As an immigrant community member, I feel the unique responsibility to voice the truth on this matter and dispel the rampant misinformation that has spread due to one supervisor’s proposed amendment. See, the original ordinance stated that no county resources could be used to cooperate with ICE except as required by a judicial warrant or by state and federal law. Simply put, ICE would need a judicial warrant to receive assistance from local authorities, a policy that our Sheriff’s Office has had since November of 2021. This ordinance makes permanent what already is in practice.
It shocked many of us, including immigration law experts, community organizations and the immigrant community, when Supervisor Ray Mueller, who had cast the lone “no” vote during the first reading of the ordinance, proposed for the final reading an amendment with three exceptions: murder, rape and lascivious acts with minors.
The amendment was based on the false assumption that undocumented immigrants convicted of these serious, violent crimes were being released with impunity. It created a dangerous chain reaction in which the press and survivors of these violent crimes were led to believe something that was simply not true.
More than 60 immigrant rights groups, community organizations, Democratic clubs and community members signed onto a letter that laid out, point by point, how the amendment was misguided and caused pain, division and damage within an already vulnerable community. But even with all the evidence before him, Supervisor Mueller was not moved. On the contrary, he exacerbated the harm by retweeting an inflammatory and misleading news report.
The facts: Anyone convicted of a crime, regardless of immigration status, is subject to our justice system. For the crimes in the amendment, when convicted, an undocumented immigrant, just like anyone else, goes to a California state prison. Once they complete their sentence, the state is responsible for handing them over to ICE. The amendment was purely rhetorical. But it spawned a lot of misinformation. This rhetoric does two things: It recklessly unites and incites anti-immigrant sentiment, and it fosters dangerous circumstances for the immigrant community.
Recommended for you
The original ordinance is a matter of human rights. We will not have a two-tiered justice system where immigrants are treated differently under the law. Many of the individuals who ICE targets are vulnerable and marginalized. When we use county resources to aid in their detention and deportation, sometimes mistakenly and irreparably, we essentially abandon them to a federal agency with documented human rights abuses and racist practices. This is not only morally wrong, but it also undermines our values of justice and equality.
Furthermore, using county resources to aid ICE is actually counterproductive to public safety. When individuals in immigrant communities fear that any interaction with law enforcement could lead to their deportation, they are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police investigations. This unintended outcome can make it more difficult for law enforcement to do their jobs effectively and ultimately puts all of us at risk.
Had Supervisor Mueller listened to or spoken directly with immigration experts and community organizations with years and years of deep, committed work within our immigrant communities, he might have understood how much harm, pain and division simply introducing this ordinance has caused. These organizations, many led by immigrants themselves, will be the ones dealing with the aftermath of damage for years to come. Not a single immigrant organization supported the proposed amendment. During public comment, those opposing the amendment outnumbered its supporters by more than five to one.
Let me be clear – San Mateo County is not releasing felons convicted of the heinous crimes in the proposed amendment.
San Mateo County did make permanent a policy we already practice: We do not use county resources to do the job of federal immigration agencies.
I say to our immigrant communities: You are welcome here, and we deeply value your presence and many contributions to the well-being of San Mateo County.
Noelia Corzo represents District 2 on the Board of Supervisors. Recently elected, she is the only Latina to have served in this position. She is a single mom, former nonprofit social worker, and daughter of Guatemalan immigrants.
Thank you Rep. Corzo. This ordinance is a matter of human rights. And also of community security--we are none of us secure if half the community lives in fear that police contact of any sort could lead to deportation of loved ones. The amendment just brought out the hate speakers in force and served no purpose whatsoever.
Oh where to begin with this...." amendment with three exceptions: murder, rape and lascivious acts with minors. The amendment was based on the false assumption that undocumented immigrants convicted of these serious, violent crimes were being released with impunity. It created a dangerous chain reaction in which the press and survivors of these violent crimes were led to believe something that was simply not true."
Every single assertion here is patently false and completely without merit. This kind of delusional rhetoric is very dangerous because you are concocting your own reality by directly correlating loosely related things with no evidence - and making assertions based off solipsistic emotions and your own personal demons - not facts. None of what you said is true. None. What you just said is rhetorical - not the Amendment. Theres a name for people who accuse others of exactly what they are doing.
"This rhetoric does two things: It recklessly unites and incites anti-immigrant sentiment, and it fosters dangerous circumstances for the immigrant community."
This is also pure speculation and from my experience not true at all. This seems like is based on your own personal feelings - and not steeped in actual reality. Theres no evidence to back this up and you are using emotions to push an agenda because you really have no substance to back you up. Quite frankly, this is dangerous rhetoric- and you are again the one doing what you are accusing others of - creating division.
