of like how I want Darrell Issa to vote for if you complete elimination of Social Security – not because I prefer the policy, but because I like the idea of him taking unpopular enough stands to sink him.

          • I don’t know how I missed this comment, but I was in Boston and New York for the weekend on college tours with my daughter and didn’t have a time of time to review blogs or comments, but I think our Democratic elected ought to take a stand for sanctuary cities simply because most Democrats do support this and it sends a positive message to the immigrant community which party supports them.

            The difference between these elected and Dr. Moreno and Jordan Brandman is both Moreno and Brandman campaigned on making Anaheim a sanctuary city; in fact, so did Mark Lopez (without using specific language).

            As far as posts I write versus what you write, I’ve closed four new pieces of business in the past 30 days and I’m super busy. I write what I can, when I can and there are some stories I can’t get to at all. Unlike you, I’m signing the front of paychecks and not the back of them.

        • Of course he should. But that doesn’t mean he will. Jose seems to be more concerned with Jose than he does with Anaheim and democratic principals.

          • Maybe LeTourneau and Diamond could write a resolution condemning Jose for a “no” vote. If Brandman voted no, it would be drafted.

            • Well, that seems to be the shared hope of both Matt and Dan C., as well as the occasional anonymous commenter.

              Personally, I’m not inclined to vote for empty promises, and I care more about the contents of the box than its branding.

  7. Jose knows exactly what the term sanctuary city means. He spoke out supporting this in recorded campaign forums on video. Now he’s hiding behind “Welcoming City” status which looks like a sorority girl’s oath to be nice to everyone. He’s weak. He’s obtuse. He’ll be gone in 2 years.

  8. You say potato, I say potato. With several “welcoming task force” meetings having taken place, they should have a clear idea of the purpose of what they want accomplish by assembling. Their lack of total transparency should be a good indicator.

    • I’m not sure if this is true but my neighbor told me that the principal at Anaheim high has not been completely on board with all of the race baiting politics and Al Jabbar hates her. My friend teaches at cypress high and said another teacher who’s husband is on the inside circle with Matsuda and Jabbar maybe he helps with bros? Anyway I guess she said they are getting rid of the principal at Anaheim high because of this. That’s just what I heard? True?

      • Wow! I know that she is loved and many parents and alumni will be very upset if this rumor is true. I wonder if Larry L has heard this?

  9. I’m actually very interested to see how each member of the council will vote on this question. I think its going to be fascinating to see how the OC GOP reacts to any yes votes from Republicans.

  10. 1. I already reported what Lucille told me over the phone – that the sole purpose is to force Jose to vote yes because that would be bad for him in 2018.

    2. We’ve already established that Anaheim has, for a decade now, had the policies associated with sanctuary, as does every city in the OC and probably almost all California cities.

    3. We know that Republican politicians, party and voters are allergic to the WORD “Sanctuary. ”

    4. The substitute motion to Lucille’s motion, for anyone who’s observed any parliamentary procedure, practically writes itself, and I predict will get 4 or 5 votes depending if Faessel wants to “hang with his team” or do the right thing – always unpredictable.

    Enjoy the meeting, it will be educational@

    • Now I think of it, MAYBE JUST MAYBE we could even count on Kris Murray, who after all did try to pass a resolution against Trump and his race-baiting.

      • She did. You and Diamond and Chuchua savaged her for it.

        • Well, there was that “illegality” problem with it….

          Her being anti-Trump itself was nice, wherever it came from and however long it was intended to last, but bashing a candidate by name is NOT a stance for a City Council to take on behalf of its city in the lead-up to a primary. Imagine that happening in a general election!

          Wait — you’re not a real person, so you can’t imagine anything! Forget it.

        • It was none of the city council’s business to weigh in one way or another on the Presidential election, plus, all things being equal I tend toward a cynical view of anything Murray and Brandman would attempt.

          • Vern, I tolerate a lot in the comments section – probably too much. But I have no tolerance for cheap accusations of racism. A proclivity for shouting “racist” is one of the worst, most unthinking attributes of contemporary progressives.

          • Interesting Point of View, Vern. Cities shouldn’t comment or intervene on a Prez election but it’s perfectly acceptable for a city to become a sanctuary for those breaking federal law????

