The Signal

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States