"We will not have a two-tiered justice system where immigrants are treated differently under the law.Many of the individuals who ICE targets are vulnerable and marginalized."
Ice targets ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS - whatever else they are is irrelevant. You are suggesting a 2 tiered justice system - one for illegals - and one for citizens. Doing it again.
" This is not only morally wrong, but it also undermines our values of justice and equality. Furthermore, using county resources to aid ICE is actually counterproductive to public safety."
This statement highlights how utterly ludicrous this entire article is. So arresting people who break the law is somehow making our county less safe..right...that logic doesn't really rate. According to whose moral code do you mean? Pretty self righteous you are. And what you just did is interpreting that word of law through the lens of your own emotions. Solipsistic & tone deaf. Lady Justice is blind - but you remove the cover and give her Corzo colored glasses. People like you should not be in charge of making any decisions that affect people you may not agree with. Bolshevik in training.
Corzo is delusional. I married into the Latino community and I can attest that they want to be as American as anyone else. They don't want to be separated and coddled because of their origin or for what is now considered a race. I have been married to a lovely Latina for over 50 years and the last thing she would want to do is associate with persons like Corzo. The Latino community is proud and beautiful but far from homogeneous. It takes offense to the generalization that Corzo and her ilk project. No need for bleeding hearts here consistent with any other ethnicity or nationality.
I could be wrong, but weren't the "rapist" and others wanted in their country of origin? Of course they would be tried here if the crime took place here.
1/ In the article above, you speak about “rampant misinformation” – can you or the 60+ groups you refer to please share data with the public on the recidivism rate of the specific group we are discussing (i.e. high-severity crimes after they have served a sentence)?
2/ You are confusing readers by using the term “immigrant” to refer to both lawful and unlawful residents. You should be clear that the ordinance is about protecting unlawful residents who are involved in high-severity crimes.
3/ The two-tiered system you refer to is called “immigration law”. It appears the board has a hard time coming to terms with the law of the land. Most of your constituents respect the judicial and immigration systems.
4/ When counting those who support vs. oppose – did you include the hundreds of emails that the board received on this topic?
5/ To be clear, here is what the board has done – You have sent a signal “It is OK to commit high-severity crimes, stay illegally in our county and be assured there will be no consequences after you have served your sentence. Rinse and repeat.”.
Your remarks reminded me of something ponce said by Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution: "Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them."
Well written. With all due respect the piece would gain more credibility from the get go if titled « undocumented immigrants, equal under the law ». Green card holders have always been equal under the law. I was one of them (now a naturalized US citizen) and so is my whole family and that distinction is important to me. I wished there were more pathways for everyone to get a green card and I deplore that, we can do better as a nation. The ordinance was never about all immigrants just undocumented immigrants and that’s an important distinction to make so as not to paint us all with one brush which is a danger in this discourse.
Sorry, Ms. Corzo, but this letter reads more as if you’re trying to rationalize your irrational actions to yourself in aiding and abetting known felons (and in attacking a fellow Supervisor). Everyone knows the difference between legal and illegal, as Mr. van Ulden has written, and your attempt to conflate the two discredits your letter. Let’s hope voters will elect someone in the near future who truly represents their communities and their safety instead of someone who knowingly puts them in danger. I second Mr. van Ulden’s charge of dereliction of duty.
I say to our legal immigrant communities: You are more than welcome here and we deeply value and appreciate your presence and many contributions to the well-being of San Mateo County and our country.
Well Ms Corzo - I did not vote for you for the reasons you just mentioned. First of all, you do not seem to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. You are the daughter of immigrants. Were they legal or illegal? I am an immigrant and so is my wife. But, we came here legally on Green Cards after having secured a job beforehand. We would never consort with criminals from our respective countries, mine from the Netherlands and hers from El Salvador. You are patronizing and forgetting that your primary responsibility is to legal residents. Illegal ones do not and should not have the same rights. I call your vote, and the votes by the other three, dereliction of duty.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(9) comments
Thank you Rep. Corzo. This ordinance is a matter of human rights. And also of community security--we are none of us secure if half the community lives in fear that police contact of any sort could lead to deportation of loved ones. The amendment just brought out the hate speakers in force and served no purpose whatsoever.
Oh where to begin with this...." amendment with three exceptions: murder, rape and lascivious acts with minors. The amendment was based on the false assumption that undocumented immigrants convicted of these serious, violent crimes were being released with impunity. It created a dangerous chain reaction in which the press and survivors of these violent crimes were led to believe something that was simply not true."
