Aviles-Pino: Kring’s Sanctuary Proposal a Distraction, Petty Politics


Kaitlin Washburn for Voice of OC

Anaheim Councilwoman Lucille Kring at a recent City Council meeting.

On April 25, 2017, the City of Anaheim will not decide whether or not the city will be a sanctuary for immigrants.

Instead, we will have orchestrated political theatre with Lucille Kring as the initial playwright.

I start with this metaphor because that is the brutal reality of Lucille Kring’s agenda item to decide whether or not to make a Anaheim a “Sanctuary City.” The proposal is a distraction to the complex conversation that Lucille Kring has neglected to have publicly (see video of the last city council meeting). The proposal isn’t isolated however; it represents a legacy of petty political actions by similar actors that create negative collateral consequences that perpetuate political apathy and institutional dysfunction.

Before I continue however, I want to be clear about premises in my analysis. As a community organizer for the Orange County Congregation Community Organization and as a student at UCLA, I’ve engaged my students and have practiced in what is called: challenging the idea not the person. Before starting a meeting with my students or among peers on campus we agree to what are called “community agreements.” In community gatherings and in student organizing spaces we encourage dialogue among divergent point of views but only on shared agreements. One of the leading agreements is if you disagree with someone’s point of view on an issue to not attack someone directly but to rather address their idea/proposal in order to collectively dissect its fallacies and move forward together. Everyone comes into spaces with different historical social locations and as community we respect and affirm those histories through the agreement.

Kring’s proposal is not a proposal to engage in a critical conversation around whether or not the City of Anaheim is a Sanctuary City but rather an attempt to insight vehement reactions by people on both sides of the aisle. Anaheim is no rookie to such proposals; around this time last year the City of Anaheim became national news because of Councilmember Kris Murray’s proposal to “condemn” Donald Trump’s “divisive rhetoric.” The headlines and Facebook videos that spread through the public were not centered on the complexity and even the legality of the proposal but rather on the passionate reactions by protesters and supporters.

Kring’s current proposal is a rushed attempt to distract the public from the informed conversation the council needs to have with its departments and partners who work on the issue of immigration. In order to justify the proposal, Kring has mentioned the need for the public to have an answer stating that they “need to know where the council stands on the issue.”

Symbolic gestures by government entities create ripple effects beyond the concrete policies written in the law. As a public we must raise critical questions before public discourse answers the wrong question presented by Kring’s proposal. Does the Anaheim Police Department truly cooperate with ICE? Given the past resentment from Murray and Kring on Councilmember Moreno’s Immigration Taskforce, don’t we already know where they both stand? Does rushing this proposal on the agenda do more harm than good to the City of Anaheim?

Kring asking the city council to vote on the issue presents an already assumed answer. The protection of undocumented immigrants isn’t and shouldn’t ever be a political stunt but was used on the campaign trail just last year and is being used again in order to insight petty political drama. What are we teaching our young students? That rushing for an answer is the best way to approach policy? If Kring prevails and the council strikes the resolution out of fear, will undocumented students show up to class? Will people stop showing up to doctor’s appointments? When will politicians prioritize actual policy over political theatre?

Francisco Aviles Pino, a Community Organizer for the Orange County Congregation Community Organization and a student at UCLA

Opinions expressed in editorials belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.

Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others please contact Voice of OC Involvement Editor Theresa Sears at TSears@voiceofoc.org

  • questionauthority2

    You do realize your comments are reliable proof that you appear completely unhinged to readers here.

  • LFOldTimer

    I agree with Verified. Your comment has no substance. I could tear it apart piece by piece. But why bother? I believe Intelligent people will see it for what it is. You allege so many things about my character that have no basis in fact. None. You claim that I intentionally omit racist remarks about blacks, Asians, Latinos to hide my true racist feelings which makes me a “bigoted Bannonite white nationalist”. HA! So I can’t win for losing! lol. Mother Theresa never made a racist comment. What was she hiding, Mr. Mind Reader? Did you write the Pope and ask him to forego nominating Mother Theresa for Sainthood since she did not come clean??? LOL! Your allegations about me says MUCH MORE about you than they say about me. Intelligent people would understand that. I really don’t care what the stupid ones think.

    So now you’re going to write the BoD at VOC to have me thrown off the comment board??? LOL! Hilarious. You liberals just kill me. You claim that you vigorously support tolerance, inclusiveness, the open exchange of diverse ideas and free expression of opinion as protected under our sacred 1st Amendment. Then a commenter like me shows up and presents VALID and PERSUASIVE arguments that promote conservative values related to illegal immigration and you want me banned!!! LOL! You’re a standing joke IMO. You remind me of the Berkeley agitators who want to quash the conservative speech on the UC campus. I know that Norberto is a big fan of free and open opinionated discourse on his comment board. It’s the basic nuts and bolts of any functional and healthy democracy. Based on his outspoken advocacy for the free exchange of ideas my guess is that he would scoff at your letter to ban my ideas from his comment board. But knock yourself out. I laugh at you.

