In an abrupt end to a discussion of the City of San Fernando adopting a “sanctuary city” status, city councilmembers voted (3-2) to keep the status quo and not update the existing policy to further enshrine immigrants’ rights in the city.
“It’s simple, we either stand with the community or we stand against the community,” said Councilwoman Patty Lopez before the vote.
Calls of “We see you,” “Shame on you,” and “Definitely not getting re-elected” echoed in the council chamber as Mayor Mary Mendoza and Councilmembers Joel Fajardo and Victoria Garcia voted “No,” preventing San Fernando from becoming a sanctuary city.
Despite being a predominantly Latino community, the City of San Fernando has been slow to respond to concerns surrounding immigrant rights. The city of Los Angeles declared itself a sanctuary city in 2019 and formally adopted legislation last year, while Berkeley, Santa Ana, New York City, Chicago and countless other cities nationwide have made similar declarations.
Community members showed overwhelming support in favor of San Fernando officially becoming a sanctuary city when Vice Mayor Mary Solorio, who was separated from her parents as a child, first brought forth the discussion in February. Since then, the council has kicked the issue down the road, delaying a vote.
The council chambers were full on Monday when the matter was brought back for discussion. Elected officials, residents, business owners, educators, immigrant rights activists, major human rights organizations, health professionals and immigrants themselves, again vehemently supported the designation. An additional 27 written comments, 48 student letters and one open letter from Lopez expressed support for sanctuary city status, with only one written comment of dissent for the designation.
“Families here in San Fernando should not live in fear,” said Joana Reyes on behalf of Assemblywoman Celeste Rodrigez, San Fernando’s former mayor. “Please listen to the community and do what is right.”
Speakers urged the council to pass a sanctuary ordinance in the wake of fear and hostility being perpetuated by the current administration’s mass raids and deportations.
“Immigrants continue to face attacks from the federal immigration system, especially under the threat of mass deportations from President Donald Trump,” said Yaritza Gonzalez on behalf of the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN). “The City of San Fernando can ensure that its resources, property and personnel are not being utilized for any federal immigration enforcement by passing a sanctuary ordinance.”
Since Trump took office in January, community members noted that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been spotted in the City of San Fernando and neighboring Sylmar and Pacoima.
The City of San Fernando is 92% Latino, with 34% of its population being foreign-born, according to United States Census Data. Immigrant rights and mass deportations have implications for virtually everyone that the city represents.
“I am here today because my parents were once undocumented refugees, and I have family members now who are currently undocumented,” said Julio Rodriguez, adding that under the current Trump administration, his tía is afraid to go outside, take her kids to play at the park, buy groceries and had “missed work out of fear of deportation.”
He pleaded for the council to pass a sanctuary city ordinance, adding that if they didn’t, it would “be a severe violation of my trust.”
“People are being detained without due process unendingly,” said San Fernando resident Melodie Kruspodin. “These policies are not about public safety. They are about creating excuses to target those deemed undesirable.”
Noting that all of her great-grandfather’s siblings and parents were murdered in Poland during the Holocaust, Kruspodin exclaimed, “If you’ve ever wondered what you’d do during that time, you’re doing it now.”
Local business owner Sergio Amalfitano questioned, “What liberty are you pledging your allegiance to upholding” when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?
“Consider your duty to your fellow human beings; consider the moral implications of not supporting sanctuary,” he continued.
A dead silence pierced the room when Amalfitano used his last 30 seconds as a moment to honor Jocelyn Carranza, an 11 year old who took her life after being bullied over her family’s immigration status, and any immigrant who has died in detention.
During the February council meeting, Garcia said she opposed the designation because of concerns that it would protect cartel members and traffickers from being arrested or deported, while Fajardo expressed fear that the city would become a target for the current administration.
Walter Garcia tried to dispel some of the council’s previous concerns by pointing out that California’s sanctuary state ordinance, Senate Bill (SB) 54, doesn’t protect criminals from being prosecuted and was upheld by the courts when challenged by Trump’s first administration.
“The council’s action here today is largely symbolic because of the California Values Act,” he said, “but it still matters.”
A sanctuary city designation is a public declaration that the city boldly stands behind its immigrant and undocumented communities. It can affirm those riddled with fear that their elected officials will protect them.
“Our families came here seeking safety and opportunity. They built their lives in neighborhoods like this one, often in the shadows, navigating systems that weren’t made for them,” said Diosy Reyes. “Declaring San Fernando a sanctuary city is a powerful affirmation that we will not abandon our neighbors.”
Council Cowers from Taking Action
During the council discussion, Fajardo, Mendoza and Victoria Garcia suggested that the city already protects immigrant rights in practice, therefore, there was no need to issue a sanctuary city designation.
“Sanctuary cities could be targeted by this administration, potentially jeopardizing people even more,” suggested Fajardo. A notion that was reiterated by Mendoza.
“I believe that if we are following California’s law, SB 54, which is the California Values Act, we will be in compliance with the moral standing, the legal standing and the principles set forth by the state, which I think provide an abundance of protection for people,” he said.
Victoria Garcia further called the city “a leader in protecting our community” through policies put in place before the idea of a sanctuary city existed.
“I think that fear is devastating if you’re fearful for legitimate concerns, and also if you’re fearful of rumors,” she continued, not clarifying what rumors she was referring to. “I don’t want us to be making decisions based on fears that are unfounded.”
However, according to information presented by city staff, the City of San Fernando has three fewer official protections for immigrants than LA. These include prohibiting immigration authorities from using city land or property without a warrant, prohibiting city personnel from sharing data with immigration enforcement and prohibiting personnel from collecting immigration status unless required by law.
Solorio suggested that if her colleagues take issue with the term sanctuary city, they can forsake the term and still take action to pass legislation to “ensure that we have stronger safeguards than we currently do.”
“Having a policy in place for something that hasn’t happened,” Fajardo responded, “I’m not sure is the best route for us to go.”
“It could also be said that the Trump administration has done a lot of things that we never expected to ever happen,” said Solorio. “It is a little bit disheartening and upsetting that this council is possibly in favor of not creating a policy in which we can protect people and individuals.”
When it became clear that councilmembers were once again going to try and delay any action, Lopez, who is an immigrant from Mexico, decided to make a motion, asking city staff to draft an ordinance for the sanctuary city designation and put the dais to a vote, essentially forcing her fellow councilmembers to prove where they stood on the matter.
Solorio seconded the motion but suggested the direction be altered to drafting a policy that addresses the three missing protections, regardless of what it is called.
After a drawn-out clarification of what the council was voting for, the motion failed, and a distraught audience stormed out of the chambers.
“I just feel so disappointed. My heart just is shattered for everyone who came out,” said Diosy Reyes. “I definitely feel like the council went against community today. I feel like their disrespect was really loud.”
Though the outcome was a “reminder that sometimes our voices are not enough,” she said it will also drive the community to organize and brainstorm how to “put some action behind this.”
If you can’t or won’t protect the community you shouldnt be in office. This is one of the reasons our democracy is in jeopardy those we put in office aren’t representing their constituents out of fear. We should petition for a recall!
It’s unfortunate that some elected officials won’t stand up to tyranny… and they won’t protect their own people. NOW is the time to stand up for social justice and fight back against tyranny and to protect our people!
The city follows California law and doesn’t need to declare itself a sanctuary city. We are already in a sanctuary state. We need those Federal funds that may get terminated if we decide to add a label to the city.