            • Santa Ana and New York can do what they want. I’m happy with the Anaheim Police Department simply not getting involved in immigration enforcement. Like nearly every other city police force.

              I’m taking it you disagree. I’m taking it you want our Anaheim cops asking people for proof of citizenship, proactively contacting ICE if they find anyone whose papers aren’t in order, and either transporting them to ICE or holding them as many days as necessary for ICE to show up and get ’em.

              Goob luck on that! Like Michael Jackson said, “MAKE that change!”

              • Unless, I’m mistaken, local cops can’t arrest folks for being here illegally (ie federal crimes). Officers are only permitted to do so when given special permission by ICE. I do expect local cops to cooperate and work with the Feds and other law enforcement jurisdictions when it comes to law violations. Our elected cannot pick and choose which laws to follow. If they want to open the Door to abdicate immigration law, any law is fair game.

                • Unauthorized presence in the United States is not a “crime” it’s a civil status violation. And if you think that officers can’t come up with something that would allow someone to be kept in jail long enough for ICE to be notified and get them, then you are mistaken.

            • So are you disagreeing and asserting that cities SHOULD be able to use public resources to attack or promote candidates in the run-up to a competitive election?

              Seriously, please defend what Murray tried to do.

      • I believe the only member of the Anaheim City Council that attended Trump’s rally in Anaheim was Mayor Tait. Not surprised.

        • You believe a lot of things.

          Tait did not support Trump in the primary. I don’t know whether he endorsed him in the general and I don’t recall him taking a position. I do know that Tait does not favor Trump’s most objectionable policies. I’m pretty sure that Kring does; I don’t know whether Murray does.

        • Yeah, I was there too. Outside. You say Tom was there, I’m not sure what he was doing, but it IS his city.

          He told me he didn’t vote for Trump or support him. (In the primary he preferred Cruz *yuk* and I think he voted for Gary Johnson.) And you lied at one point, claiming Tom had endorsed Trump.

          I suspect Lucille is the only Anaheim Councilperson to vote for Trump.

          • http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/is-anaheim-ready-for-a-donald-trump-rally-692670019509

            Republicans hate Trump, but they hate Hillary more. Tait couldn’t be bothered to show up at the KKK protest but did attend the Trump rally.

            Please don’t lecture me about lying. Have you told the pastor of the church you’re paid to play hymnals that you’re agnostic?

          • Down by the Schoolyard

            Tom told OC Republicans he voted for Trump in November. Do you think he’d tell you the truth?

            • And we should believe you why? Is your reputation on the line?

            • Let’s see … I did not write who Tom voted for, I did not ask him. If he finally pulled the lever for the only Republican I know it was reluctant though. He never endorsed Trump, he wanted Cruz in the primary, and he told me a lot of things he didn’t like about Trump.

              Was his standing with the LA Mayor demanding comprehensive immigration reform the act of a Trump lover? Wait and see how he votes on Tuesday’s resolution against Trump’s Muslim ban and tell me if he’s a Trump lover.

              Lucille is the only enthusiastic Trumpie on Council, that’s for sure.

  11. Once again, not happening!

    Instead, Lucille is gonna have to decide whether or not to oppose Trump’s racist unconstitutional Muslim ban.

    Brilliant replacement!

    • Um, yeah, Vern. Voting against Moreno’s “Hey let’s not give any special vetting to immigrants from terrorist hotbeds” reap is a real risky.

      Wake up, Vern. Lefties like you are a minority.

      • …if that’s what it really was.

        We’re living in the real world here, it’s not FOX News.

        • The real world? The one where District 3 voters are angry about a pause on immigration from seven Muslim majority countries? Which parallel universe is that, Vern?

        • The world where thousands of Anaheim citizens are Muslims, Arabs and Persians, the world where they all know people who were stuck in airports, detention centers, and foreign nations when this policy was briefly in effect, the world where multiple judges have ruled that this is unconstitutional picking on one religion.

          Not your little insular west Anaheim crowd.

  12. Moreno is wimping out on Sanctuary City status for Anaheim, so this is his sop to his radical friends like Al Jabbar and Mirvette Judge.

Leave a Reply

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

*

Skip to toolbar