    The ironic thing is that I hold diverse opinions that often side with the liberal crowd that favors the Democrat party. I constantly criticize the county Republicans who rule our county. I’m one of their BIGGEST critics, in fact. I routinely attack corruption at every government level – regardless whether it’s fomented by Democrats or Republicans. Recently I attacked Donald Trump for his stance on Syria and Assad, despite the fact that I voted for him and supported most of his campaign platform. Yet you never give me credit for my opinions that coincide with those on your side of the aisle. Yet you attack me viciously if I dare step out of line and offer opinions that may clash with your own. LOL.

    “(This is why he and his remora accuse me of being a communist, state socialist, etc”…………”

    ” I’m simply not the danger to civil society that someone who tries to inspire racial hatred is.”

    I have never accused you of being a “communist”. You have no evidence of that whatsoever. So please retract that statement. Stop making stuff up. And you have no evidence whatsoever that I promote “racial hatred”. I oppose those of ALL COLORS who violate our Federal immigration laws. I have made that clear REPEATEDLY because that is a deeply held belief I have fostered for years.

    You seem to be obsessed with the “D” word (defamation). You may think it might intimidate those who hold VALID beliefs different from your own and scare us off. It won’t. Recently I quoted a very wise man who once said “Nothing make a human being madder than the truth. If there’s no truth in it he just laughs it off”. Even if I chose to comment under my true identity and someone called me a “child molester” I would ridicule it and invite the comment board to run a criminal history inquiry on me to determine if there was any truth to the allegation. They’d find nothing, as my criminal history is as clean as a newborn baby’s nose. And the person who made that allegation would look like a total a*swipe to the world. That would be enough payback for me. I’m not a vengeful person but I am a fighter. I do sympathize with business owners who specifically have their businesses falsely trash labeled by those with ulterior motives. But absurd and ridiculous character assassinations? Water off a duck’s back unless push comes to shove.

    But I recommend that you confer with outside counsel whether it’s possible to defame an anonymous poster. You may or may not learn something new.

    Bottom line is that you can’t stand my VALID and PERSUASIVE conservative arguments on the subject of illegal immigration. You don’t have the wherewithal to counter them – so you attack the messenger and now want me banned for having the gall to express my VALID opinions that millions of other good Americans hold. ha.

    I invite intelligent board readers to evaluate and analyze Diamond’s statement:

    “……. I don’t want to debate specifics with an anonymous white nationalist about what does and does not TRULY constitute bigotry — because that is a gesture of respect towards someone operating in good faith, and I have no respect for his bad faith.”

    Draw your own conclusions, my friends.

    • Greg Diamond

      I agree with your concluding sentence – except that the readers here are not your friends.

      Let me know when you’ve filed your “LFOT Doe v. Diamond” defamation suit. I’m sure that it will be a real hoot. Hasta la vista.

      • LFOldTimer

        What a childish response.

        You never surprise me. Always true to form.

        I have no interest in filing anything. I’m not wired that way. Besides, you damage your own reputation beyond anything I could possibly do.

        • Greg Diamond

          You’re not “wired” to do anything that you put you in danger of having to take responsibility for your own positions and statements.

          From a purely “rational calculus” standpoint, I can’t really blame you: they’re pretty bad. I would want them associated with my real name either.

          It’s weird that you try to make a virtue of it though, but I guess that whatever you can convince a few people to buy is worth your effort. (It’s still cowardly, though.)

          • verifiedsane

            Diamond in the buff, provides us more of his delusional “Chicken Little” commentary…..What a sad and pathetic piece of work…

          • LFOldTimer

            Snowflake Diamond wants me banned from VOC! ha.

            The big liberal baby is a consummate supporter of protected expression as long as it complies with and professes his view of the world. HA!

            He reminds me so much of the UC Berkeley agitators who badger conservative speakers and their supporters on campus.

            The liberal motto when it comes to the 1st Amendment should be “OUR WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!!”

            What a bunch of phonies!!!

          • LFOldTimer

            Says the man who REFUSES to debate me or prove me wrong! ha.

            Your actions (or lack thereof) speak much louder than your words.

            Your bluster is beginning to fall on deaf ears.

            You are your own worst enemy.

          • Greg Diamond

            I won’t “debate” you for reasons already explained: the same reason that I would not debate a Klansman wearing a hood about the supposed genetic inferiority of non-whites, thus conferring status and respect upon his arguments..

            And having two other less articulate hooded Klansmen chime in about how it was silly and cowardly not to confer legitimacy on their hooded companion by such “debate” would not move me.

            You’re now repeating yourself and relying on people’s not reading my arguments, so at least we are making some progress here.

