Read the full story here Web Link posted Saturday, February 18, 2017, 10:03 AM
Town Square
East Palo Alto seeks to strengthen immigrant protections
Original post made on Feb 18, 2017
Read the full story here Web Link posted Saturday, February 18, 2017, 10:03 AM
Comments (6)
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Feb 18, 2017 at 10:25 pm
"Roughly two-thirds of the city's residents are Latino or Pacific Islander, according to the nonprofit group Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. The city approved three resolutions between 2007 and 2012 to protect immigrants."
This article is mixing facts and implying that all immigrants are illegal. Legal immigrants don't need additional protections - they don't need protection from ICE. MANY immigrants in East Palo Alto (and Menlo) are here legally. Don't use their numbers to further your agenda.
a resident of another community
on Feb 22, 2017 at 12:12 pm
Mark Dinan is a registered user.
East Palo Alto has huge numbers of undocumented residents. It is very common to see parents who are without papers, but the kids have US Citizenship and were born here. Many of the undocumented residents have been here for many years, as many as 25 or 30.
I am happy to see the city council taking proactive steps to protect the community. From a policing point of view, it is essential that undocumented residents feel comfortable talking to the police and reporting crimes. Crime will go up if residents do not feel comfortable interacting with the police. I have already seen this, when a neighbor did not report his dog being mauled by another neighbor's dog - he simply did not want to interact with the authorities due to his lack of documentation.
a resident of Belle Haven Elementary
on Feb 28, 2017 at 11:13 am
This article seems to indicate, falsely, that ICE agents are not law enforcement without any power to arrest or serve a warrant. This is patently false.
Web Link
ICE falls under the banner of the Dept. of Homeland Security. They often deal with drug traffickers and street gangs.
So the implication that individuals can simply "not open the door" if ICE or DHS agents come knocking is absurdly bad advice.
The real truth is that often these cities like EPA will refuse to honor an ICE request to detain or arrest an individual even if they are dangerous and have committed lower-level crimes.
Web Link
Educate yourselves people most of the media is lying to you about what sanctuary cities are and their true intentions. They simply protect criminals under that auspice of "protecting undocumented people". It's nothing more than political pandering.
a resident of another community
on Feb 28, 2017 at 12:59 pm
Sue Dremann is a registered user.
ICE does indeed have police powers to detain people and to enter a home -- the latter with a warrant. But as speakers noted, as with other law enforcement agencies, residents don't have to submit to warrantless searches of their homes except where allowed by law, (such as if there is an imminent danger or threat).
The two-thirds reference to the number of immigrants in East Palo Alto is not meant to imply that they are all undocumented. However, its reference is included to illustrate the magnitude of the city's immigrant population, many of whom are being affected by the executive order on an emotional level regardless of their status.
According to local police, churches, school and non-governmental organizations who work with immigrants, the executive order has confused many people about how the order might or might not affect them: students with DACA deferrals and residents with green cards, for example.
The story I posted on Feb. 27: Web Link regarding rumors of ICE agents roaming East Palo Alto and Menlo Park is an example of the concern and fear playing out in the community. The city and other groups are working to educate residents.
a resident of another community
on Mar 2, 2017 at 4:30 pm
question - how come you're pretending that legal immigrants need extra protections? Of course they do.
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven
on Sep 9, 2017 at 9:34 am
If DACA is unconstitutional then why extend it for 6 months?
Don't miss out
on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.
Post a comment
Stay informed.
Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.