Alhambra’s ICE Resolution Draws Criticism for Being ‘Watered Down’

On July 28, about 10 members of the public addressed the Alhambra City Council regarding Agenda Item #4, “Consideration of Resolution Discussing Federal Immigration Enforcement Activities.” Almost all expressed concern that the city’s resolution no longer goes far enough in opposing ICE enforcement.

By Melissa Michelson

This marked the third time in two months that community members urged the City Council to take a firm stance against ICE, whose presence has been felt across LA County since June. Earlier this month, a resolution titled “Alhambra Condemns Aggressive Federal Immigration Enforcement…” was submitted by three local groups, mirroring Huntington Park’s June 25 resolution. The July 3 meeting saw nearly 20 speakers in favor of adopting the resolution in its original form. At the July 7 meeting, nearly 20 speakers spoke in favor of adopting the resolution in the original form.

But when the city council approved an edited version last night, public outcry followed. Critics labeled the resolution “watered down,” citing specific provisions that had been removed (See P.1, P2, and P.3).

Changes to the Community’s Resolution

Looking at both the cover memo and the red-lined version of the community resolution included in the city council’s packet, here’s what was removed and why:

• “Local Monitoring and Verification: Provisions for police to monitor federal activity and issue citations were removed to align with Huntington Park’s resolution.
• “Civil Rights Reporting: This section, which was in the Huntington Park resolution, was considered “unworkable” by the city.
• Legal Remedies: References to potential legal actions, such as formal complaints and litigation, were removed.

Public Feedback

Shirley Tatsuno, an Alhambra resident, expressed disappointment that the city didn’t join the lawsuit against ICE, which several other local cities have supported.

“Being a Sanctuary City isn’t good enough,” said “Amy.” “I come from a Communist country, and it feels like the U.S. is doing the same thing.”

Michael Jones, speaking on behalf of the Working Families of California, said, “We feel [this draft of the resolution] is inadequate in ensuring that those with authority can verify whether federal agents are truly agents.” He also explicitly called for Alhambra to join the lawsuit.

Pablo Garcia, a lifelong Alhambra resident, urged for a stronger resolution, warning that ICE would next target political dissidents.

Beverly Murata, a longtime resident, criticized the watered-down version, in particular the “local monitoring and verification” section. She also took issue with the removal of “exploration of legal remedies,” questioning what “assess the potential threats” meant when residents call 911 during an ICE raid—a new addition to the resolution.

Marcos expressed frustration, saying the resolution was “merely a peace-of-mind statement,” offering no clear direction for police action. He also pointed out that, with the Department of Homeland Security’s increased budget “on par with other world militaries,” the ICE raids from the previous month might only be the beginning. He contended that local police were complicit by “looking the other way and doing nothing.”

Prannit, another Alhambra resident, expressed exasperation at having to return to City Hall. “Why did you water down the resolution?” he asked. He wanted it to clearly outline what the police should do, including verifying warrants and ICE agent identities.

Council Response

Councilmember Adele-Andrade Stadler defended the resolution, citing its “powerful” title, and she reaffirmed that Alhambra supports immigrants. “You want us to throw our police department in front of ICE, but the police can get hurt, and the city can get sued.” She suggested that immigrants could dial 911 during an ICE raid, acknowledging that it might not satisfy everyone, but that “it’s good enough for me.”

Councilman Jeff Maloney asked the City Attorney, Joseph Montes, to clarify when warrants are required. Montes explained the difference between judicial and administrative warrants, noting that ICE can’t access private property without a judicial warrant. He also explained that arrests can occur without a warrant if individuals are fleeing or pose a flight risk. Montes reminded the council that, so far, ICE had notified the Alhambra Police Department ahead of time during previous operations.

Just Call 911

Alhambra Police Chief Garrett Kennedy took the podium to say that there had been no legitimate reports of kidnapping in Alhambra. “We have had zero raids to our knowledge.” Regarding police response to ICE, he said, “If you call 911, our officers will come out and assess the situation.” Councilmember Maloney added that calling 911 was sufficient.
The City’s press release accompanying the resolution reads: “If you are a victim of a crime, a witness, or in need of police assistance, please call the Alhambra Police Department’s non-emergency line at 626-570-5151, or dial 9-1-1 for emergencies.”

Just Have Faith

Chief Kennedy reassured the City Council that he hadn’t heard from any other police chief in LA County about ICE agents failing to identify themselves to law enforcement.
Maloney emphasized, “We have to have faith that our country is still following the rule of law. Cities are not going to solve this, it’s not within our capacity on a large scale.”
Councilmember Maza explained that the parts removed from the community’s resolution couldn’t be implemented, though he didn’t provide specifics.

“Meaningful, Reasonable, Enforceable”

Councilwoman Noya Wang echoed the sentiments of other councilmembers, stating, “It’s not an issue that can be solved at the local government level. The police have their day-to-day responsibilities, and we don’t want to create unrealistic burdens.” She expressed support for the resolution because it was “meaningful and enforceable.”

Mayor Katherine Lee responded to the public’s disappointment, saying, “It’s not watered down, it’s reasonable. It’s very mean to force our officers to go into a situation that goes against federal law enforcement.”

Like Councilmembers Stadler and Maloney, who agreed that it’s up to the judicial system to address the issue, Mayor Lee expressed confidence that the multi-city restraining order against ICE would help. None of the councilmembers expressed interent to join the multi-city lawsuit against ICE.

Aftermath Gathering

After the City Council unanimously approved the resolution, some supporters of the original community resolution gathered outside the chambers.

“That’s not mean, it’s literally their job to protect, serve, and uphold the Constitution,” said Pablo Garcia in response to Mayor Lee’s comment about the police.

Beverly Murata still felt the approved resolution was too vague. “It doesn’t hold the police accountable, and it’s not specific about what the police’s role is.”

Addressing the police chief’s statement, Mike Jones quipped, “By the time the police arrive, the raid is over, and ICE is already gone.”

Prannit pointed out what he saw as a hole in the police narrative about no raids: “At the last meeting, [Councilmember Stadler] said school-aged children were racially profiled and asked to show their ID at a bus stop.” He warned the group that with ICE’s budget now quadrupled, the community needs to find better ways to protect itself.

“I don’t expect anything from [the City Council], as they receive a lot of funding from police organizations, like Councilwoman Noya Wang has,” he said, referring to Wang, who was elected to the council last November. “I’m not surprised by her answer.” He expressed his disappointment, saying there’s much more a city can do, like New York, LA, or Huntington Park. “The City of Alhambra just doesn’t want to.”

Life with ICE Continues

Regardless of what’s written in Resolution No. R2M25-29, “Alhambra Condemns Aggressive and Non-Transparent Federal Immigration Enforcement Tactics…”, it’s clear that these community members will continue to protect the immigrant community however they can.

Marcos: “I have some red cards—does anyone need any?”

Just as the group began to disperse, another neighbor appeared, rolling a cooler behind her: “We just bought out a fruit vendor up by the park. Does anyone want some fruit?”

 

 

The Opinion section reflects the opinions of the responsible contributor(s)/writer(s) only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of ColoradoBoulevard.net. ColoradoBoulevard.net does not endorse or guarantee the accuracy of any posting. ColoradoBoulevard.net accepts no obligation to review every posting, but reserves the right (with no obligation) to delete comments and postings that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate.