HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Adoption of Resolution No. 2018-23 Opposing Senate Bill 54 (California Values Act) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 2:54 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
From: judygould@peoplepc.com
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 2:54:17 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; info@nbwdc.org
Subject: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
I support the bill SB54 to protect our citizens.
Judy Gould
508 Playa
Newport Beach.
From: Judy Strauss <jmstrauss@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:20 AM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; info@nbwdc.org
Subject: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
We STRONGLY support SB 54 & heartily urge the NB City Council to PASS this important bill... NOW! Judy & Steve
STRAUSS 2501 island View Dr. Corona Del Mar
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:51 AM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
From: nikkis19
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:51:10 AM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; info@nbwdc.org
Subject: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
I am in support of sanctuary cities! And glad that our state is also.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
COPY OF LETTER SENT
Dear City Council, of Los Alamitos,
Subj: Sanctuary City
I support your decision to challenge California's Sanctuary City Law. I support
your decision as being heroiac and protective of our Constitution. I support Legal,
controlled, Immighration.
I look upon the Sanctuary law (SB -54) to be comparable to when the Southern
States succeeded from the nation United States, the move resulted in the Civil
War. Any law, even a partial one like (SB -54), that illegally separates and removes
itself form the United States Government, is Unconstitutional.
The Sanctuary Law (SB -54) is illegal, unconstitutional, and detrimental to the
Citizens of the United states. In fact, it undermines the citizens of the United
States.
I, nor any veteran, did not serve in the United States Armed Forces, to come
home, and to preserve, illegal immigration. We served to protect and preserve
the Constitution of the United States of America.
Why would anyone serve in the military to support rampant illegal immigration?
I support the United States Constitution, and legal immigration. We are a
county of Legal Immigrants.
Thank you for a job well done.
Larry Bales, Viet Nam Veteran
714 227 7966
Ps: For those who are concerned about the finance, remember some of
our veterans have paid the ultimate price to preserve our way of life.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
Subject: FW: SB 54 resolution
From: O'Neill, William
Sent: Sunday, April 8, 2018 5:40 PM
To: Torres, Michael <mtorres@newportbeachca.gov>; Harp, Aaron <aharp@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Fwd: SB 54 resolution
Will O'Neill
Mayor Pro Tem
Newport Beach City Council
Begin forwarded message:
From: GWG < ialisa(a gmail.com>
Date: April 8, 2018 at 5:39:14 PM PDT
To:<citycouncil@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: SB 54 resolution
Reply -To: < iag_lisaggmail.com>
The Resolution signed by your city attorney misstates constitutional law, particularly concerning
how the Supremacy Clause operates.
Here is a link to a letter authored by law professors and constitutional scholars about this issue. I
cannot state it better, so I attach it here.
http://www.iceoutofea.org/uploads/2/5/4/6/25464410/2017-05-
I law professor letter supporting_california values act.pdf
Noah Feldman (a con law professor from Harvard) has also written for Bloomberg that SB54
will survive legal attacks.
Warm regards,
Gialisa Gaffaney
Editor -in -Chief, OC Lawyer Magazine
Freelance Author
Adjunct Professor, Topics in Law and Political Science
May 17, 2017
Governor Jerry Brown
c% State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
California State Legislature
c% Kevin de Le6n, Senate President pro Tempore
State Capitol, Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814
and c% Anthony Rendon, Assembly Speaker
P.O. Box 942849, Sacramento, CA 94249-0063
Dear Governor Brown and Members of the California State Legislature:
We, the undersigned scholars who write, research, or teach in the areas of
immigration, criminal justice, constitutional law, and international law write to express
our support for California Senate Bill 54 (S.B. 54), the "California Values Act." The
most immediate threats to federal funding raised by the President's executive order of
January 251 and the Attorney General's comments threatening so-called "sanctuary"
jurisdictions generally2—and California particularly 3—have been put to rest by a federal
court order enjoining the executive order as it pertains to funding cuts.4 But as we detail
here, it is our studied opinion that California should have no concern that the California
Values Act violates federal law. Because we also believe S.B. 54 is good policy, we
support its passage.
Local policing, public safety, and the well-being of Californians
are all proper subjects for California legislation.
S.B. 54 proposes that "[e]ntangling state and local agencies with federal immigration
enforcement programs . diverts already limited resources and blurs the lines of
accountability between local, state, and federal governments. ,5
This finding invokes the
United States Supreme Court's teachings explaining our federalist system of government.
1 President Donald J. Trump, Exec. Order 13,768, Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior
of the United States § 1 (Jan. 25, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2017/01 /25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united.
2 THE WHITE HOUSE, PRESS BRIEFING BY PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER, 3/27/2017, #29
(March 27, 2017), https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/27/press-
briefing-press-secretary-sean-Spicer-3272017-29 (remarks of Attorney General Jeff
Sessions).
3 Joseph Tanfam & Patrick McGreevey, Justice Department to 'sanctuary cities': Comply
on immigration or you could lose federal grants, L.A. TIDIES (April 21, 2017),
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-sanctuary-cities-20170421-story.html (quoting
Attorney General Sessions: "I urge California to reconsider").
4 County of Santa Clara v. Donald J. Trump, No. 5:17-cv-00574-WHO, Document 98
N.D. Cal. April 25, 2017).
S.B. 54, Proposed § 7284.2(d).
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 2 of 14
"Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the
National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to
respect."6 An "essential attribute of the States' retained sovereignty" is "that they remain
independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority."7
Separating spheres of authority, as our federalist system does, ensures political
accountability.$ The Tenth Amendment requires that "elected state officials ... regulate in
accordance with the views of the local electorate"9 by preventing the federal government
from coercing or compelling States into pursuing Congress's policy agenda. When the
federal government cannot dictate policy, "the residents of the State retain the ultimate
decision"10 over policymaking, and "state governments remain responsive to the local
electorate's preferences; state officials remain accountable to the people."" But when
Congress compels a State to pursue Congress's policy choices, "the accountability of both
state and federal officials is diminished. ,12
Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment prevents the federal government from exercising
direct control over the States, though it may provide "incentives" to the States that would
encourage regulation according to Congress's wishes. 13 Direct control "compromise[s]
the structural framework of dual sovereignty" 14 and obscures accountability, putting the
State "in the position of taking the blame for [the federal policy's] burdensomeness and
for its defects."15
6 Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500, 183 L. Ed. 2d 351
(2012); see also NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 132 S. Ct. 2566, 2643 (2016) (Scalia, J.,
dissenting) ("What is absolutely clear, affirmed by the text of the 1789 Constitution, by
the Tenth Amendment ratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years
since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe
with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon the sovereign
States."). As the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court recently put it: "Our three
branches of government are co -equal; our local, state and federal governments have
overlapping authority. Each branch and each entity should take care not to act in a way
that undermines the trust and confidence of another branch or entity." Tani G. Cantil-
Sakauye, California Chief Justice: The courthouse is not the place for immigration
enforcement, WASHINGTON POST (April 19, 2017).
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 928, 117 S. Ct. 2365, 2381, 138 L.Ed.2d 914
1997).
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 576-77, 115 S. Ct. 1624, 1638-39, 131 L.Ed.2d
626 (1995)(Kennedy, J., concurring) ("The theory that two governments accord more
liberty than one requires for its realization two distinct and discernable lines of political
accountability: one between the citizens and the Federal Government; the second
between the citizens and the States.... Were the Federal Government to take over the
regulation of entire areas of traditional state concern, areas having nothing to do with the
regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of federal and
state authority would blur and political responsibility would become illusory.").
9 New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 169, 112 S. Ct. 2408, 2424, 120 L.Ed.2d 120
1992).
° Id. at 168, 112 S. Ct. at 2424.
1 1 Id
12 Id.
13 Id. at 170, 112 S. Ct. at 2425.
14 Printz, 521 U.S. at 932, 117 S. Ct. at 2383.
15 Id. at 930, 117 S. Ct. at 2382.
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 3 of 14
The California Values Act is firmly supported by the Tenth Amendment. Under our
federalist system, the States retain "broad authority to enact legislation for the public
good" 16—a "general police power" 17—and there is "no better example of the police
power, which the Founders denied the National Government and reposed in the States,
than the suppression of violent crime and vindication of its victims."18 Policing is
squarely within a State's "proper sphere of authority," and the California Values Act
"seeks to ensure effective policing" and "protect the safety" of Californians.19 S.B. 54
also pursues "general police power" objectives, seeking to ensure that immigrant
community members can avail themselves of public services and schools without fear .20
Under the Tenth Amendment California is entitled to be free from federal coercion and
compulsion in these policymaking areas.
