• ProudBrown

    Imagine Santa Ana without Federal Funding…

  • Bob Stevens

    If a criminal robs a bank and someone helps them get away they are just as guilty of the crime. Santa Ana is now assisting criminals get away with their crimes, fantastic. I do not agree with the deportation laws but they are the laws. You can’t just pick and choose which ones to follow. Every year that city becomes more and more of a joke.

  • PIFA123

    There is a reason Trump won. One is those sad crying families that lost precious kids due to illegal aliens hiding and living in sanctuary cities. What do you have to say to a mom sobbing that her kid is not here cause of this? Is this fair to us that pay taxes and want to live safely? NO! I do not know how you have gotten away with this all these years but it is going to end. Look up the word illegal. No where does it say you get all this free stuff and have all the rights of a legal person. If you do not like the new president and our laws being enforced get your butts back to where you belong. The people spoke loud and clear at the voting booth. We are tired of law breaking and deaths due to you. Adios.

  • Bill Colver

    Wow! Another VOC article on Santa Ana. If the VOC was my only source of news I’d think there were only about 3 or 4 cities in OC along with the County of Orange. I guess the other 30+ cities and all the special districts run like clockwork with no hint of corruption or unethical behavior.

    Those citizens are so lucky.

  • Antonio Montana

    There is one simple fact that you fail to recognize…as does the Santa Ana city council…you cannot save money by removing police officers from the streets. Ultimately what will happen is, one of the many murder victims families will hire an attorney that will research how many officers were patrolling the streets at the time their client’s family member was murdered. And then they will review the staffing levels throughout the entire year and find that the city council, the city manager and the chief of police find it sufficient to send 8-12 cops out to patrol a city with, very realistically, close to 400,000 residents….if you count the undocumented and unreported residents living 20 to an apartment.

    The math is very simple in my mind, you can save all of your pennies by denying the residents a safe and proportionate number of cops; but when someone figures it out and sues you, you will go bankrupt paying them off. Because the insurance company who provides coverage for lawsuits will not cover it when they see the amount of neglect on the part of the city.

    And very similarly, what the city and the chief of police continue to ignore, is the fact that their officers do not feel safe with these staffing levels. The city of Anaheim has mandatory minimum staffing; as do most other cities. This is the reason the union continues to communicate the fact they are fed up with the chief. He is supposed to be a leader; their voice. But the guy cares only about his political ambitions and his relationship with a crooked city manager who ripped off Phoenix and is ripping off Santa Ana. This is also the reason why far more cops have lateralled OUT of the department during Rojas’ 3 year tenure as chief than ever did in 25+ years under Paul Walters. Rojas doesn’t care about the people he was entrusted to lead; and what you are seeing is that feeling being openly reciprocated.

    I know you only look at things through your liberal left eye; but maybe once in a while try and use some common sense and look through both eyes. Why not come out of your cry room and try to understand the reality and the gravity of the situation.

    • Juan-R-Perales

      Your response is laughable. Cops breaking the law to get rid of a chief some don’t like is beyond the pale. This is beyond hiring cops; it’s a power grab to lavish cops with more money by any means necessary.

      • Antonio Montana

        Can you explain what law was broken? I’m confused. Endorsing candidates who they feel will better represent their needs as employees of the city is illegal? Interesting interpretation of the law. Again, get a q-tip clean out your other ear, the left one is obviously clogged with liberal media and liberal cry baby council member BS. I guarantee is Sal Tinajero received the police union endorsement he wouldn’t be crying about their influence. And it’s funny that Roman Reyna mentioned Sana and the Mexican Mafia influence since F Troop is his neighborhood and Sana is his big homie. Go talk to the residents in his rival Santa Nita who are being overrun by prostitutes and pimps from all over the country; see how much support they received from him during his tenure.

        • Juan-R-Perales

          Rod Blagojevich ring a bell. You can google the name.

          • Antonio Montana

            You are giving an example more in line with the Clintons and their pay to play operation with the Clinton Foundation rather than a union backing a candidate. Every union backs candidates. If the empty allegations these city council members are making were true they would have gone to the city attorney and pursued charges against Gerry Serrano. Tinajero is just another liberal in need of a safe space and a cry room.

          • Juan-R-Perales

            Your childish and ad hominem attacks aside, through your very challenged reasoning, you’ve come to the correct conclusion. My comments were based on the reporting in this article. If the article is accurate, and what the coincilman said is true, then the officers union president committed a crime.

  • LFOldTimer

    Hold it. Were the SA council members required to take sworn oaths upon entering office to defend the US Constitution and uphold the laws of the land?

    How could lawmakers defy their own sworn oaths?

    Cogent explanations are appreciated in advance.

    • Juan-R-Perales

      Huh? What I’m reading is that cops are playing dirty. Cops breaking the law!? But cops wouldn’t $upport candidates in exchange for the city manager”s termination……..