          • LFOldTimer

            More pejoratives and another cop out, as expected.

            Intelligent readers can read between the lines.

            Thanks for revealing who you are. You are a blessing to your opponents. You do our work for us.

            Klansmen? ha. Twist and distort much? ha.

    • verifiedsane

      Diamond in the buff holds a lot of weight with his self ordained grandiose status over at the OC Weekly…..Funny, didn’t know he had a identical twin or was that just a look alike?

      Greg Diamond: The Frightening Picture of OC’s Most Inept 2012 Political Candidate http://www.ocweekly.com/news/greg-diamond-the-frightening-picture-of-ocs-most-inept-2012-political-candidate-6455246

      • LFOldTimer

        That’s the first time I’ve seen that article by Moxley.

        ROTFLM*O funny. Particularly the photo.

        And he has the nerve to call other people vile degrading names???

        lol.

  • verifiedsane

    Who is really going to read your long ridiculous manifestos & mumbling non-sense….I just YAWNED…and passed on by….I am thinking on a side note though; that you’re the type of demented individual that stands in front of a mirror alone trying convince themselves that they have something important to say…unsuccessfully of course….what a sad pathetic loser you are Zr. Diamond in the Buff:)

    • Greg Diamond

      Voice of OC: this semi-literate dreck is what you want?

      • verifiedsane

        what? no manifesto….LMAO

  • Greg Diamond

    I want to start with an apology to Francisco Aviles Pino: you wrote a good essay here. While the comments section was initially on point, I let myself be goaded into an extraneous argument with “LFOldTimer,” an anonymous commenter with whom I’ve had a continuing conflict here over his views on the topic. He, being anonymous, has nothing to lose by trying to turn every active comments section on this site into an airing of his grievances. I, writing my own name, can be held responsible for my role in continuing such discussions and I regret that I didn’t simply ignore him.

    My new colleague on the DPOC Central Committee, Dan Chmielewski, has been professing his strong interest in this issue. I thought that he would be interested in responding to LFOT’s initial reply to me below, which begins “It’s beyond me how any sworn public official or decent American could support the concept of ‘sanctuary cities’.” This struck me as a useful example of how the “Sanctuary Cities” label can be used by demagogues such as Lucille Kring and whoever LFOT really is to whip up a frenzy against even minimal common sense restrictions of the sort that Chmielewski himself defines “Sanctuary City” to mean. Chmielewski has chosen not to do so, despite my urging, on the grounds that he is “not my monkey.”

    My view is that he does not have to “be my monkey” in order to want to respond to what LFOT has written: he merely has to care about the issue and address the problem that people like LFOT may effectively use the “Sanctuary City” label to unfairly malign Democrats as soft on enforcing laws (especially immigration laws) at all. Los Angeles has the POLICY that Chmielewski (and I) want to see in place, but does not use the label — probably specifically to avoid the sort of demagoguery we see from LFOT (and others.) The DPOC Executive Committee itself (on which I sit) rewrote a resolution from Chmielewski, which demanded application of the “Sanctuary City” LABEL, to instead call for OC Cities and Democratic officeholders to support the underlying POLICY, taking out all reference to the LABEL.

    Local Democrats (apparently other than Chmielewski) generally agree with LA Mayor Eric Garcetti that the POLICY is what matters. Kring and LFOT want to focus on the LABEL for purely political reasons, because it is far easier to mischievously misrepresent as extreme. I had looked forward toward Chmielewski’s cooperation in pushing back against this sort of demagoguery, but apparently that hope was misplaced.

    Some (including my writing partner Vern Nelson at Orange Juice Blog) have offered an uncharitable explanation for this: that Chmielewski sees creating political problems for Dr. Jose Moreno is DESIRABLE rather than something for the Democratic Part to avoid. That may be unfair: Chmielewski seems to believe that either political considerations FAVOR Democrats in promoting use of this label — in which event he’s just making an honest-but-poor political judgment — or that the use of the label is SO important that it is the hill that Democrats must be willing to die on.

    That seems so patently absurd to me that I’d rather believe that he’s just out to mess with Moreno than than he really believes it. I’ve asked him whether he would take the same position with respect to Democratic politicians that he likes — such as sole-Democrat-on-City-Council Melissa Fox of Irvine and Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva — and I’ve never gotten a response. (“And I should not expect one, given that he is not my monkey,” I would expect him to reply. I still think that it is a valid question to ask, even of a non-monkey or a monkey that isn’t mine.)

    I’ll address my conflict with LFOT and his vainly mislabeled sidekick “verifiedsane” in a separate comment.

    • @Dan Chmielewski

      I have no issue with **any** OC elected supporting Sanctuary City status regardless of the city they serve. It is fiction on your part to assume what I desire on behalf of any council member and instead the message my support of elected seeking sanctuary city status means to the county’s large immigrant community. Please do not speak for me. You are a poor researcher into statements and opinions.
      Additionally, I was not displeased with the changes the executive committee made to my resolution as my intention was to start in Anaheim based on its large immigrant population and extend it to Orange, Garden Grove, Costa Mesa and beyond….I was very happy that the party showed more forward progress than I anticipated and have let individual members know of my gratitude for taking it further than I thought you could on a first pass. The party also supports SB54.
      Additionally, a review of Kring’s campaign materials shows no reference to immigration or sanctuary city status. Moreno did reference this at a number of speaking ops and Q&As. The candidate making the strongest pronouncement for sanctuary city status in Anaheim last year was Jordan Brandman.
      Perhaps Dr. Moreno could follow the lead of the Anaheim Union High School District, which has not quibbled on this matter.
      When it comes to Democrats being soft on law enforcement (in regards to immigration), I’ll point to softness by Republicans on issues of taxation, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, education, healthcare, and hypocrisy on diplomacy and energy policy. It seems that Mr. Diamond’s entire defense is to create a means for Dr. Moreno to not do as he campaigned. And running on an issue and avoiding a definitive vote on that same issue is weakness.
      Democrats really could use a large majority of the Latino vote n every election. We need to let these voters know which party has their best interests at heart. I’ll point to how Vietnamese-American voters tend to vote Republican in spite of this party not serving the Vietnamese-American voters’ best interest.
      I think every elected Democrat who supports the sanctuary city label for their city shows Latino voters where they stand. Even if the vote loses.

    • @Dan Chmielewski

      I’ll point out one thing. I am a busy person running a busy business and face hourly deadlines for multiple clients. Mr. Diamond has all sorts of free time to chime in on the blogs and forums such as these. I refuse to post responses based on his timeline and will do so as my schedule permits. I have 10 employees who count on my and about 18 clients who pay for my time.
      I’m sorry Mr. Diamond’s law practice is so devoid of work and babysitting schedule so full that it gives him so much free time as to demand when I ought to respond less he determine I have refused to do something he’s demanded of me or not. The truth is there are days I can’t get to a single blog to read, much less respond. But to suggest I have refused to engage in a line of dialogue based on the free time Mr. Diamond has is wrong, ignorant and dumb.
      I believe Mr. Diamond and I share a belief that immigration reform should be a priority. We likely agree on a number of things. But I do not say “how high” when he says “jump.” I have little respect for him and find him someone who loves to dish it out but cannot take it in return.

    • @Dan Chmielewski

      So we’re clear, you agree with me on policy but not the label even though they are the same thing? Now it’s a branding issue and that’s a topic you no little about.

      • Greg Diamond

        I’m working on a filing at the moment, Dan, so I don’t have time for a proper reply to the comments you’ve left.

        I MOSTLY agree with you on policy — the difference being that I don’t like us making false promises of support for people that we never intend to fulfill. To me, “sanctuary” really means something quite serious — a willingness to protect and defend someone, such as provided by an embassy (e.g. Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian embassy) or (sometimes) in (some) religious buildings.

        As the name implies, it is close to a sacred promise that should not be made lightly. And my fear is that people in need take the “promise” of so-called sanctuary literally, when in reality all we are making is a promise of non-cooperation with demands for federal commandeering of state and local (which are really “state”) actors. I haven’t gotten the sense that that bothers you, but I wouldn’t assert that it doesn’t. That you haven’t explicitly acknowledged the downsides of “overpromising” security to people whose lives are in danger doesn’t mean that you won’t do so now — and I invite you to here (unless you think that so doing would somehow make you “my monkey.”)

        It follows that I do not agree with you, at all, that “the policy and label … are the same thing.” And I think that you are playing into the hands of people like LFOT and Lucille Kring, who argue that “Sanctuary City” implies much more than you think it does.

        That’s why I was very happy to see that unnecessary term — which placed a target on our chests big enough that even the doofuses participating anonymously in this discussion can see it and can’t stop salivating — removed from the DPOC resolution that passed. (As that decision was made in the Executive Committee, I can’t discuss what if any role I had in it.) You’re making the argument that the Latino public needs to hear that specific phrase in order to believe that we are on their side — and I know of NO data to suggest that that’s true. They understand the policy at hand — and would be justified in being suspicious of any mere slogan divorced from them.

        I presume that you know more than I do about “branding” when it comes to consumer electronics and whatever else it is you focus on, but not so much regarding politics. Within that domain, you’re from a faction of our party that has repeatedly shown its poor ability to connect with the public; some recent reviews of the new book “Shattered” shed a lot of light upon that. I realize that this invites you to thump your chest and proclaim how much more you know about political branding than I do — and I just don’t find that to be an interesting discussion, let alone one likely to interest the public.