California may leave immigration enforcement to federal officials.
The California Values Act broadly prohibits local law enforcement resources from
being used for federal immigration enforcement. 21 This is entirely consistent with the
longstanding allocation of immigration authority exclusively to the federal government. 22
The United States Supreme Court, in its decision striking down portions of Arizona's
S.B. 1070, noted that in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress has
specified the "limited circumstances in which state officers may perform the functions of
an immigration officer.i23 These include some enumerated instances where state officers
are permitted to make immigration arrests, and so-called "287(g) agreements" whereby
state officers are effectively deputized as immigration agents.24 Finding Section 6 of
Arizona's S.B. 1070 to be beyond these "limited circumstances," the Court struck the
provision as preempted.25 In large measure, then, the States are obliged to leave
immigration enforcement to federal officials. 26
While the INA does sometimes allow state officials to engage in immigration
enforcement, it never requires them to do so. This is consistent with the Tenth
16 Bond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2077, 2086, 189 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2014).
17 Lopez, 514 U.S. at 567, 115 S. Ct. at 1634.
18 United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 618, 120 S. Ct. 1740, 1754, 146 L.Ed.2d 658
(2000); see also Kelley v. Johnson, 425 U.S. 238, 247, 96 S. Ct. 1440, 1445, 47 L.Ed.2d
708 (1976) ("The promotion of safety of persons and property is unquestionably at the
core of the State's police power").
19 S.B. 54, Proposed § 7284.2(f). S.B. 54 also pursues goals that are within the "general
police power."
0 S.B. 54, Proposed § 7284.2(c)(noting that without the trust generated by the California
Values Act, noncitizens might fear "seeking basic health services, or attending school, to
the detriment of public safety and the well-being of all Californians"); S.B. 54, Proposed
7284.2(f) (referencing the "well-being" of Californians).
1 S.B. 54, Proposed Section 7284.6(a)(1).
22 Juliet P. Stumpf, States of Confusion, 86 N.C. L. REv. 1557, 1571-73 (2008).
23 Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2506.
24 Id
21 Id. at 2506-07.
26 The Supreme Court left open the question whether enforcement of federal criminal
immigration laws is similarly preempted. Id. at 2509-10.
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 4 of 14
Amendment's "anti -commandeering" doctrine. 27 Additionally, each grant of authority to
state or local officers in the INA is made subject to state or local law governing the duties
of such officers .28 This requirement that State officers enforcing federal law must abide
by any state -law limitations on their power is consistent with the Tenth Amendment's
separation of federal and state spheres of authority; whatever power state officers have is
granted them by State law .29 To permit the federal government to subvert limits imposed
by states on their officers' authority, by simply authorizing state officers to enforce
federal law, would thus work the same intrusion on state sovereignty as commandeering
them directly 30
The California Values Act, to the extent it withholds from state officials the authority
to participate in federal immigration enforcement, leaving such enforcement solely in the
hands of federal officials, is entirely consistent with the Tenth Amendment's division of
authority between state and federal governments. 31
27 See Printz, 521 U.S. at 922, 117 S.Ct. at 2378 (noting that the Tenth Amendment
prevents the federal government from "impress[ing] into its service—and at no cost to
itself—the police officers of the 50 States").
28 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) (allowing state -federal agreements for enforcement but only "to
the extent consistent with State and local law"); 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(10) (allowing
delegation of enforcement authority to a local officer, but only "with the consent of the
head of the department, agency, or establishment under whose jurisdiction the individual
is serving."); 8 U.S.C. § 1252c (granting authority but only "to the extent permitted by
relevant State and local law"); 8 U.S.C. § 1324(c) (granting authority but only to state
and local officials "whose duty," presumably prescribed by local law, "is to enforce
criminal laws").
29 Accordingly, in the criminal context, the Supreme Court has held that where federal
law does not preclude enforcement by local officers, authority for the arrest must
nonetheless be found in state or local law. United States v. Di Re, 332 U.S. 581, 68 S.Ct.
222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948); see also Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301, 78 S.Ct. 1190, 2
L.Ed.2d 1332 (1958); Gonzalez v. City of Peoria, 772 F.2d 468, 475-76 (9th Cir. 1983),
overruled on other grounds in Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9`h Cir.
1999); see Memorandum for the Attorney General, from Jay S. Bybee, Ass't Att'y Gen'1,
Office of Legal Counsel, Re: Non preemption of the authority of state and local law
enforcement officials to arrest aliens for immigration violations 2-3 (April 3, 2002),
available at https://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ACF27DA.pdf (rooting this body of
caselaw in the Tenth Amendment and its reservation of powers to the States in their
status as sovereign entities).
30 The United States recently appeared as amicus curiae and was granted leave to
participate in oral argument on March 4, 2017 in the Massachusetts case of
Commonwealth v. Lunn, No. SJC-12276. Counsel for the United States acknowledged
that a state arrest for an immigration violation is a "matter of comity" (i.e. is not required
by federal law) and must be authorized under state law. See
http://www.suffolk.edu/sic/archive/2017/SJC_12276.html (at 23:10 of the video
recording).
31 See Id. (at 42:15 of the recording) (acknowledging power of state legislature to
withhold from state officers the authority to engage in federal immigration enforcement).
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 5 of 14
California may prohibit detention based on
immigration detainers and administrative warrants.
The California Values Act prohibits California law enforcement agencies from
detaining people for federal immigration authorities for the purpose of immigration
enforcement,3 whether through immigration "detainers"33 or immigration "warrants."34
This prohibition is lawful, and indeed may be required in order to ensure compliance
with the Constitution. The California Values Act correctly notes that for California law
enforcement to participate in immigration enforcement "raises constitutional concerns,
including the prospect that California residents could be detained in violation of the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. "3s
Shortly after the California Trust Act was enacted, federal court decisions in 2014
made clear that (1) immigration detainers are purely voluntary, because the federal
government cannot compel local law enforcement officers to perform immigration
enforcement; 36 and (2) continuing the detention of a person entitled to release based on an
ICE detainer constitutes a new arrest that that must be justified under the Fourth
Amendment. 37 The "increasing number of federal court decisions that hold that detainer -
based detention by state and local law enforcement agencies violates the Fourth
Amendment" caused the Obama administration in November 2014 to declare its intention
32 S.B. 54, Proposed section 7284.6(e).
33 S.B. 54, Proposed section 7284.6(a)(1)(B).
34 S.B. 54, Proposed section 7284.6(a)(1)(F).
35 In addition to the Fourth Amendment problem noted above, immigration detainers also
implicate the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a warrantless arrest must be followed
by a prompt determination of probable cause by a neutral and detached magistrate,
generally within 48 hours. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54
(1975); County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 1670,
114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1984). In pending class-action litigation, a federal court has certified a
class of persons detained for more than 48 hours solely based on an immigration detainer,
because "it may be found as a matter of law that all such delays were unreasonable." Roy
v. County of Los Angeles, Nos. CV 12-09012-BRO (FFMx) and CV 13-04416-BRO
(FFMx), 2016 WL 5219468 at * 12 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 9, 2016) (citing County of Riverside,
500 U.S. at 57); see id. at *14 (certifying modified additional class in consolidated
litigation because "forty -eight-hour or longer detentions may be considered
presumptively unlawful under Gerstein and McLaughlin and may be subject to class-
wide determination.").
36 Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 639-45 (3d Cir. 2014).
37 Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Cnty., No. 3:12 -CV -02317 -ST, 2014 WL 1414305, at
*I I (D. Or. Apr. 11, 2014). It is not clear that such a new arrest based on a supposed
civil immigration violation would even be authorized under the Immigration and
Nationality Act. See Arizona, supra note _ (describing the specific, limited
circumstances under which local authorities are permitted to make civil immigration
arrests); see also Buquer v. City of Indianapolis, 797 F.Supp.2d 905, 919-22 (S.D. Ind.
2011) (granting preliminary injunction finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on claim that
local law permitting arrests on the basis of immigration detainers is preempted by federal
law and violates the Fourth Amendment).
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 6 of 14
to abandon the practice of issuing immigration detainers asking local law enforcement to
prolong the detention of people otherwise entitled to release. 38
Immigration "warrants" issued by the Department of Homeland Security offer no
more meaningful basis for detention than do immigration detainers. These documents are
not issued by a neutral magistrate, as the Fourth Amendment requires. 39 Additionally,
under federal law, these "warrants" may be executed only by federal immigration
officers 40 and not by state officials.
California may prohibit law enforcement from
inquiring into or investigating immigration status,
and from sharing certain information with immigration officials.
The California Values Act prohibits local resources from being used to inquire into a
person's immigration status41. The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has had a
similar policy in place since 1979.42 The LAPD policy, like the California Values Act, is
premised on the idea that "effective law enforcement depends on a high degree of
cooperation between the Department and the public it serves."43 And in 2009 a state
appellate court held the LAPD policy does not conflict with federal law. 44
S.B. 54 also prohibits local resources from being used to share release dates or other
non-public information like a person's home or work address. These restrictions on
information sharing are narrowly crafted to comply with federal law. 45 A federal court in
January held that a similar provision in a policy of the San Francisco Sheriff's
Department46 did not conflict with federal law.47
38 Memorandum from Jeh Charles Johnson, Sec'y, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., to
Thomas S. Winkowski, Acting Dir., U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, et al. at
2 n.I (Nov. 20, 2014) (collecting federal decisions).
39 See El Badrawi v. Dept. of Homeland Sec., 579 F. Supp. 2d 249, 276 (D. Conn. 2008)
(treating arrest as warrantless because "[n]o neutral magistrate (or even a neutral
executive official) ever examined the [immigration] warrant's validity").
40 Arizona, 132 S.Ct. at 2506 (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.2(b), 287.5(e)(3)) (describing
administrative warrants as "executed by federal officers who have received training in the
enforcement of immigration law").
41 S.B. 54, Proposed section 7284.6(a)(1)(A).
42 Office of the Chief of Police, Special Order No. 40: Undocumented Aliens, L.A.
POLICE DEP'T (Nov. 27, 1979), www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/SO_40.pdf.
43 Id.; see S.B. 54, Proposed section 7284.2(b), (c) (recognizing that a "relationship of
trust between California's immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to
the public safety of the people of California" and that this "trust is threatened when state
and local agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result
that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of,
and witnesses to, crimes, seeking basic health services, or attending school ....").
44 Sturgeon v. Bratton, 95 Cal. Rptr. 3d 718 (Cal. App. 2009).
45 S.B. 54, Proposed section 7284.6(a)(f)(carving out exception concerning "information
regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual
Ursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code").
6 San Francisco Sheriff's Department, Inter -Office Correspondence, Ref. No. 2015-036
(March 13, 2015),
http://www.catrustact.org/uploads/2/5/4/6/25464410/ice_contact,_signed.pdf (prohibiting
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 7 of 14
Disentangling public property from immigration enforcement
guarantees equal access to all public services.
The California Values Act requires the Attorney General to develop "model policies
limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent
with federal and state law at public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by
the state or a political subdivision of the state, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement facilities, and shelters ..."48 S.B. 54 makes clear that the goal is for these
public properties to "remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of
immigration status."49
California has the authority "to preserve the property under its control for the use to
which it is lawfully dedicated. ,50 Courthouses, for example, exist "principally to
facilitate the smooth operation of a government's judicial functions," and some
expressive activities may be restricted, notwithstanding the First Amendment's protection
of free speech, because of the government's interest in preserving its property for this
dedicated use. 51
Here, the California Values Act reflects the judgment that providing assistance with
immigration enforcement is inconsistent with the uses to which these public properties
are lawfully dedicated. Taking measures "to the fullest extent possible consistent with
federal and state law" to limit such assistance is California's right.
Moreover, S.B. 54 is concerned with ensuring equal access to the government
services provided at these public properties. Immigration enforcement in public
buildings and services chills equal access, raising Equal Protection issues. In the public
schools context, the Eleventh Circuit held that requiring public schools to ascertain the
immigration status of every enrolled student 52 presented an "increased likelihood of
deportation or harassment upon enrollment in school" that would "significantly deter[]
undocumented children from enrolling in and attending school," in violation of their right
SFSD personnel from sharing "release dates or times" or "home or work contact
information" with federal immigration officials).
47 Steinle v. City and County of San Francisco, F. Supp. 3d , 2017 WL 67064 at
*11 - *12 (Jan. 6, 2017) (holding that "[n]othing in 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) addresses
information concerning an inmate's release date. The statute, by its terms, governs only
`information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any
individual"').
48 S.B. 54, Proposed Section 7284.8.
49 Id
50Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39, 47, 87 S.Ct. 242, 247, 17 L.Ed.2d 149 (1966); see
also United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 178, 103 S.Ct. 1702, 1707, 75 L.Ed.2d 736
(1983) ("There is little doubt that in some circumstances the Government may ban the
entry on to public property that is not `public forum' of all persons except those who
have legitimate business on the premises.").
51 See Rouzan v. Dorta, 2014 WL 1716094 at * 12 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (holding courthouse
to be a "nonpublic forum" for First Amendment purposes) (citing, inter alia, Huminski V.
Corsones, 396 F.3d 53, 91 (2d Cir.2004)).
52 Id. at 1244.
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 8 of 14
to Equal Protection.53 The likelihood of immigration enforcement happening at the
courthouse may similarly chill victims of (and witnesses to) crime from attending court, 54
raising Equal Protection problems 55 as serious as those that occur when police services
are denied to disfavored populations. 56
Taking steps to disentangle public properties, and the services provided there, from
immigration enforcement serves legitimate governmental and constitutional interests.
Directing the Attorney General to pursue disentanglement "consistent with federal and
state law" is both good law and good policy.
For the above reasons, we urge you to sign Senate Bill 54, the "California Values Act,"
into law. Thank you for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,*
Christopher N. Lasch
Associate Professor
University of Denver Sturm College of
Law
Kathryn Abrams Muneer Ahmad
Herma Hill Kay Distinguished Professor of Clinical Professor of Law
Law Yale Law School
University of California, Berkeley School of
Law
53 Hispanic Interest Coal. of Alabama v. Governor of Alabama, 691 F.3d 1236, 1247-48
(11th Cir. 2012) (citing Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 102 S. Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786
Q1982)).
4 See, e.g., Letter from Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, et al. to Jeffrey D. Lynch,
Acting Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (April 6,
2017), available at http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/06/denver-ice-agents-
courthouse-school-raids/ (noting that as a result of immigration enforcement in Denver
courthouses, "[a]lready we have victims of domestic violence refusing to come to court
for fear of immigration consequences which results in violent criminals being released
into the community").
ss See Letter from Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye, Chief Justice, California Supreme Court, to
U.S. Att'y Gen'l Sessions et al. (March 16, 2017),
http://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/chief-justice-cantil-sakauye-objects-to-immigration-
enforcement-tactics-at-califomia-courthouses (arguing that immigration enforcement in
California courthouses "undermine[s] the judiciary's ability to provide equal access to
ustice").
6 Elliot—Park v. Manglona, 592 F.3d 1003, 1007 (9th Cir.2010) ("[D]iminished police
services, like the seat at the back of the bus, don't satisfy the government's obligation to
provide services on a nondiscriminatory basis").
* Titles and institutional affiliations included for identification purposes only.
Raquel E. Aldana
Professor of Law
McGeorge School of Law
David Baluarte
Associate Clinical Professor of Law
Washington & Lee University School of Law
Steven W. Bender
Professor of Law
Seattle University School of Law
Maylei Blackwell
Associate Professor
University of California, Los Angeles
Linda Bosniak
Distinguished Professor
Rutgers University Law School
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 9 of 14
Carolina Antonini
Adjunct Professor of Law, Atttorney
Georgia State University, College of Law
Jon Bauer
Clinical Professor of Law and Richard D.