      • LFOldTimer

        I’m referring to certain council member’s refusal to cooperate with the Feds on US immigration law. America has immigration laws just like every other nation on the globe. If immigration laws aren’t enforced we really can’t call ourselves a country. We were never meant to be a ‘come one come all’ nation. Especially today when jobs are scarce and we have millions of homeless citizens living on the streets. Today we need a dual-income household just to get by. This isn’t 1950 anymore. Public officials take a sworn oath to defend the US Constitution and uphold the laws of the land when taking office. If they feel that they can’t adhere to their sworn oath – then just admit it and resign your offices. But don’t violate your sworn oaths.

        • Bill Colver

          “We were never meant to be a ‘come one come all’ nation.”

          Yet we are for those coming from nations with refugee status. For some reason those fleeing Mexico or most of Central America aren’t allowed to claim persecution like those from other nations who are admitted on a non-quota basis.

          • LFOldTimer

            So everybody coming across the border illegally is persecuted, Bill? How exactly did you arrive at that conclusion? And who said “we” want refugees coming to America? Are you speaking for all of us or only for the liberal democrats? If the liberal democrats want to accept the problem populations of the world – then let the liberal democrats pay for them and board them in their own homes.

            We have more than enough problems to solve in America without taking on the problems of all other nations throughout the world.

          • Bill Colver

            You can’t say those from Mexico and Central America are welcomed with open arms. They are vilified daily.

            I pointed out that we accept refugees from other countries on a non-quota basis. But reject those from Mexico and Central America for the reasons I stated earlier.

            I agree with have problems. But we are selective in our immigration attitudes.

          • LFOldTimer

            Who rejects them? Under California’s Trust Act illegals (from any nation) in California can’t be deported unless they’ve committed serious violent crimes.

            Do you think Mexico would allow hoards of Americans to illegally live there, take jobs from Mexican citizens and enroll their US children in Mexican schools in Spanish learner curriculum while getting free medical care? Why do you think Mexico actually enforces their immigration laws, Bill?

            If Americans flooded the Mexican economy and received free education and medical care and took Mexican jobs illegally – do you think Americans would be “vilified” in Mexico?

            Again, “we” don’t promote flooding America with refugees. So I don’t know what “we” you are talking about.

          • Bill Colver

            Then they aren’t here illegally. I don’t care what Mexico does. I wouldn’t want to be like them.

            We allow refugees from nations to come here on a non-quota basis. I can think of one in particular.

          • LFOldTimer

            Go read the California “Trust Act”. Educate yourself. The “Trust Act” defies Federal law by prohibiting local jailers from cooperating with Federal authorities by transferring illegal foreigners over to the Feds for deportation after they’ve completed their jail sentences unless they’ve committed serious violent crimes.

            So again…who rejects them? It seems to me that California incentivizes them to illegally come into the state at taxpayer expense. We give them driver’s licenses too! ha. So who exactly rejects them, Bill?

            Please clarify.

          • Bill Colver

            None of that changes the fact that at least one nation’s residents are allowed to enter on a non-quota basis.

          • LFOldTimer

            You make a comment – then I refute it with a fact – then you fall back on an irrelevant claim.

            So let me ask you a yes or no question: Do you think all poor people from throughout the world should be able to come to America without authorization and get free education, free medical care – along with a host of other benefits???

            Yes or no.

          • Bill Colver

            The claim is relevant. Either one believes in legal immigration quotas or one does not. Your ignorance of the topic is showing.

          • LFOldTimer

            Again, you refused to answer my question and thus dodged the issue.

            This indicates to me that you don’t really want a legitimate debate.

            So I choose to end our discussion.

          • Bill Colver

            Thank you for ending this. Your ignorance of the topic would have made you look worse than you do already.

          • LFOldTimer

            Now you’re getting personal.

            When people get personal it generally means they’ve lost the debate.

            Thanks for playing and for the victory.

          • Bill Colver

            Lol. Have a good day with your ignorance in yet another topic.

          • Jasenn

            LFOldTimer: Please inform yourself of statistics that reflect reality. Americans are thought to compose the majority of undocumented residents in Mexico, upwards of 300,000. Learn what unconscious racism is all about.

          • LFOldTimer

            Proof source that for us, won’t you?

            Do illegal Americans get free medical care in Mexico?

            Free education in the English language?

            Are illegal Americans allowed to steal jobs from Mexican citizens?

            So Mexico has a population of 120M and there are at least 10M illegal Mexicans living in America.

            America has a population of about 320M and you claim there are 300,000 illegal Americans living there? lol.

            It’s got nothing to do with “unconscious racism”. It has everything to do with protecting the sovereignty of America. If we had 15M illegal Swedes living here collecting free benefits compliments of the US taxpayers I would be just as concerned.

            But I know “racism” adds drama to your comment so you couldn’t resist. lol.

          • Jasenn

            You want me to do your research for you? Proof source it yourself. It took me about 5 minutes to find those figures. As for “sovereignty of America” or “sovereign America:” Do you mean sovereignty for the racist delusion of “white America?” “Racism” adds an element of truth. The words you speak sound very much like an authoritarian stuck in the 18th Century. That makes clear where you are coming from. This, in the 21st Century, is multiracial America where, especially in California, whites are a minority, and undocumented (vs. the racist term “illegals”) are provided sanctuary in many cities, increasing day by day..

          • LFOldTimer

            Are you a product of common core by chance?