        Since you do seem to have a little spare time now, perhaps you can address some of the more outrageous positions expressed by our anonymous associates here. I don’t ask that because I think that you are “my monkey,” but because you are supposed to be a Democratic Party political activist and I would think that you would find much of it worth refuting. But maybe you won’t.

        • @Dan Chmielewski

          You don’t have time for a proper response and yet you crank out eight paragraphs. I actually responded to this Saturday, but used a couple of words that placed the comment into moderation. So I’ve edited this….

          I have defined what many people already believe “sanctuary city” means; you’re defining what it means to you and how, if people don’t see it your way, it’s a serious problem for them and us.

          I think most people are a lot smarter than that. And I see no specific data that suggests people hold the same definition of “sanctuary” that you do.

          In addition, I have friends on the executive committee too. Their version of how changes were made to that resolution don’t square with yours. You are not exactly the high standard for truth telling that you think you are.

          My business deals with a lot of federal and state technology policy on wide ranging topics from immigration, to GRC, to cybersecurity, to cybercrime and cyberwarfare. I get clients quoted in Politico and the Hill regularly, in addition to the Washintgon Post, the NY Times, the LA Times, the WSJ and USA Today. It’s not just branding “consumer electionics” (though there is some interesting legislation on drones coming). In fact, I regularly speak with federal and state officials on pending legislation and policy. Your ignorance is astonishing sometimes.

          My faction of the party has shown a poor ability to connect with the public? And yet there are quite a few Business Democrats and Moderate Democrats holding office, especially here in OC.

          Glad you read reviews of “Shattered.” I read the book. Buy it you cheapskate…it’s Bernie p%rn for you. Its a “told ya so” for Bernie Sanders supporters. There’s a book coming this summer that discusses Bernie’s 30 year war against Democrats that I hope you read…that Unity tour was a bust because of Bernie — not Tom Perez.

          Bernie reminded everyone he’s still not a member of the party and his support for others in the party only extends to those who backed him in 2016. Where was he in GA?

          But by all means, I’ll use this from a Medium.com column that spells it out for you on Bernie:

          “Yes, I agree. We need to do everything we can to stand together against a corrupt rape-apologist con man who hides his tax returns, whines about rigged elections, benefitted from the the DNC hack, panders to the gun lobby, has shadowy ties to Russia and refuses to accept the indignity of losing to a woman by milions of votes.

          Oh, you thought I meant Trump?”

          You want me to refute LF OldTimer? I did by stating my case for what I believe our electeds ought to do.

          I am not your monkey. But you’re a jerk. Stop trying to tell me what to do. I won’t.

          • Greg Diamond

            I no longer care whether you choose to refute white nationalists seeking to normalize their ideology in public discussions. I did want to give you the chance to do so — and you clearly don’t prioritize it. Good to know. It seems that it’s more important to you not to honor any request I make. Fine. Then have a nice day.

            Does the phrase “sanctuary city” appear in the resolution passed by the Executive Committee and sent to the Central Committee? No. That’s my sole point.

            Your admission that you have “friends on the executive committee” who told you “their version of how changes were made to that resolution [that] don’t square with [mine]” is certainly welcome.

            I didn’t GIVE a version of how it happened: I simply said that “I was happy to see the term removed” (which, because you published your “before” resolution and the DPOC publicly passed the “after” version, does not breach the confidentiality of that Committee’s deliberations) and added “(As that decision was made in the Executive Committee, I can’t discuss what if any role I had in it.)” It seems that your “friends” on the committee don’t give a damn about the internal confidentiality of its deliberations. Good to know. Quite telling, in fact — in both senses.

            By the way: citing online reviews of “Shattered” allows people who haven’t bought the book to share in the discussion, because they can get a sense of it sufficient to address the point at hand. It’s sad that that seems not to have occurred to you.

            Your quote from the Medium.com essay is charming. I’ll look forward to sharing it with others.

            Talking to you has been, as usual, pointless but revealing.

          • @Dan Chmielewski

            You’re dense. I addressed the points by the “white supremacists” here by stating my position. I’m not fighting your battles because you lack the spine to do so.

            The resolution does not specifically name sanctuary city but you’d need to be a moron to deny its not what it means. Your position on this issue is weaker than mine. Good to know.

            You haven’t read “Shatterd”. I have. Seriously, you don’t have money for the e-book? I try and given reviews of books, movies and plays I’ve actually read or seen. You can’t be bothered to read the Actual book.

            Please do share the medium column with others. Bernie is not a Democrat. He does no favors to our party. Perhaps you can get tips from him how to steal electricity from your neighbor. When do you think he might release his taxes ?

          • Greg Diamond

            Let’s all give a hand to the Comlunications Committee Chair of the DPOC, folks!

            Fighting against rising Bannonism is every good Democrat’s battle. It’s too bad it’s not yours.

