The city of San Fernando’s city council deliberated for over an hour and a half on Monday on whether to designate the small, predominantly Latino city of 23,000 a “Sanctuary City,” in addition to adding three new policies that would bolster its protections for immigrants.
By a vote of three to two, the motion was denied.
The motion was brought forth by Mary Solorio, the vice mayor of San Fernando, for discussion at last night’s city council meeting. In the first part of the discussion, Councilmember Joel Fajardo voiced his opposition to adopting the designation “Sanctuary City,” or any version of that, for the city of San Fernando, saying that the term is too problematic and politically charged. Fajardo argued that adopting such a term could turn the city and its residents into “a target by this administration, potentially jeopardizing people even more.”
This same sentiment was shared by Mayor Mary Mendoza, who wanted to avoid “unintended consequences, putting our residents at greater risk by putting a target on their backs.” Councilmember Victoria Garcia added, “There are some cities that call themselves a sanctuary city, and I think that they tend to be, like, really big cities that have the resources to fight legally.”
Feeling the general consensus of the council was against adopting the term “Sanctuary City,” Vice Mayor Solorio wanted to clarify her stance by explaining that her “intent was not necessarily to adopt a sanctuary city name.” Rather, her intention was to make sure the city of San Fernando implemented stronger safeguards for immigrants.
Currently, the city of San Fernando follows the same five policies as the city of L.A., Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena in regard to immigrant protection.
These policies state that these cities:
- May not inquire about someone’s immigration status.
- May not detain anyone based on a federal immigration (ICE) hold request.
- May not provide information re: custody release date unless publicly available.
- May not assist with civil immigration warrants or warrantless searches.
- May not participate in immigration enforcement activities.
These were shown on a chart alongside three other policies that San Fernando does not currently have in comparison to other cities (of the included policies, only L.A. has all three).
These policies prohibit:
- Access to and use of City/County property to immigration authorities w/o judicial warrant or probable cause.
- All personnel from providing access to city data re: immigration status to ICE Agents w/o judicial warrant or order.
- All personnel from collecting immigration status, unless required by law.
While discussing whether the city of San Fernando should adopt the three new policies, Councilmember Fajardo asked city Manager Nick Kimble if, to his knowledge, there had ever been a situation in which ICE asked for immigration data or used city property. In a long-winded answer, Kimble essentially said no.
Through further questioning by Councilmember Fajardo, Kimble also confirmed that the city does not collect any information from residents regarding their immigration status. So, to Fajardo’s point, even if ICE did ask for that information, the city has no data to give. At this point, Kimble had to ask attendees to quiet down so Fajardo could continue.
After further discussions, the council put a motion to vote that would direct staff to develop a policy, whether an ordinance or resolution, to address the three items that are not currently covered by the city’s policies. That motion failed. Vice Mayor Solorio and Councilmember Lopez were the only two “yes” votes.
Council Member Garcia added to her no vote, saying, “We do all these things already,” emphasizing a statement she made earlier during discussions.
“We’ve had these policies since before the term sanctuary city became popular,” she said.
The final consensus was that the city of San Fernando already has immigrant protections in place. Adding more would only put a target on the backs of its residents.
Ferardo also argued that as a small city, San Fernando was better off following California’s SB54, the California Values Act, often referred to as a "sanctuary law," which limits the involvement of state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcement, preventing it from using resources for immigration enforcement purposes, except in specific circumstances.
According to Fajardo, the city would be in “moral” and “legal standing” with the principles set forth by the state, which provides an abundance of protections for people.