Tulisano '69 Scholar in Human Rights
University of Connecticut School of Law
Lenni B. Benson
Professor of Law
New York Law School
Henry Blair
Robins Kaplan Distinguished Professor
Mitchell Hamline School of Law
Kristina M. Campbell
Professor of Law
University of the District of Columbia David
A. Clarke School of Law
Stewart Chang Violeta Chapin
Associate Professor of Law and Director of Clinical Professor of Law
the Center for International and University of Colorado Law School
Comparative Law
Whittier Law School
Matthew H. Charity
Professor of Law
Western New England University School of
Law
Gabriel J. Chin
Edward L. Barrett Jr. Chair & Martin Luther
King Jr. Professor of Law
University of California, Davis School of
Law
Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean, Distinguished Professor of Law, and
Raymond Pryke Professor of First
Amendment Law
University of California, Irvine School of
Law
Marisa Cianciarulo
Professor of Law
Chapman University
Brian Citro Stephen Cody
Clinical Lecturer in Law Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
University of Chicago Law School University of the Pacific, McGeorge School
of Law
* Titles and institutional affiliations included for identification purposes only.
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 10 of 14
Dr. Neil H. Cogan David S. Cohen
Professor and Former Dean Professor of Law
Whittier Law School Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of
Law
Marjorie Cohn Holly Cooper
Professor Emerita Co -Director Immigration Law Clinic
Thomas Jefferson School of Law University of California, Davis School of
Law
Frank Deale Ilene Durst
Professor of Law Professor
CUNY Law School Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Maurice R. Dyson Ingrid Eagly
Professor of Law Professor of Law
Thomas Jefferson School of Law University of California, Los Angeles School
of Law
Stella Burch Elias Sally Frank
Professor of Law Professor of Law
University of Iowa College of Law Drake University School of Law
Craig B. Futterman Cesar Cuauhtemoc Garcia Hernandez
Clinical Professor of Law Assistant Professor of Law
University of Chicago Law School University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Lauren Gilbert Rashmi Goel
Professor of Law Associate professor of law
St. Thomas University School of Law University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Joseph D. Harbaugh Dina Francesca Haynes
Professor Emeritus and Dean Emeritus Professor of Law
Shepard Broad College of Law, Nova New England Law
Southeastern University
Bill Ong Hing Geoffrey A. Hoffman
Professor of Law Director UHLC Immigration Clinic
University of San Francisco Univ. of Houston
Kari Hong Alan Hyde
Assistant Professor Distinguished Professor
Boston College Law School Rutgers University
* Titles and institutional affiliations included for identification purposes only.
Ulysses Jaen
Director & Professor
Ave Maria School of Law
Michael Kagan
Professor of Law
University of Nevada, Las Vegas
Elizabeth Keyes
Assistant Professor
University of Baltimore School of Law
Annie Lai
Assistant Clinical Professor of Law
University of California, Irvine School of
Law
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 11 of 14
Kevin R. Johnson
Dean and Professor of Law
University of California, Davis School of
Law
Anil Kalhan
Associate Professor of Law
Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of
Law
Hiroko Kusuda
Clinic Professor
Loyola New Orleans College of Law
Kevin Lapp
Associate Professor of Law
Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
Eunice Lee Jennifer Lee
Co -Legal Director, Center for Gender & Assistant Clinical Professor of Law
Refugee Studies Temple University Beasley School of Law
University of California, Hastings College of
the Law
Willem Maas
Jean Monnet Chair
York University
Fatma Marouf
Professor of Law, Director of Immigrant
Rights Clinic
Texas A&M University School of Law
Julie Marzouk
Assistant Clinical Professor
Chapman University Fowler School of Law
Peter Markowitz
Professor of Law
Cardozo School of Law
Lisa M. Martinez
Associate Professor
University of Denver
Estelle M. McKee
Clinical Professor
Cornell Law School
Binny Miller Jennifer Moore
Professor of Law and Co -Director, Criminal Professor of Law; Friedman Faculty
Justice Clinic Excellence Award
American University, Washington College of University of New Mexico School of Law
Law
* Titles and institutional affiliations included for identification purposes only.
Nancy Morawetz
Professor of Clinical Law and Co -Director,
Immigrant Rights Clinic
NYU School of Law
Elora Mukherjee
Associate Clinical Professor of Law
Columbia Law School
Howard S. (Sam) Myers III
Adjunct Professor of Law
University of Minnesota School of Law
Zhulmira Paredes
Adjunct Professor
John Marshall Law School
Karen Pita Loor
Clinical Associate Professor of Law
Boston University Law School
Andrea Ramos
Clinical Professor of Law & Director Of
Immigration Law Clinic
Southwestern Law School
Francisco J. Rivera Juaristi
Associate Clinical Professor of Law
Santa Clara Law
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 12 of 14
Hiroshi Motomura
Susan Westerberg Prager Professor of Law
University of California, Los Angeles School
of Law
Karen Musalo
Professor
University of California, Hastings College of
the Law
Sarah H. Paoletti
Practice Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania School of Law
Amagda Perez
Lecturer and Co -Director, Immigration Law
Clinic
University of California, Davis School of
Law
William Quigley
Professor of Law
Loyola University New Orleans
Dr. Paula R. Rhodes
Associate Professor
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Rocky Mountain Collective on Race, Place &
Law
Sarah Rogerson
Associate Professor of Law and Director,
Immigration Law Clinic
Albany Law School
Victor C. Romero Tom I. Romero II
Maureen B. Cavanaugh Distinguished Faculty Associate Professor
Scholar & Professor of Law University of Denver
Penn State Law
Michael Rooke -Ley Carrie Rosenbaum
Emeritus Professor of Law Adjunct Immigration Law Professor
Nova Southeastern University Golden Gate University School of Law
* Titles and institutional affiliations included for identification purposes only.
Rachel E. Rosenbloom
Professor of Law
Northeastern University School of Law
Ragini Shah
Clinical Professor of Law
Suffolk University
Rebecca Sharpless
Clinical Professor
University of Miami School of Law
Juliet P. Stumpf
Robert E. Jones Professor of Advocacy and
Ethics
Lewis & Clark Law School
Dr. JoAnne Sweeny
Associate Professor of Law
University of Louisville
Philip L. Torrey
Managing Attorney and Lecturer of Law
Harvard Law School
Diane Uchimiya
Director of the Justice and Immigration Clinic
and Law Professor
University of La Verne College of Law
Julia Vazquez
Supervising Attorney & Lecturer of Law
Southwestern Law School
Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia
Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar and Clinical
Professor of Law
Penn State Law
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 13 of 14
Ruben G. Rumbaut
Distinguished Professor of Sociology,
Criminology, Law and Society
University of California, Irvine
Peter M. Shane
Jacob E. Davis & Jacob E. Davis II Chair in
Law
Ohio State University Moritz College of Law
Sarah Sherman -Stokes
Clinical Instructor
Boston University School of Law,
Immigrants' Rights Clinic
Maureen A. Sweeney
Law School Associate Professor
University of Maryland Carey School of Law
Katharine Tinto
Assistant Clinical Professor of Law
University of California, Irvine School of
Law
Mary Pat Treuthart
Professor of Law
Gonzaga University
Michael S. Vastine
Professor of Law and Director, Immigration
Clinic
St. Thomas University School of Law
Leti Volpp
Robert D. and Leslie Kay Raven Professor of
Law
University of California, Berkeley School of
Law
Robin Walker Sterling
Associate Professor
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
* Titles and institutional affiliations included for identification purposes only.
