San Mateo supports immigrants, not sanctuary: City Council opts for nonbinding statement of support rather than any policy change

“This is a very passionate issue, people feel very strongly about it, but it’s important we as a community talk about it,” said Mayor David Lim, who first proposed the council consider possible steps including a resolution of support.

The range of options San Mateo considered included keeping the status quo, issuing a nonbinding statement of solidarity and what it would mean to declare itself a sanctuary city. Communities across the Bay Area have reacted differently to the new presidential administration’s changes to federal immigration policies — the effects of which remain unknown.

Public opinions at Monday’s meeting varied greatly from urging the council to adopt sanctuary policies to some suggesting the city start enforcing federal immigration laws. Instead, the council took a moderate approach opting to mirror its resolution to what the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors adopted earlier this year.

But the range of community feedback provided a glimpse into the nuanced debate that is stirring strong, and diverse, opinions.

Edgardo Canda, a counselor at Hillsdale High School, brought students to talk about the impact rhetoric at the federal level is having locally.

“The threat is real, the anxiety is in the community,” Canda said, before introducing a handful of students who spoke. “They are law abiding, they are good students, they are good people. They contribute to this community and diversity, however you want to see it, does add to San Mateo.”

Nurse Cindy Gherini suggested it was wrong for people like the students who spoke during the meeting in Spanish not to assimilate by learning English and noted people coming to the United States illegally weren’t going through proper screening processes to check for diseases.

Noelia Corzo fired back saying she was proud of the students who spoke and urged the council to denounce forms of racism.

“Right now we’re at a moment in history where we are either going to take a stand or we’re going to let bullies run this country and target our most vulnerable residents,” Corzo said.

Others contended the matter was simply about following the law.

“Extending tolerance and understanding for the immigrant community is a laudable goal, but implementation should never be at the expense of the law,” said Stan Watkins, a resident as well as Parks and Recreation commissioner.

Bruce Neuburger suggested the issue wasn’t about people being undocumented, but about being deprived documents. He told a story about a hard-working family, some of whom were deported after they believed they were being contacted by police but instead were confronted by federal immigration agents.

“They live with almost paralytic fear they’ll be deported and separated from their children,” Neuburger said, later adding “history’s lessons are clear on this, we must have the moral fiber to stand up to injustice when lives are in the balance.”

The meeting also provided a chance for the city to clarify the difference between its existing regulations, which permit cooperation with federal officials, versus what local police actually practice, which is not to inquire about a person’s immigration status.

San Mateo Police Chief Susan Manheimer emphasized her department does not proactively cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or provide notification. However, the city does rely on help from other federal law enforcement agencies to combat crime syndicates. Therefore, she strongly urged the council not to adopt anything that could be construed as a sanctuary policy — both in terms of collaborating on non-immigration law enforcement issues as well as to avoid losing federal funding since the president threatened to withhold federal support.

“We are not immigration police, we do not enforce federal immigration status law,” Manheimer said, later adding it’s critical “all individuals, regardless of their status, feel comfortable in both reporting crimes and with working with us for community building.”

Councilmembers agreed their priorities were to promote public safety by encouraging everyone regardless of status to seek police assistance or report a crime. They also emphasized wanting to promote an inclusive community while abiding by the laws and not jeopardizing millions of dollars in federal funding.

“We have never been in the immigration business and that’s not going to change,” said Councilwoman Maureen Freschet. “So while I understand there are people — especially families and children — very concerned and feeling at risk, I don’t think for this city it’s appropriate to go to the level of becoming a sanctuary city. To me, that’s a trigger word that could bring a lot of difficulty to the city in terms of our relationship with the federal government.”

Lim, who originally proposed a nonbinding resolution of support that included the word sanctuary, agreed a simple resolution similar to what the county passed was appropriate.

As a prosecutor with the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, he noted he has no qualms reporting serious criminals for deportation. However, he also noted the nation’s history — which included banning Chinese from entering the country as well as interning thousands of Japanese-Americans — and suggested morality be kept in mind.

“We have to be very careful in this time to stand behind quote-unquote laws that are legal or not legal,” Lim said. “That’s how divisiveness occurs, that’s how autocracy occurs under the guise of the law.”

samantha@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106