Every single assertion here is patently false and completely without merit. This kind of delusional rhetoric is very dangerous because you are concocting your own reality by directly correlating loosely related things with no evidence - and making assertions based off solipsistic emotions and your own personal demons - not facts. None of what you said is true. None. What you just said is rhetorical - not the Amendment. Theres a name for people who accuse others of exactly what they are doing.
"This rhetoric does two things: It recklessly unites and incites anti-immigrant sentiment, and it fosters dangerous circumstances for the immigrant community."
This is also pure speculation and from my experience not true at all. This seems like is based on your own personal feelings - and not steeped in actual reality. Theres no evidence to back this up and you are using emotions to push an agenda because you really have no substance to back you up. Quite frankly, this is dangerous rhetoric- and you are again the one doing what you are accusing others of - creating division.
"We will not have a two-tiered justice system where immigrants are treated differently under the law.Many of the individuals who ICE targets are vulnerable and marginalized."
Ice targets ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS - whatever else they are is irrelevant. You are suggesting a 2 tiered justice system - one for illegals - and one for citizens. Doing it again.
" This is not only morally wrong, but it also undermines our values of justice and equality. Furthermore, using county resources to aid ICE is actually counterproductive to public safety."
This statement highlights how utterly ludicrous this entire article is. So arresting people who break the law is somehow making our county less safe..right...that logic doesn't really rate. According to whose moral code do you mean? Pretty self righteous you are. And what you just did is interpreting that word of law through the lens of your own emotions. Solipsistic & tone deaf. Lady Justice is blind - but you remove the cover and give her Corzo colored glasses. People like you should not be in charge of making any decisions that affect people you may not agree with. Bolshevik in training.
Corzo is delusional. I married into the Latino community and I can attest that they want to be as American as anyone else. They don't want to be separated and coddled because of their origin or for what is now considered a race. I have been married to a lovely Latina for over 50 years and the last thing she would want to do is associate with persons like Corzo. The Latino community is proud and beautiful but far from homogeneous. It takes offense to the generalization that Corzo and her ilk project. No need for bleeding hearts here consistent with any other ethnicity or nationality.
I could be wrong, but weren't the "rapist" and others wanted in their country of origin? Of course they would be tried here if the crime took place here.
1/ In the article above, you speak about “rampant misinformation” – can you or the 60+ groups you refer to please share data with the public on the recidivism rate of the specific group we are discussing (i.e. high-severity crimes after they have served a sentence)?
2/ You are confusing readers by using the term “immigrant” to refer to both lawful and unlawful residents. You should be clear that the ordinance is about protecting unlawful residents who are involved in high-severity crimes.
3/ The two-tiered system you refer to is called “immigration law”. It appears the board has a hard time coming to terms with the law of the land. Most of your constituents respect the judicial and immigration systems.
4/ When counting those who support vs. oppose – did you include the hundreds of emails that the board received on this topic?
5/ To be clear, here is what the board has done – You have sent a signal “It is OK to commit high-severity crimes, stay illegally in our county and be assured there will be no consequences after you have served your sentence. Rinse and repeat.”.
Hello, Amit
Your remarks reminded me of something ponce said by Thomas Sowell, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution: "Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them."
Well written. With all due respect the piece would gain more credibility from the get go if titled « undocumented immigrants, equal under the law ». Green card holders have always been equal under the law. I was one of them (now a naturalized US citizen) and so is my whole family and that distinction is important to me. I wished there were more pathways for everyone to get a green card and I deplore that, we can do better as a nation. The ordinance was never about all immigrants just undocumented immigrants and that’s an important distinction to make so as not to paint us all with one brush which is a danger in this discourse.
Sorry, Ms. Corzo, but this letter reads more as if you’re trying to rationalize your irrational actions to yourself in aiding and abetting known felons (and in attacking a fellow Supervisor). Everyone knows the difference between legal and illegal, as Mr. van Ulden has written, and your attempt to conflate the two discredits your letter. Let’s hope voters will elect someone in the near future who truly represents their communities and their safety instead of someone who knowingly puts them in danger. I second Mr. van Ulden’s charge of dereliction of duty.
I say to our legal immigrant communities: You are more than welcome here and we deeply value and appreciate your presence and many contributions to the well-being of San Mateo County and our country.
Well Ms Corzo - I did not vote for you for the reasons you just mentioned. First of all, you do not seem to understand the difference between legal and illegal immigrants. You are the daughter of immigrants. Were they legal or illegal? I am an immigrant and so is my wife. But, we came here legally on Green Cards after having secured a job beforehand. We would never consort with criminals from our respective countries, mine from the Netherlands and hers from El Salvador. You are patronizing and forgetting that your primary responsibility is to legal residents. Illegal ones do not and should not have the same rights. I call your vote, and the votes by the other three, dereliction of duty.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.