Blogging Bayport Alameda

January 17, 2017

Equal protection racket

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:07 am

Tonight should be an epic showdown at the City Council meeting about the Sanctuary City resolution.  Naturally very few people are going to come out, in Alameda, to say “deport ’em all and let’s treat everyone like human garbage!”  So instead we’ll get some coy remarks about concerns about federal funding jeopardizing an influx of money from the federal government.

I’m sure that if we created a Venn diagram detailing folks who are concerned about jeopardizing federal funding because of a Sanctuary City resolution and people who were gung ho about getting rid of the SAFER grants because they didn’t want to add more firefighters to the pension rolls would probably overlap in perfect hypocritical symmetry.

So staff has put together a slide detailing what federal funding is received by the City of Alameda:


But, naturally, the most entertaining portions of any City Council meeting and packet comes from the public comment.  Here is a portion of one of the letters:


I would love to know who is considered a “legitimate” resident of Alameda and who is not.  I imagine legitimacy is granted to those who would agree with the letter writer.

And naturally what letter would be complete without labeling people who disagree with you traitors?


I will also point out for the folks tonight who will probably be bringing props like photos of Kate Steinle that the lawsuit filed against the City of San Francisco over their Sanctuary City status was dismissed by a judge:

In a ruling issued Friday, Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero dismissed the family’s claims against San Francisco and former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi.

“No law required the Sheriff’s Department to share Lopez-Sanchez’s release date with ICE, nor did any law forbid Mirkarimi establishing a policy against such cooperation,” Spero wrote.

And finally, staff is recommending adopting this resolution and in the staff report writes:

On December 20, 2016, the City Council voted unanimously to confirm the City’s commitment to build an even stronger, safer, and more inclusive community. The proposed resolution is: (1) a confirmation that Alameda has been on the forefront of issues of fairness and equality for many years, and (2) a commitment to all Alameda residents that they should not live in fear, and (3) a commitment that all Alameda residents have the City’s protection to the full extent of the law. It also confirms the City of Alameda’s commitment to protect the rights guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions, including the freedom of religion, speech, assembly, privacy, as well as equal protection.

While President-elect Trump has stated in speeches and in position papers that he intends to cancel all federal funding to jurisdictions that support “sanctuary city” policies, if the Council chooses to pass this resolution it is reaffirming the stand the City has taken for many years against biased, racist, and unconstitutional acts against undocumented individuals. The draft resolution and the City’s past stance is to provide public safety for all, regardless of immigration status. The term “sanctuary city” has no legal definition and does nothing more to further the City’s, State’s, County’s, AUSD’s, SSHRB’s, and APD’s past practice of supporting all individuals regardless of ethnic or national origin, gender, race, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, or immigration status.

Further, the Tenth Amendment limits the power of Congress to regulate by directly compelling local jurisdictions to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program (New York v. United States (1992) 505 U.S. 144, at 161). The federal government has the exclusive authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law relating to issues such as admission, exclusion, and deportation. As such, Congress is prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from passing laws requiring states to administer civil immigration law. Further, local jurisdictions have no legal obligation to enforce civil immigration law as reflected in Alameda Police Department Policy 428.


  1. Alrighty then.

    Who should be deported?

    Comment by Bart — January 17, 2017 @ 6:24 am

  2. “I would love to know who is considered a “legitimate” resident of Alameda and who is not. I imagine legitimacy is granted to those who would agree with the letter writer.”.
    Really? i wouldn’t. I would imagine legitimacy is granted to United States citizens and resident aliens. You know, people who got here by playing by the rules.

    Comment by vigi — January 17, 2017 @ 9:19 am

    • I try to avoid posting to lunatics, but it’s worth mentioning that if the first Gottsteins in America came here from Germany before 1917, they had no restrictions other than a cursory TB check at Ellis Island. Easy to play by the rules when there aren’t any, and damned hypocritical to demand that others play by rules that never applied to your forebears.

      Comment by dave — January 17, 2017 @ 9:29 am

      • The United States is a bit different in 2017 than it was in 1876, “dave”. I’m not sure how many States there even were then. I am pretty sure Arizona and Oklahoma hadn’t achieved statehood yet. Back then, immigration and homesteading were still being encouraged by the Federal government. It would be ridiculous to insist that the same rules that applied then should apply now. Or vice-versa.

        BTW, my relatives came from Bohemia, which was its own country with its own postmark until 1918. It wasn’t part of Germany, but Austria-Hungary. Today it is overlain by the Czech Republic. If my relatives had come from Germany, the ones not born here would have been considered Enemy Aliens during World War 1.

        Perhaps “dave” would like to bring back the US Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882?

        Comment by vigi — January 17, 2017 @ 9:53 am

        • Countries can have immigration policies (think Japan) and even if they shouldn’t, they will (think everywhere). But there is a big question about how quickly, if at all, you turn a previously loosely enforced system (and quite openly so, think e.g. Melania, employers who didn’t look too closely at documentation, etc.) around on people who have established decent lives and families here. It hasn’t exactly been a Homestead-like invitation, but at least a very mixed message.

          Are we basically correct in assuming that tonight’s resolution for the most part continues existing policies and practices and that, if those practices and policies had been harmful, we would have already seen harmful consequences (other than, say, a future Trump campaign to punish California, Chicago, etc., etc.)?

          Comment by MP — January 17, 2017 @ 10:37 am

        • No, the point is quite the opposite: current anti-immigration sentiment is generally race based. It is bigotry, pure and simple, same as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the various anti-immigration laws passed after WW1 (during which the US and Austria-Hungary were in a declared state of war, btw).

          Immigrants have been coming here for centuries and have always been one of our nation’s greatest strengths. It’s not just evil & bigoted to bar the door, it’s literally anti-American (as well as ant-family, anti-growth, anti-future, et al). My forebears had the right to come here and build their lives while they built the country. I have no right nor standing to deny others that same opportunity.

          Comment by dave — January 17, 2017 @ 10:47 am

        • dave wins the first slow clap award for 2017:

          Comment by Lauren Do — January 17, 2017 @ 11:31 am

      • So your argument is that anybody who meets the entrance requirements (which were none other than to get here) of the first intruders onto this land have the same rights to settle as the originators? And you call vigi a hypocritical ‘lunatic’?

        Comment by jack — January 17, 2017 @ 10:11 am

        • I agree Lauren, Dave sometimes you say the nicest things.

          Comment by John P. — January 17, 2017 @ 4:05 pm

  3. to say “deport ’em all and let’s treat everyone like human garbage!”

    Comment by jack — January 17, 2017 @ 9:41 am

  4. It is interesting that Federal funding for “Navy Cleanup/Conveyance” is included in this Presentation. Although “N/A”, it is a not inconsiderable sum. For Alameda Point so far, it is in the neighborhood of $550 million dollars, per our last RAB meeting. I wonder what would happen to development at Alameda Point if the continuing Federal funds for cleanup were suddenly stopped? Would developers with developments In Progress at Alameda Point have grounds to sue Alameda over a cancellation of Federal funding?

    See Agenda Item 6-B this same meeting. The developer is requesting a 120 day extension to deal with, among other things, Due Diligence on the clean-up issues.

    Comment by vigi — January 17, 2017 @ 10:10 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at