The LB Values Act applies SB 54's prohibitions to requesting, collecting, maintaining, or disclosing "sensitive information" including but not limited to one's citizen or immigration status, absent certain circumstances in connection with enforcement of federal immigration law, applied to all Long Beach City Manager departments, including LBPD, LBFD, Financial Management, Development Services and Health & Human Services.

On a separate motion, the Council voted 5-3 (Price, Supernaw, Mungo dissenting, Austin absent) to direct staff to investigate a universal defense fund in the amount of $250,000 and report back to Council with options to establish that fund to aid impacted LB residents.

[Scroll down for further.]

In introducing the agenda item, city staff publicly acknowledged that depending on the uncertain outcome of the now-pending federal litigation, Council approval could potentially affect up to $6.7 million the City now receives in federal taxpayer grants. No Councilmember(s) referred to this issue during their discussion of the item.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Over fifty speakers urged Council to go further than city staff proposed and eliminate "carve outs" in the LB Values Act that mirror carve outs in SB 54 and allow sharing of information that could result in deporting individuals who entered the U.S. illegally and were convicted of certain serious crimes (including gang offense) even if they've since led otherwise lawful lives.

Most of public speakers in support urged Council to remove "carve outs" from "LB Values Act," arguing that SB 54's carve-outs were included to gain support from conservative parts of state and said LB should adopt a more progressive policy. Speakers in support were well organized and passionate; several pointedly announcing in what Council districts they live [and thus vote]. Many were part of LB's diverse communities, including those from Cambodia, Latin America and the Philippines. Some speakers likened the Trump administration stance to Fascism. Others said it perpetuated an unfair distinction between "good" and "bad" immigrants. Some speakers said some newly arrived refugees had made "mistakes" or engaged in gang activity on arrival (one said for "self-defense" and cited "over policing" of LB neighborhoods) but had since turned their lives around. Others said the deportations had broken up and devastated families financially.

Congressman Alan Lowenthal (D, Long Beach-West OC) sent a representative to read a statement, supporting the LB Values Act without carve outs.

7th district Councilman Roberto Uranga drew audience cheers when he said that in his opinion, some of SB 54's carve outs (and thus the carve outs in the LB Values Act) weren't sufficiently serious to merit deportation and had racial implications.

Councilman Uranga: ...I believe justice is not blind, given the facts that the high number of Blacks and Latinos basically says is not color blind. And why is it that, you know when we're talking about this issue here, we're talking about Latinos or people of color with an issue of their immigration status...Again, people of color. I disagree with that.

I have issues with the carve outs, I really do, because some of the carve outs that are here, and some of the crimes, I don't seem 'em reaching that level of having to be deported. For example, a DUI. Embezzlement. [applause build] Forgery. Those are, I see those as perhaps white-collar type crimes [cheers] and I see, and you know there are some people in jails now that I wish I could deport who are white [more cheers]. You know, go back to Europe, [laughter] Switzerland, wherever. But, you know, at risk of sounding, without sounding racist, this just a reversal type of thing here [shifts to discussion of why he supported SB 54], .." [For audio clip, click here.]

Sponsor

No organized group -- including the LB Republican Party -- sent representative(s) to speak in opposition. Three individuals spoke in opposition (one delivering an expletive-laced ad hominem rant.) One speaker (a 5th district resident) expressed empathy for those facing deportation but said the city should work to change current law, not break it (for which he received audience jeers.)

The Council approved motion ultimately declined to remove "carve outs" from LB Values Act policy, effectively approving what city staff recommended with the inclusion of mainly non-substantive amendments offered by the item's primary proponent, Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez. Gonzalez's amendments directed preparation of an LAPD style "special order" enumerating situations under the LB Values Act in which LBPD (and city agencies) will or won't share information with federal authorities and directed city staff to set up webpage making the policies publicly accessible.