            Your position is not “stronger”; you are simply trying to provoke a Democrat you dislike into unnecessarily adopting a weaker frame for the argument. I also don’t use the “Sanctuary City” term for a mere anti-commandeering policy because it falsely implies a promise of more than it truly does.

            I’m in no hurry to read it. I followed these issues closely over the election cycle; most of what it says isn’t new to me. Your combative position is truly weird.

            Whatever Bernie is, I like and appreciate it. Go play by yourself now; you’ve “elevated” political discourse here enough for one day.

          • @Dan Chmielewski

            Ladies and Gentlemen: an E-Board member of the DPOC and a Columbia law school education lawyer cannot spell “Comlunications” correctly.
            I do fight “Bannonism” daily; sorry if my efforts are not up to your standards but I don’t think much of your standards and mine are a little higher.
            I like Jose Moreno; to imply I don’t is false. We’ve had several conversations about how to get Latino voters to the polls. I think he ought to govern on issues he campaigned on and spoke out about. And he did on sanctuary cities policy if not the label of it. Let’s not tiptoe around the issue. Jeff Sessions has clearly declared war on sanctuary cities. Do we want to fight this or hide behind a different sign because it might upset the conservative Republican mayor of Anaheim?
            You’re in no hurry to read “Shattered” is AKA “I don’t have the money for the book.” If you’d like, I’ll launch a “GoFundMe” page so you can buy some shoes and socks. My combative position is for our Party…not those who are not Democrats who try to tell us what our party ought to do or ought to be. Perhaps you’re OK with Ted Cruz making suggestions on re-inventing our Party? I’m not.
            You like Bernie? Good. Become a Democratic Socialist or an Independent and leave the party; we’re better off without you. Or convince Bernie to join the Party. If he generates a Democratic Senate opponent in VT, I’m cutting that person a check.
            I’ll pay attention to Bernie when he hands his email list of donors over to the DNC. And when he releases his taxes. And supports candidates for Congress in special elections (Georgia On My Mind…..).
            Do me a favor. Don’t suggest what I should do or frame a situation based on your definition of a concept and then admonish me for not acting according to your wishes. I can assess situations on my own and act accordingly. And I’ll find my own way there without your direction.

          • Greg Diamond

            I feel a bit hampered in this discussion because, now that I’m conversing with an actual person, I do feel compelled to honor the Voice of OC’s Discussion Policy — which, unfortunately, I no longer see prominently featured so I can’t quote it by the correct name. The other party in the discussion seems to feel no such need. Maybe the policy has lapsed?

            Anyway: YES, I would like you to start a GoFundMe page so that I can buy shoes and socks. Plenty of people need them in the county need them and who I donate them to once purchased is none of your business.

            On the “AZERTY” keyboard that I usually use on my phone, the “L” and the “M” are adjacent. That explains why I misspelled “Communications.” (I spelled “Comlunications” correctly, by contrast; it just happens not to be a word.) (We Earthlings call that last bit “wry humor,” by the way.)

            AG Sessions — who you assured us was NOT likely to take action against “Sanctuary Cities” JUST HOURS BEFORE HE DID SO — has declared war on both self-described Sanctuary Cities AND on the underlying policies associated with them. Anaheim follows the core “anti-commandeering” policies, but not the provocative label. Los Angeles does the same — and neither were among the several California cities singled out by the DOJ for sanctions. As those viewing its Council meeting last night know, Anaheim is situated in a place where it is a natural target for all sorts of organized racist protest — often using self-labeled “conservative” members of minority communities as a front — and many other cities are not. Anaheim has plenty of SUBSTANTIVE fights on its hand regarding serving its minority communities; it simply doesn’t need to provoke a needless symbolic fight as well. And, again, Dr. Moreno is far, far, far better placed to make such a strategic judgment than you are.

            Ted Cruz’s policies preferences don’t overlap those of many registered Democrats. Those of Bernie Sanders do. That’s the difference between them. By the way, when Ted Cruz came to OC, he shook hands with your fave then-State Senate aspirant Jose Solorio, who had a photographer there to capture the moment. Dr. Moreno didn’t do that. Which of them should you be criticizing?

            I’ll leave the rest of your comment unremarked upon, both for lack of time and because it pretty much stands on its own as a documentation of what it’s like to deal with the “Business Democrat” faction that has been so dominant within our county Democratic Party.

            I do wish that you’d addressed the arguments that I raised in my previous comment (and the one before that, etc.), but I realize that ignoring what you can’t answer and just throwing out new insulting arguments with great force (although limited substance) better suits your purposes and temperament. Please don’t delete any of these comments; I hope that they’ll long remain here for future examination of your “communication skills.”

          • verifiedsane

            You are certainly entitled to your opinion; even though I couldn’t disagree with it more on the political/policy front. The topical issues of discussion here have been debated over and over again….and in the final tally; elections do have consequences….