Lindsey Webb
Assistant Professor
University of Denver Sturm College of Law
Richard Ashby Wilson
Gladstein Chair of Human Rights and
Professor of Law and Anthropology
University of Connecticut
Mark E. Wojcik
Professor
The John Marshall Law School
Elliott Young
Professor of History
Lewis & Clark College
Letter supporting California Values Act
Page 14 of 14
Deborah M. Weissman
Reef C. Ivey II Distinguished Professor of
Law
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
School of Law
Michael J. Wishme
William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of
Law and Deputy Dean for Experiential
Education
Yale Law School
Marai Woltjen
Executive Director, Young Center for
Immigrant Children's Rights at the
University of Chicago
University of Chicago
* Titles and institutional affiliations included for identification purposes only.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: O'Neill, William
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 11:46 AM
To: Brown, Leilani
Subject: FW: From Therese Please present this to the NB City Council for the agenda item
Will O'Neill
Mayor Pro Tern
City of Newport Beach
From: Therese Loutherback <mrmrswine@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, April 9, 2018 at 10:55 AM
Subject: From Therese Please present this to the NB City Council for the agenda item
Of course we are against Sanctuary Cities. Sanctuary cities not only are
illegal, they prevent the Federal Government from doing their jobs of
arresting illegals for crimes for which they should either be imprisoned or
deported. Illegals as importing serious drugs and crime into our country
and murdering innocent citizens. It's time the state of (Communist)
California start protecting it's citizens, not protecting those who come
here illegally! Let ICE and the Federal government do their jobs. And let
the Federal Government take away any funds from any city in the state of
California who do not cooperate with the laws. And then persecute any
law makers who defy the Federal laws and Constitution,for which they
promised to withhold. We citizens must stand up to those in Sacramento
who choose to implement radical leftist laws that are destroying our
liberty and constitution.
Therese Loutherback
53 Cambria Dr.
Corona Del Mar, CA 92625
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:37 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Citizen comment for Newport Beach City Council meeting regarding SB 54, April 10,
2018
From: D Elms
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:36:58 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office
Subject: Citizen comment for Newport Beach City Council meeting regarding SB 54, April 10, 2018
Dear Newport Beach City Council members:
I will be unable to attend the City Council meeting today, April 10th, 2018, but it's important I share my
views regarding SB 54.
I was born at Hoag Hospital, spent most of my childhood here, and many years ago, returned to help
my mother, relocating my business to Newport Beach as well. Though I miss the more open ranges
of my childhood, I appreciate the vibrancy among the range of people now here in our city and
county.
As a citizen of the city of Newport Beach, I am appalled to hear that you might allow people who have
been travelling like carpetbaggers, from city to city within Orange County, coming from other cities,
other counties, and even other states, an equal opportunity to speak in order to influence your vote as
city residents.
I support 100% the inclusion of Orange County, and especially Newport Beach, within our great state
of California, regarding supporting SB 54. 1 oppose any effort to separate our city from its support of
ALL of our people.
Your actions will be watched by those who live here when the others have gone home.
Please remain in support of SB 54.
My best,
Deborah Elms
222 Parkcrest
Newport Coast, CA 92657
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Kathe Choate <choateoncliff@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2018 7:55 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Sanctuary city
My husband and I are long time residents of Newport Beach. We wanted to pass on to the city council our opinion on
sanctuary cities. WE BELIEVE IN THE RULE OF LAW AND FAIL TO SEE HOW SANCTUARY STATUS WOULD BENEFIT OUR
COMMUNITY.
Bruce and Kathe Choate
Sent from Ruckus's Gabby
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Mary Ann Celinder <macelinder@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 9:17 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Sanctuary state
Council members:
I will be out of town this coming Tuesday when you will be taking public comments as you consider formally= opposing
California's key "sanctuary state" law .
You will no doubt have a number of anti -immigrant speakers telling their alt -right and alternative facts stories to
drum up fear about immigrants. The Huntington Beach council meeting was an expedition of the worst hate I'd ever
witnessed. They will be out in force to disrupt your meeting. Renleluber who we are, we are not these people.
If you grew up in Orange County, do you remember your 4th grade county history? I'm a descendant of one of Father
Serra's guards who came to California with Portola in 1769. Jose Antonio Yorba was granted a large parcel of land
from Spain that included Newport Beach, land that was Native American territory. Mexican land grants came next,
then Americans moved west and the land changed hands once again. We are a county, of change.
We are also a county of people looking for new beginnings. On my dad's side, his family left the Oklahoma dust bowl
in the 1930's seeking the land of mill: and honey. My husband's family came to escape the cold Chicago winter and
sail the sunny waters of the Newport Coast.
Waves of people continue to arrive in Orange County looking for a better life, you have your family story as do each
of your neighbors. We all have our stories of how we came to Orange County.
As a 6th generation Orange County citizen, I welcome our diversity. We can't demonize the newer arrivals. Their
reasons for coming are as diverse as the places they are from. Many are refugees from lands that are dangerous. The
trouble makers/criminals are a VERY small minority, a smaller minority than the criminals of our general
population. The majority of immigrants contribute and enrich our lives.
Do not let the anti immigration people attending your meeting this "Tuesday define Newport Beach. This is not who
we are.
Mary Ann Celinder
21341 Fleet Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
-Received -After -Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: nbtrotter <nbtrotter@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2018 1:52 PM
To: Dixon, Diane
Subject: Senate Bill 54
I am a resident of Newport Beach. Please do not oppose SB 54 as is proposed in the resolution to be considered
by the City Council on Tuesday.
I believe that the actions of the federal government have reached the point of being inhumane. I accept that
state and local governments must comply with applicable federal law; and in general have a good relationship
with the federal government but I do not believe that Newport Beach should voluntarily take cooperative steps
that add to the current inhumanity of the federal government.
Thank you,
Larry Mathena
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Gialisa Gaffaney <gialisa@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 10:45 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Tuesday's meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
As I hope you know, the Brown Act requires any discussion of a resolution on SB -54 to be conducted in OPEN SESSION.
I have read about the anti-immigrant/white supremacists traveling from city to city, and I can understand why you
would want a closed session, but it is against the law.
My understanding is that the city council must first vote to bring the matter of SB -54 back as an agenda item before
voting on it at this week's meeting.
As a Corona del Mar homeowner, resident, and parent, I would also like to lodge my opinion that SB -54 encourages
undocumented neighbors to report crimes and talk to the police, MAKING US ALL SAFER. I would urge you not to fall
prey to political whims of today, and pressures to WASTE OUR HARD-EARNED TAXES on anti -immigrant tactics.
SB -54 allows officials to deport felons, as it should.
But if we are here to "love our neighbors," that does not mean deporting the parents of the AMERICAN children who
were born here, and who attend school with our/my children.
I don't care whether you are Republican or Democrat or Libertarian or Martian— I expect our elected officials to act with
reasonable deliberation and compassion, and resist becoming beholden to political passions of Trump-ists.
Plus, almost all of you ran on a platform of fiscal conservatives, which is well supported in our community. To spend un-
needed money on a frivolous lawsuit to satisfy the whims of anti -immigrant protestors—most of whom do not even live
here—is irresponsible at best, and racist at worst.
As to the merits. POLICE were the ones who originally came up with the idea of refusing to ask people's immigration
status when they talk to police. This is because it MAKES US SAFER, and helps the police to gather information and
evidence of criminal activity.
There are countless instances where abused women have been deported along with their abusers, continuing the cycle
of violence and oppression that Americans are supposed to stand up to.
Most parents in our community cannot make a 7pm meeting on a Tuesday night. This Tuesday is "math night" at our
local school, and many of us are already committed to that event. My own kids have classes and sports till 8pm. But
know this: we are the majority of voters who actually LIVE HERE. And we are watching you. And we want compassion
and fiscal responsibility from our elected officials. Joining Trump's lawsuit against our state would reflect NEITHER.
Gialisa Gaffaney
—Homeowner, resident, parent, and Christian.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Rickie Hulsey <rickiehulsey@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 12:46 PM
To: Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman,
Jeff, Peotter, Scott; O'Neill, William
Subject: SB54 VOTE OPT OUT 4/10
ILLEGALS out not immigrants. Vote to opt out of S1354.
This is no different than a father bringing home his pay check, but goes and gives it away to take care
of illegal criminals. Eventually, his own family starves.
Here is an example, I saw today. THIS AFFECTS EVERYONE IN CA. Illegal activity does not confine
itself. We ALL PAY.
Saw this today. A bit infuriating. The frustration.
So sad, a life lost. Now taxpayers have to pay to house this illegal, judicial fees, our ins. goes up, on ;
on. And this is only one of the estimated million illegals here in CA. MayhernM The inmates are
running the prison.