Councilwoman Jeannine Pearce agreed to join in the Council majority action based on agreement to further discuss carve-outs in future Council meetings.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The Council item came forward based on a September 19, 2017 Council voted action (7-1, Mungo voting "no," Supernaw exiting prior to the item) that directed city staff to draft a "Long Beach Values Act" for Council consideration that affirms "the City's commitment to" SB 54 and SB 31. (The Council explicitly did so in a "consent calendar item approved without further discussion on Oct. 3, 2017.)

Long Beach City Hall's confrontational stance toward the Trump administration's immigration policies began on Feb. 7, 2017 -- the first Council meeting day after President Trump was sworn into office. An item co-agendized by Councilmembers Lena Gonzalez, Jeannine Pearce, Roberto Uranga and Vice Mayor Rex Richardson (titled "Support for State Legislation protecting Long Beach's diverse communities") sought Council support for SB 54 and SB 31 [both of which were ultimately enacted in 2017.] The four agendizing Councilmembers wrote in part, "Given the caustic directives being issued by our nation's newly elected President, it is important the City of Long Beach is clear on where we stand. Long Beach is a safe and welcoming City. We will protect the safety and well-being of all Californians by ensuring State and local resources are not used to support deportations, separate families, and ultimately hurt California's economy..." The Feb. 7, 2017 Council item carried on a 7-0 vote (Andrews and Mungo absent, with Mungo vanishing on the vote and re-appearing a few minutes later.

President Trump and U.S. Attorney General Sessions have denounced SB 54 and "sanctuary city" policies, and last week the U.S. Justice Dept. filed suit seeking to invalidate SB 54. On March 7, 2018, U.S. Attorney General Sessions told a Sacramento meeting of the CA Peace Officers' Association [remarks as prepared for delivery]

...Immigration law is the province of the federal government. This Administration and this Justice Department are determined to make it work effectively for the people. I understand that we have a wide variety of political opinions out there on immigration. But the law is in the books and its purpose is clear.

There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is "the supreme law of the land." I would invite any doubters to Gettysburg, and to the graves of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln.

A refusal to apprehend and deport those, especially the criminal element, effectively rejects all immigration law and creates an open borders system. Open borders is a radical, irrational idea that cannot be accepted...

But, California, we have a problem. A series of actions and events has occurred that directly and adversely impact the work of our federal officers. For example, the mayor of Oakland has been actively seeking to help illegal aliens avoid apprehension by ICE. Her actions support those who flout our laws and boldly validate the illegality. There's no other way to interpret her remarks.

To make matters worse, the elected Lieutenant Governor of this state praised her for doing so. Bragging about and encouraging the obstruction of our law enforcement and the law is an embarrassment to this proud and important state...So here's my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you. How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement just to promote your radical open borders agenda.

But in California, we have an even bigger problem than just one mayor. The problems continue...

In recent years, California has enacted a number of laws designed to intentionally obstruct the work of our sworn immigration enforcement officers -- to intentionally use every power it has to undermine duly-established immigration law in America...[T]hese laws are harmful to Californians, and they're especially harmful to law enforcement.

That's why the Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit yesterday against the state of California to invalidate these unjust laws and to immediately freeze their effect. Federal agents must be able to do the job that Congress has directed them to do.

Contrary to what you might hear from the lawless open borders radicals, we are not asking California, Oakland, or anyone else to enforce immigration laws. Although we would welcome the positive assistance the majority of jurisdictions in America provide, ICE agents do incredible work every day. They will not be deterred.

We are simply asking California and other sanctuary jurisdictions to stop actively obstructing federal law enforcement. Stop treating immigration agents differently from everybody else for the purpose of eviscerating border controls and advancing an open borders philosophy shared by only the most radical extremists. Stop protecting lawbreakers and giving all officers more dangerous work to do so that a few politicians can score political points on the backs of officer safety...

California is using every power it has -- and some it doesn't -- to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I'm going to use every power I have to stop them...

Some speakers at the LB City Council's March 13 meeting (including UCLA law students and some attorneys) voiced the view that SB 54 would withstand legal challenge citing the U.S. Constitution's 10th Amendment that specifies powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States.