Glendora votes down resolution to support state, federal laws (because they already do, duh!)

One of the more interesting moments of Glendora’s city council meeting Tuesday night was the discussion over a resolution that would be a proclamation of support for “The Rule of Law and State Rights”

The resolution, as it was written, would make it known that Glendora supports the law. As its justification, It has a few paragraphs relating to immigration, such as acknowledging the country’s history of immigrants, support of legal immigration, acknowledging the country and state has laws regarding immigration, raises issues of human trafficking and drugs, and finally says, in probably its strongest statement, that other states and cities have enacted laws as a result of unfair practices by the federal government (Arizona anyone?)

The intent, when councilmen Doug Tessitor and Ken Herman asked for it to be drawn up, was as a stance against illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.

When the resolution went before the council, many members had problems with it. Tessitor and councilman Gene Murabito thought it wasn’t strong enough to express the council’s intent. Tessitor called it “vanilla.”

City Attorney Wayne Leech said it was his intent to water it down in an effort to not put the city on the side of a law that could be rendered unconstitutional.

So the actual resolution section only stated “The City of Glendora supports the rule of law and that enforcement of all government laws, rules and regulations must be done in a fair and equitable manner so that its citizens believe that regardless of their race; family status; religion, creed or financial ability will be treated in the true spirit of Justice being blind to those elements.”

Councilman Terry Kent expressed what most people watching probably thought too. If this does nothing more than say Glendora supports all laws, and considering the city already enforces those laws, than why is the council even talking about this?

“We are already doing it,” Kent said during the meeting. “I don’t know why we are here, to be honest with you.”

Councilwoman Karen Davis echoed Kent’s comments.

“We have, we are and will enforce the laws and in terms of other cities, what we say or do will not impact what those other cities will do,” she said. “We have a jurisdiction to enforce the laws in Glendora, which we have, are and will do. If the intent is to make a reflection on what some other cities have chosen to do, then maybe the language of this needs to be different.”

Murabito had problems with the resolution’s intent versus the actual language.

“If we want to make a statement the we support the laws, why do we then in one paragraph here get very specific to immigration law?” he asked. “To me this whole resolution is saying in essence, we support the laws … and then, oh by the way, we are going to draft this to address immigration.”

Tessitor said immigration should be part of the resolution, and in fact, brought forward stronger within the resolution because “immigration is the lynch pin” by which other cities have fashioned sanctuary city laws.

“I think that is the nexus that is important in taking a stand,” he said.

In the end, only Herman and Tessitor voted in favor of the resolution which died 3-2.

Everyone has something to say about Arizona immigration law decision

In the wake of a judge blocking all the important parts of Arizona’s immigration law SB 1070, here is some reaction from local group and politicians regarding border security and immigration issues.

The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles issued a statement following the court’s decision on the law.

“Today’s preliminary injunction is a significant partial victory for immigrants, Arizonans, and any American who believes in the protection of freedom, liberty, and equality. Judge Bolton has sent a clear and strong message that sections of the law are at minimum questionable and should not go into effect on July 29. The injunction of the most egregious sections of SB1070 bolsters our argument all along that this law is unconstitutional We will continue to apply political, economic, and legal pressure on Arizona and claim final victory until the law is erased from the books and just and humane immigration reform is advanced in Congress.”

In the Tribune’s story on the decision, Rep. David Dreier was critical of the decision.

“Enhanced cooperation between federal and local authorities is critical to effective immigration enforcement. Instead of filing lawsuits, the federal government should be focused on enforcing our immigration laws.”

Rep. Adam Schiff had this to say:

“We can’t have 50 different states enacting 50 different (immigration) policies. The court as a legal matter properly concluded the law at least in part would have violated federal enforcement of immigration policies. It was a reasonable decision.”

Rep,. Gary Miller, in a statement, says more money is needed to support the judicial system in the southwestern states after the House passed emergency supplemental funds for border security.

“During the last several years, stepped up enforcement and prosecution efforts in Southwest border jurisdictions have resulted in a significant increase in the number of drug, immigration, and weapons cases being filed in courts along the border … Without additional resources, a bottleneck in the judicial system will occur because the courts will lack the resources necessary to process the additional criminal cases brought by the Department of Justice.”

Email: | Twitter: @dgtedford @sgvtribune | Facebook: SGVTribune