John Tucker: Sanctuary city vote
By Signal Contributor
Friday, May 18th, 2018

I was disappointed to see Santa Clarita make the LA Times for our city council’s decision to oppose state laws. Here’s what troubles me about the council’s decision:

1. It makes people of color feel less welcome in Santa Clarita. (And is perhaps explicitly intended to do so.)

2. It makes immigrants less likely to trust the police, putting their safety in danger. For example, if a woman in an abusive relationship is afraid to call law enforcement because of the steps our council took, who is complicit in her continued abuse?

3. Since Santa Clarita contracts with the LA Sheriff, it does both 1 and 2 for no tangible reason and to no reason result other than grandstanding in the service of the most vocal anti-immigration voices in our community. I’ve seen many people who oppose sanctuary policies deride them as “political stunts” intended to gin up votes and support from liberal voters. While I wholly disagree with this characterization, it seems apt when applied, in the inverse, to the choice the council made. Assumedly, perspectives on this issue are evenly divided across progressive and conservative lines, as is our community. The council’s decision, which reflects the views of, at best, about half our community, (and at worst its ugliest and most virulent voices) is from this perspective extremely ill-advised. Perhaps it’s time for city representatives who reflect the whole of the diversity and ALL the viewpoints of our city.

John Tucker
Newhall

About the author

Signal Contributor

Signal Contributor

John Tucker: Sanctuary city vote

I was disappointed to see Santa Clarita make the LA Times for our city council’s decision to oppose state laws. Here’s what troubles me about the council’s decision:

1. It makes people of color feel less welcome in Santa Clarita. (And is perhaps explicitly intended to do so.)

2. It makes immigrants less likely to trust the police, putting their safety in danger. For example, if a woman in an abusive relationship is afraid to call law enforcement because of the steps our council took, who is complicit in her continued abuse?

3. Since Santa Clarita contracts with the LA Sheriff, it does both 1 and 2 for no tangible reason and to no reason result other than grandstanding in the service of the most vocal anti-immigration voices in our community. I’ve seen many people who oppose sanctuary policies deride them as “political stunts” intended to gin up votes and support from liberal voters. While I wholly disagree with this characterization, it seems apt when applied, in the inverse, to the choice the council made. Assumedly, perspectives on this issue are evenly divided across progressive and conservative lines, as is our community. The council’s decision, which reflects the views of, at best, about half our community, (and at worst its ugliest and most virulent voices) is from this perspective extremely ill-advised. Perhaps it’s time for city representatives who reflect the whole of the diversity and ALL the viewpoints of our city.

John Tucker
Newhall