Woman Convicted of Murder in
Gruesome DUI Hit -and -Run Case
Thank you,
Rickie
Born/raised/live in CA
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
1
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: GWG <gialisa@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 12:56 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Info about SB54
Please do not allow people's fear to distract you from the facts. SB54 does not allow officials to release
dangerous criminals to the streets. In fact, they are supposed to call the fed to have felons deported. Here is an
article about how it ACTUALLY works:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-sanctuary-state-criminals-explained-20180406-htmistory.html
Warm regards,
Gialisa Gaffaney
Editor -in -Chief, OC Lativyer Migazine
Freelance Author
Adjunct Prqfessor, Topics in Law, and Political Science
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Judy Strauss <jmstrauss@cox.net>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:20 AM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; info@nbwdc.org
Subject: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
We STRONGLY support SB 54 & heartily urge the NB City Council to PASS this important bill ... NOW! Judy & Steve
STRAUSS 2501 island View Dr. Corona Del Mar
Sent from my iPad
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: nikkis19 <nikkisl9@pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:51 AM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; info@nbwdc.org
Subject: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - 5B 54
I am in support of sanctuary cities! And glad that our state is also.
Sent firo Yt my Verizon, t>ainsung Galaxy sina `tphone
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Shirin Forootan <szandpour@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 10:05 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: SB -54
As a Corona del Mar homeowner, resident, and parent, I would also like to lodge my
opinion that SB -54 encourages undocumented neighbors to report crimes and talk to the
police, MAKING US ALL SAFER. I would urge you not to fall prey to political whims of
today, and pressures to WASTE OUR HARD-EARNED TAXES on anti -immigrant tactics.
SB -54 allows officials to deport felons, as it should.
But if we are here to "love our neighbors," that does not mean deporting the parents of the
AMERICAN children who were born here, and who attend school with our/my children.
POLICE were the ones who originally came up with the idea of refusing to ask people's
immigration status when they talk to police. This is because it MAKES US SAFER, and
helps the police to gather information and evidence.
My name is Shirin Forootan and I live at 708 Iris Ave., Corona del Mar CA 92625.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Joy Brenner <joy@joyfornewport.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 10:39 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: SB 54
Everyone with whom I have spoken feels this is not something we should be spending city resources on, either
in terms of money, staff or volunteer time, and is a divisive discussion over which we have no actual
control. It's just `playing politics' when we have much more important issues on which to spend our time and
energy.
Jo Y Brenner
M(a�,�oE ornewport. com
(949) 200-9993
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Jamie Young <jmeyng@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 11:02 AM
To: Dept - City Council; +cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov; +info@nbwdc.org
Subject: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
I oppose SB 54
Jamie Young
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Patricia Insley <pinsley623@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 12:20 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: SB 54
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To the City Council Members of Newport Beach,
I have been a resident of Newport Beach for over 30 years, have raised a family here, and this is the first time I
have written a letter to the City Council. I am doing so because I understand that the Council plans to consider
joining a lawsuit against SB54 on Tuesday night. I understand that this issue may be in closed session but I do
want to make my views clear and ask that you consider this input.
I have seen video clips of meetings related to SB 54 in Huntington Beach and Aliso Viejo with speakers
spewing hate speech, holding hate signs, and using fear mongering tactics. I understand that in Huntington
Beach some of the professional hecklers and haters came from as far as northern California and Arizona. You
may have seen photos in the Daily Pilot of some of their signs with wording such as such as Deport Them
All. This movement disparages all immigrants and implies that all are criminals. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform which is sponsoring these hate efforts is a Washington DC -based group that is described
as an anti -immigrant hate group with ties to White Supremacists.
I implore you to place our city on the right side of history and to reject the hate -filled rhetoric that is at the heart
of this movement. Send a signal to the thousands of hard-working, law-abiding immigrants from all origins who
the work in the shadows in our city, maintaining our landscapes, caring for our children, cleaning our homes,
and building homes, that immigrants are welcome in Newport Beach.
Focus on the authentic, local issues impacting our city such as growth, pension liabilities. airport noise, the
cleanliness of our harbor and quality of life, etc. SB54 is already being challenged by the Federal Department of
Justice and does not need to be addressed by our City Council. Demonstrate integrity and leadership, keep our
city off this frightening bandwagon, and show the world that Newport Beach maintains the values of inclusivity.
The reputation of this wonderful city is in your hands.
Patricia Insley
623 St. James Place
Newport Beach, Ca
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Donna Di Bari <dbldesigns@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 12:56 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: No Sanctuary City!!
I sincerely hope that the city of Newport Beach does not buckle under pressure and succumb to approving this ridiculous
measure! NO..NO.. we DO NOT want to be a Sanctuary City!! No!
Thank you,
Donna Di Bari
Balboa Island Resident
Sent from my Wad
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Jeanne Fobes <jeannefobes@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 1:15 PM
To: Dept - City Council; +cityclerk@newportbeachca.gov; +info@nbwdc.org
Subject: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
To: Members of the Newport Beach City Council
From: Jeanne Fobes, Newport Beach 92663
This is to express my dismay at your proposal to pass a resolution opposing SB54. I am deeply opposed to
allowing the federal government to "commandeer" state officials to do its bidding in law enforcement.
Supreme Court precedent does not allow the federal government to force local law enforcement to investigate
or report immigration status. It also means California can decline to expend its resources to enforce federal law.
I beseech you to take the action dictated by Supreme Court precedent and by the compassionate consciences of
your constituents. Vote to wholeheartedly SUPPORT SB 54!!!!
Sincerely, Jeanne Fobes
Newport Beach Resident for 48 years
Zip 92663
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: judygould@peoplepc.com
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 2:54 PM
To: Dept - City Council; City Clerk's Office; info@nbwdc.org
Subject: Public Comments: Agenda Item #13 - SB 54
I support the bill SB54 to protect our citizens.
Judy Gould
508 Playa
Newport Beach.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Gerlt, Linda
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 3:32 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: SB 54 Sanctuary State Act
Dear Council Members,
I would like to know if the city of Newport Beach will be joining many of the other cities in Orange County in
the federal lawsuit against SB54, the Sanctuary State Act?
Thank you,
Linda Gerlt
Library Assistant
Newport Beach Public Library
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Bonnie O'Neil <boneilseven@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:31 PM
Subject: Sanctuary State
> Dear Mayor and N.B. City Councilmen.
> Our hope is that Newport Beach will join other Orange County cities in their attempt to exempt us from the State's
unfortunate decision to make California a Sanctuary State.
> Bonnie and Dan O'Neil
> 135 Morning Star
> Newport Beach
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Irene Kinoshita <ikinoshita2@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:57 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Resolution to condemn SB54
To whom it may concern:
I have been a resident of Newport Coast for the past 17 years. I strongly oppose the proposal of Mayor Muldoon and
Councilman Poetter to join the lawsuit against California's sanctuary laws, and I urge you defeat the proposal.
Irene Kinoshita
Newport Coast
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Pamela Brusic <pbrusic@pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 10:40 PM
To: Herdman, Jeff, O'Neill, William
Cc: Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Peotter, Scott
Subject: Proposed resolution opposing SB 54
Dear Councilman Herdman. Mayor O'Neill, and Council members from other districts,
I strongly support 5654. Equally strongly, I oppose the idea that our city would add its voice to those who would
undermine the protections against ethnic profiling that are afforded by S1354.
The current wave of xenophobia mirrors those of earlier eras against Irish immigrants, Italians, Asians, and others. A
common thread in all of these embarrassing episodes of US history is demagogic voices trying to build political capital by
portraying the target group as dangerous and a threat to American society.
I object to my tax -supported city police department assisting in the harassment and even persecution of any group. I
object to my publicly -elected city council adding my city to the shrill and prejudiced voices that preach a doctrine of
walls and exclusion, of demonizing others, fomenting false fears and posturing as strongmen and protectors.
Do not take the side of the hate -mongers. Do not align our city with the garbage being tweeted from the White House.
Sincerely,
Pamela Brusic
1829 Port Sheffield Place
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Shayna Lathus <shayna.lathus@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 5:35 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 13
Good morning.
Re: Agenda Item #13:
"Adoption of Resolution No. 2018-23 Opposing Senate Bill 54 (California Values Act) 13. a)
Determine this action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Sections 15060(c)(2) and 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because this action will not result in a
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; and b) Adopt Resolution No. 2018-23, A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach, California, Opposing Senate Bill 54
(California Values Act)."
I am in strong support of the California Values Act and strongly oppose Resolution No. 2018-23,
which would cost unnecessary tax dollars as well as create a Newport Beach that is less safe for all
residents and visitors.
Please vote NO on Agenda Item 13.
Thank you.
—Shayna Lathus
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Eddy.N@verizon.net
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 6:48 AM
To: Dixon, Diane
Subject: SB54
Dear Newport Beach City Council:
We don't feel safe with criminal illegal aliens because they may rape our women and children, transmit
diseases, kill us as drunk drivers, rob, steal, caused accidents with no insurance, commit other crimes or kill
cops https://www.incluisitr.coin/1566')88/illegal-iminigrant-acctised-of-killing-two-calit.ornia-deputies/ . Los
Alamitos's city council passed an ordinance to defy SB 54, the state's main sanctuary law that bars local
authorities from honoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers. Orange County's Board of
Supervisors 'voted to join the Trump administration's lawsuit challenging California's three sanctuary state laws
and condemn the state's "sanctuary city" law, and NB should do the same.
likely to be
murdered by
an illegal alien
thari be killed
by a rifle.
z N.
Consider this:
Escondido voted 4-1 authorized the city's filing of a legal brief in support of the Trump administration's lawsuit
challenging California's three sanctuary city laws for violating the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
Escondido is the first city in San Diego County to consider defying the state's "sanctuary" laws, San Diego
County and other counties are joining the anti -sanctuary revolt.
IMPREGNATING 12
m IN
0 1015
Meg l
A�yp ftSON
43R►AN
'Mitt KIDNAPPING, ILLEGALS HELD IN
RAPING A 12-YEAR-OLO BRUTAL GANG RAPE IN
GIFT MASSACHIISETIS
MEXICAN ILLEGAL ALLEN
ARRESTED FOR
ALLEGHLY KIDNAPPING,
U1 DEPORTS ILLEGAL
ALIEN WANTED FOR
ALIEN ARRESTED F1
BINDING CHILD WIT
11UGT TAPE, GFFERI
HER FOR SEK
I _«x
ILLEGAL ALIEN ALL
TO STAY IN USA PLI
GUILTY TO RAPE,
MURDER, KIDNAPP
3
Cities and counties must join the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) who is fighting California's
dangerous and unconstitutional sanctuary laws by filing amicus or friend -of -the -court briefs in support of the
federal government's lawsuit. The lawsuit, U.S. v. California, claims that three California state laws, "The
California Values Act" (SB54), "The Immigrant Worker Protection Act" (AB450), and Assembly Bill 103
(AB 103) unconstitutionally obstruct the federal government's ability to enforce immigration laws. IRLI takes
aim at SB54 and AB450 in the brief it filed. This brief shows that SB54 and AB450 directly interfere with
federal enforcement of immigration law, even in ways that invite armed confrontations between state and
federal officers. The brief also shows that authority to pass these laws is not reserved to the states in the Tenth
Amendment, and that S1354, in which California decides for itself which categories of aliens get to stay in the
United States, usurps the federal government's exclusive authority over foreign relations.
Victims Of Megal Alien Crime
7.049 a GAR
Crff"M"Ch""
ASS&M
IN Drug Related
Obsbudkg POOH
°_'';Theft
Sexual ASMA
Robbefy
SKOMPPkV
Crinis Victims rrf` IlI��:E� �F�lycrt
,hMVI1 Ix+krw IrL luet,a h.7ndtulot t1w rrsamy lbousaruh 0 Inrwx vY hrrw,ricam Min
I+.,vs ltrr:n xraruderrxt, rtiveit, kidnat:¢x�cl, rut�lrrx! ortitkrexwh'c� tr#rs8ially hasnM�<1': by
Wst N own sr•pir. Iles right tut lx, in Ili" ctgraltty. Mw filth lmx.ir mratl#su raw aol dLx)als
xhowF that ia> ny do iw! crone to wr)4 4+d to i rinxgl cril t,
It r4trtrr.r:ursrntpAhiNtSIT. he the htcCstn,KanIUN;Iy t>rH' 3-414lXlrntx rnxlre thing'.nout
t)rekrpwi to 4 illampli ow tnniigp%, tnmds and riek}hlyam
t
,
...�
Tr+YJ.%, !m is Wrglfthl 4141"t.14 D", Waii-mg
;d tr.., :-s,r,�si Me
n'Jrr:uri+-:r1-I'ltc+:rk;l� -11—,
d , :(-{; C".ai % ''w� e'l a. 7 0-0 t� 3 re
11A I -'i}. <. ori p-0'1 b, V, tkh'.
'0": vri j:4ti"� .,,r li•
uN'
x f
Mary Nigh loycc Dirgitrr S(ott'Cardaitr
'r ,u{i�.i x3 i.e'. S 4il,xsdn113
A.,, i p is<:¢• F +->efi, I I,n NNt fi U). "a :w 11, 7r
a.l ;-I,
1-111-1 Al -1'.'A I 1+: n .mI!!
• _ rsi it +1,:e
Mor*. IaGsrxn+.tloM zt www,tin�il{r�rtrsnrtEsmrsin4owl:.�rq
IRLI addresses all 3 state laws in a separate brief on behalf of a coalition of California municipalities and
elected officials, including the cities of Escondido, Mission Viejo and Yorba Linda, and U.S. Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher(CA-48). These municipalities and officials have grave concerns that the challenged state laws not
only violate federal supremacy, but will make cities and local officials criminally liable. The brief shows that by
restricting the ability of local governments and private businesses to cooperate with federal immigration
officers, AB450 and SB54 compel them to commit the federal crime of concealing, harboring, or shielding
illegal aliens. The brief also demonstrates that contacting and working with governmental enforcement
authorities is protected First Amendment free speech activity that California cannot constitutionally prohibit.
The federal government and the Constitution speak for Californians on immigration. This is a textbook
application of the Supremacy Clause, and laws like SB54 and AB450 are not only flagrantly unconstitutional
but extremely dangerous — to both the safety of ALL Californians and the integrity of our federal republic.
5
In Orange County, Mission Viejo supports Los Alamitos's ordinance while Buena Park, Aliso Viejo, Fountain
Valley, San Juan Capistrano, Yorba Linda, Barstow, Hesperia filed or joined amicus briefs. Aliso Viejo just
voted 4-1 to join Trump DoJ lawsuit against California, along with officials from West Covina, San Marcos,
San Dimas. Huntington Beach voted 6-1 to sue California to seek relief from the SB54 mandates because
California's "sanctuary" laws represent a threat to public safety and city lawmakers have been exploring options
to ensure the safety of its citizens and "maintain local control, while at the same time, fulfill our oath of
upholding the Constitution." NB must stay ahead of the curve to protect its residents, rally other cities, join
Trump lawsuit with amicus brief, pass ordinance to exempt itself and allow ICE cooperation because the wall is
being build right now by the Army Corps of Engineers, National Guard troops are being sent to the border, and
it is not a wise move for California to defy the US government headed by Trump, because he is doing the right
thing to secure our borders to keep us safe from the alien invasion.
This message and any attached document is sent privately in the public interest and may contain candid, open, and
truthful advice, recommendations, opinions, proposals, and information that is privileged, proprietary, non-public and
exempt from disclosure, confidential or otherwise protected by law, and may be subject to executive, diplomatic,
judicial, clerical, deliberative process or other privilege and is intended solely for the recipient and not for disclosure or
distribution. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are prohibited from reviewing, retransmitting, printing, copying,
scanning, disseminating, uploading or otherwise using in any manner this email or any attachments to it. Please notify
the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.
Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error -free as information could be intercepted, modified,
corrupted, lost, destroyed, manipulated, incomplete, arrive late or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for any errors, revisions or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email
transmission or unauthorized disclosure or distribution.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Aubrey Roy <aubrey.r.roy@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 6:55 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: City Council Meeting April 10 Agenda Item 13
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good morning Newport Beach City Council,
I am emailing in regard to your agenda item 13. 1 have lived in Orange County the majority of my adult life and have been proud
to call Newport Beach home. I love how diverse and inclusive the community is. I understand the concerns of some members of
the community about the impact SB 54 may have on crime and legality of the of the law. However, repeated academic studies
have shown that having immigrants - both documented and undocumented - actually DECREASES crime in a
community. Recent academic studies have shown that being a sanctuary county has positive impacts on communities. There
are, on average, 35.5 fewer crimes committed per 10,000 people in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties.
This is largely due to the fact that there is increased trust between immigrants and law enforcement, so they are more likely to
report crime and cooperate in investigations. Additionally, because law enforcement resources are not being used to help with
federal investigations, and instead are being used to help with local crime, law enforcement officers have the time and resources
necessary to solve and prevent crimes.
Additionally, I'm sure you'll hear arguments that this is about federal law, and that's correct. It is a FEDERAL issue. Federal
courts have repeatedly found that local Compliance with detention requests is voluntary. It is significant use of resources that
could be better allocated toward helping our community in other ways. Newport Beach should not spend it's resources on on
these, when we can use the money to investigate more serious crimes and ensure our police officers have the right resources.
Let's not use resources on a case that is already being litigated in the courts.
I understand that you may also be concerned about the state's overreach in local issues. I disagree with this point. However, we
may not see eye -to -eye. In which case, I'm asking you to please choose a different issue to make a point about the state
overreach. If you believe the state is overreaching in t his case, I'm sure you believe they will in another. This issue is too
divisive, and making a stand now is taking a dangerous political statement. The message about local control gets lost.
Additionally, few officers are sharing this information anyway in this state, so SB 54 has nearly no impact on officers.
I appreciate your time and your dedication to this city. Please continue to keep Newport Beach safe and support SB 54. It can
only benefit this city.
Thank you,
--Aubrey Roy
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Don Miller <henwedge@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 10:06 AM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Stop this madness!
Dear Council,
Anyone with a brain and who understands data knows that SB54 keeps people SAFE and is supported by law
enforcement for a good reason. I understand the mothership at the GOP thinks this is a winning strategy to win
elections. It's not. The OC is upside down on Trump bigly and you attaching to this campaign strategy is
outright stupid.
Remember how well Prop. 187 went down? Double that when Trump tanks. Stay out of the frey, stop causing
needless suffering and wasting our time and our tax dollars on political stunts!
If you want some facts to inject in the debate...
https://www.americanpro reg ss.org/issues/immigrationlreports/2017/01/26/297366/the-effects-of-sanctuary
policies -on -crime -and -the -economy/
Sincerely,
Concerned Resident
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Kathy Hill <kathyh@bja-inc.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 12:27 PM
To: Dixon, Diane; Avery, Brad; Duffield, Duffy; Muldoon, Kevin; Herdman, Jeff; Peotter, Scott;
O'Neill, William; Dept - City Council
Subject: Sanctuary City Status - SB54
Attachments: Ltr to City Council Members 4-18.pdf
Please see attached letter.
Bonnie & Brion Jeannette
Brion Jeannette Architecture
Custom Architecture I Energy Efficient Design
470 Old Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
T: 949.645.5854 ext. 210
kathyh@bia-inc.com
www.customarchitecture.com
hovzz Follow us on Houzz and see what we're uo to
CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in this a -Mail message, including any accompanying documents or attachments, is from Brion
Jeannette Architecture and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and is privileged and confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. Due to
the vulnerabilities associated with electronic communications this message and any attachments should be checked for destructive content prior to
executing. BJA is not responsible for loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments.
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
April 10, 2018
Bonnie Jeannette
400 Santa Ana Avenue
Newport Beach, Ca. 92663
City Newport Beach
City Council Chambers
100 Civic Center Drive
tNewoort Beach, California 92660
Email:
Re: Sanctuary City Status—SB 54
To the Honorable Mayor Duffield and City Council Members,
I write to strongly object to the City of Newport Beach opposing the State of California's position
on SB 54.
I fully support the deportation of an illegal immigrant who has committed a crime. It is entirely
another thing to randomly expose and remove residents who have obeyed the law, raised
families, own homes, pay taxes and work productively in our community. Throughout the
history of America an immigrant population has labored to improve the quality of their lives and
their descendants. It is on this foundation that America is built. All of us are a product of our
descendant forbearers fleeing unimaginable circumstances to improve their lives.
A dear friend of mine who is Hispanic was followed home to his apartment building, which he
owns, after a full day of hard work. He was approached by a police officer and made to produce
his citizenship papers. He was not believed when he explained that he owned the apartment
building he lived in. His wife and children stood on the lawn watching this ordeal before he
produced enough proof to be freed of the questioning. He committed no crime, broke no laws.
This horrible confrontation was simply because he is of Mexican decent.
With little effort this movement to round up all illegal immigrants, law abiding or not, could be
come the next 'McCarthy Eera.' The Nes that have been perpetrated against the Hispanic
community are outrageous and are designed to divide us as a nation and a people.
I urge the City Council to support the State of California and take the high ground for humanity.
Concerned Citizens,
G�ikra_.- ....�1✓�-.fit` �' � (/�7-rte- `� • ��t�'
Bonnie & Brion.!" eannette
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Dave Conant <dconant2@thecargroup.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 1:13 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Subject: Oppose SB 54
Dear Council Members,
My wife and I are 34 -year residents of the Dover Shores neighborhood in Newport Beach. We have been so proud to
raise our four children here and feel blessed to be part of this community. We have supported the public schools every
year for 25 plus years with frequent gifts to the various educational foundations to make up for the State's shortfall in
funding of important programs. Sacramento's priorities have always been different than ours.
In the recent 10 years the state has seemingly gone nuts and their Sanctuary State bill SB 54 is clear evidence of their
insanity. The pendulum eventually swings I have observed and it is high -time; it needs to swing back on this issue. Please
join the other cities and the County of Orange and vote tonight to oppose SB54. It is time to reverse the insane
legislative trend that Jerry Brown and his legislature have us on. The nation is watching and it's time to change the
course of history for this great state.
Respectfully,
David M. Conant
Catherine A. Conant
1381 Galaxy Drive
N.B. 92660
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: Bill Frederickson <frederickson@sbcglobal.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 3:27 PM
To: Dept - City Council
Cc: Debbie
Subject: Sanctuary State
I am in favor of the city of Newport Beach supporting the Federal Government in their suit against California Sanctuary
State laws. We must follow the lays set down by our Federal Government not try to dismiss the law due to a political
agenda.
Bill and Debbie Frederickson
1433 Santiago Dr
Newport Beach
92660
Received After Agenda Printed
April 10, 2018
Item No. 13
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:10 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: Congratulations for opposing the Sanctuary law
From: Oborny, Shirley
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:10:17 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Cc: Kiff, Dave; Jacobs, Carol; Biddle, Jennifer
Subject: FW: Congratulations for opposing the Sanctuary law
From: angela zenn [mailto:angelazenn@outlook.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 11:45 AM
To: Kiff, Dave <DKiff@newportbeachca.gov>; Oborny, Shirley <soborny@newportbeachca.gov>; Jacobs, Carol
<cjacobs@newportbeachca.gov>; Biddle, Jennifer <JBiddle@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: Congratulations for opposing the Sanctuary law
Congratulations for opposing the Sanctuary law (Bill 54). I am with you.
It's not even about fighting criminals, drug traffickers. It's about legal
verses illegal.
Those of us who came legally have to wait years and years to pass the
many legal processes.
Those illegal aliens simply smuggle in. Those illegal smugglers sneak in
should of course be prohibited from coming in and be sent back
From: City Clerk's Office
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:12 PM
To: Mulvey, Jennifer; Rieff, Kim
Subject: FW: White
From: Oborny, Shirley
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2018 2:11:40 PM (UTC -08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)
To: City Clerk's Office
Subject: FW: White
-----Original Message -----
From: ralphcathy hernandez [mailto:ralphcathyh@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:17 PM
To: Oborny, Shirley <soborny@newportbeachca.gov>
Subject: White
I am sitting here watching the news.trump supporters have your city looking as a whites only city .
Sent from my iPad