            Calling the President names along with a never ending string of unfounded derogatory accusations isn’t going to change the downward spiraling trajectory of the Democratic Party. The party has gone so far to the extreme left….they have lost their once strong holds of working class middle America, and the industrial rust belt blue collar base. This will equate to even further election loses in 2018.

            President Trump is going to fair just fine…to the Dem’s great chagrin…

            I’m just sitting back smiling, as I watch the Dem’s further imploding in upon themselves. Unlike the unhinged, pathetic, and laughable Zr. Diamond, I find the Dem’s party squabbling melt down quite entertaining to watch from safe distance a far.

  • momamazed

    5th paragraph – incite, not insight

  • LFOldTimer

    Btw, Francisco. There is probably little doubt that Mayor Tait will vote “yes” for a ‘sanctuary city’ declaration. He held hands with LA Mayor Eric Garcetti at a recent LA event that promoted giving refuge and protection to those who violate our Federal immigration laws.

    Yes, welcome to opposite day. A mayor who took a sworn oath to uphold the laws and defend the Constitution wants to aid and abet lawbreakers. Go figure!

    Not only that. He promotes using taxpayer money to provide free legal CIVIL counsel to illegals who are contesting deportation, which is a CIVIL (ie. not criminal) court order.

    Naturally, that is money that could create new social programs for our children or perhaps to feed, clothe or provide shelter to our elderly citizens.

    Isn’t that something, Francisco?

    What happened to America? When nations disregard their own longstanding laws it generally means the end is near. World history tells us that.

    The Bolsheviks obey the law only when it suits them. lol.

  • LFOldTimer

    Thank you for your op-ed on this thought-provoking subject matter.

    “One of the leading agreements is if you disagree with someone’s point of view on an issue to not attack someone directly but to rather address their idea/proposal in order to collectively dissect its fallacies and move forward together.”

    I wish that some people on this board would follow your advice to refrain from personally attacking those with whom they disagree and rather to debate the content of their comment(s). I have been called a “bigot”, a “racist” and a “child molester” on these boards w/o any evidence of such provided by the name callers who disagree with my opinions. People who engage in this behavior should not participate in public discourse since it distracts everyone from the public interest subject matter and inevitably ends in acrimony and bitterness. Thank you for reinforcing my beliefs.

    Now, on to your subject of interest.

    Politicians do things for political reasons. It’s the nature of the beast. That’s why it’s called “politics”. So I take it Kring put the ‘sanctuary city’ matter on the agenda for the meeting on 04/25. Naturally, that was her prerogative. I’m not certain how consensus works in Anaheim city government but I assume Kring needed another vote or two to get it agendized. Perhaps she wants to make a statement on ‘sanctuary cities’ either positive or negative. It does seem to be a hot topic in municipal and state governments. So why not put it on the table for all to weigh in on and get it over with? No doubt the residents of Anaheim would like to know. It seems to be a city that has a lot of immigrant activists. If someone feels rushed they can always ask for a continuance until more information is forthcoming. And if the majority agree more research can ensue. That’s how democracies work. But if you accuse Kring of being “political” you’d have to point your finger at the other four as well. Let’s not fool ourselves. They’re ALL political. lol.

    “If Kring prevails and the council strikes the resolution out of fear, will undocumented students show up to class? Will people stop showing up to doctor’s appointments? When will politicians prioritize actual
    policy over political theatre?”

    That statement in itself appears to be a “stunt”. We know that ICE is not raiding schools or doctor’s offices. So please. Let’s not exaggerate to gain points. Keep it balanced.

    In general, illegal aliens who are in violation of the law should have some level of fear. After all, they’re in violation of Federal law. If they work they’re in violation of both state and Federal labor laws too. If they use someone else’s identity that’s yet another crime. People who commit crimes are generally fearful. It’s normal. But kids in school or people going to doctor’s appointments are safe. So let’s not play that card, Ok?

    “…..but rather an attempt to insight vehement reactions by people on both sides of the aisle.”

    Finally “insight” should be ‘incite’. I don’t want you to give your prof a reason to dock you on your next essay test. 🙂

    Thanks for your opinion and for your interest in civic affairs, Francisco.

  • Cynthia Ward

    Yeah, I am trying to figure out what the staff report even reads like…generally Council is called to take action on an item brought forward by staff or one of their own. Is Lucille making a motion to approve sanctuary city status? Because to my knowledge nobody else has asked for such a motion.

    “Staff recommends Council not approve a motion that has not been presented for the consideration of Council?’

    Seriously, I keep waiting for Alan Funt or Ashton Kutcher to tell us the last few years have been some spoof-tv reality show we weren’t in on. That WOULD actually explain Emery….

    • RyanCantor

      Just table it to a date uncertain. This is absurd.

  • Greg Diamond

    There are two questions here:

    (1) What do Councilmembers think that they’d be promising to those in Anaheim by declaring it to be a Sanctuary City?

    (2) What do Councilmembers think that they’d be declaring by failing to declare Anaheim a Sanctuary City?

    If any Councilmember can’t answer both questions, the best course of action is to abstain. A vote of Kring voting “no” on her own motion coupled with six abstentions would be the perfect outcome for a situation where the proposal is ill-formed, ill-defined, and ill-intentioned.

    (I wonder if any agenda item has ever gotten zero “yes” votes before? Maybe Kring could set a new record!)

    • @Dan Chmielewski

      They promise local law enforcement will not assist ICE unless there’s a warrant involved for criminal behavior. Likely no recourse from Feds if Anaheim adopts sanctuary city status. Time for those who campaigned on this issue to show up and vote for it. If it loses, voters know where you stand. If not, violation of DPOC resolution where party should hold Dems accountable.

      • Greg Diamond

        Violations of DPOC resolutions urging candidates to take a given position generally don’t lead to the sorts of consequences you suggest — especially when the members in question can present a cogent explanation for their vote. (I’ll return to this at the end.)

        Your first sentence only represents what YOU think that such a Council resolution would do — but your interpretation is not definitive, surely not to Councilmembers or to voters. Both Lucille Kring and your friend Matt Cunningham of Anaheim Blog offer a different and far more expansive interpretation that would depict proponents of such a resolution as supporting something far more radical and capricious. One should at least know how voters of a given city are interpreting such a proposal before turning it into a litmus test.

        Your blithe assurance that adopting the label “Sanctuary City” would likely bring no recourse from the federal government doesn’t inspire confidence, as it seems to ignore many current headlines regarding proposals from the DOJ and DHS. It also flies in the face of almost-hysterical assertions of just such a prospect from one of OC’s most prominent Democratic officials, Jose Solorio, who TWICE voted with longtime Democratic Santa Ana Mayor Miguel Pulido and a non-Democratic councilman not merely to “assist ICE” — but to continue to rent it substantial space in the City Jail — even AFTER Santa Ana declared itself to be a “Sanctuary City.” This damages our party’s credibility substantially.

        No current or former member of the Anaheim City Council “campaigned” in 2016 on Anaheim adopting a “Sanctuary City” label. I believe that one or two answered a question in a forum on the general issue, but that was not part of either’s campaign message, theme, or literature. Nor did the forum allow for nuance in explaining what such a vote would and wouldn’t do or even what was MEANT by the term. I can’t recall ever sponsoring, writing, or voting on a DPOC resolution that threatened sanctions against anyone for supporting or failing to support something so vague.

        The term “Sanctuary City” seems to convey to its opponents a much broader attack on the fundamentals of immigration law, and on lawfulness in general, than what you describe. As bad or worse, “sanctuary” is a serious term that seems to convey to some of its proponents more than you think it does: protection from apprehension on ANY basis such as is available at cooperative embassies (such as Ecuador’s protection of Julian Assange) and often granted to churches as well. I would feel terrible if someone relied upon a promise of sanctuary from me or my government when it was ACTUALLY merely a limited and unenforceable promise of non-cooperation based on constitutional principles against federal “commandeering” of state law enforcement. I don’t know your position on making that significant of a promise that one never intends to keep, but I think that it is bad politics.

        Luckily, there seems to be a ready solution at hand, although the Council may or may not let it come directly to a vote. The promise that “promise local law enforcement will not assist ICE unless there’s a warrant involved for criminal behavior” is a perfectly valid thing to bring up — and my understanding is that this is actually already the custom (if not the policy) in Anaheim. The same is true of Los Angeles, but Los Angeles does NOT adopt the “Sanctuary City” label, probably for the reasons expressed above. So any resolution that “calls for” (however disingenuously) “Sanctuary City status” should be met with a substitute motion that doesn’t involve the label — but EXACTLY THE SPECIFIC POLICY AS YOU DESCRIBE IT. And let the contents, not the wrapper, go to a vote.

        My expectation is that the sole Democrat on the Council would vote “yes,” the Mayor and Vanderbilt would vote yes, Kring would vote no (probably but not necessarily joined by Murray), and have no strong sense of how Barnes and Faessel would vote. As you say, it would tell us a lot about where councilmembers stand. But, again — if the Council did not agree to substitute in this sort of clear and specific motion, I would not even deign to vote on the motion at all. Abstaining as a response to an abuse of process has a long and glorious history in our country; I don’t think that that DPOC would or should get touchy at such a vote. We care about substantive policies, not mere labeling — right?

        • LFOldTimer

          It’s beyond me how any sworn public official or decent American could support the concept of ‘sanctuary cities’. A beautiful, engaging and intelligent American female, Kate Steinle, was gunned down and murdered by a 5-time deportee illegal alien who the liberal law enforcement authorities released from their jail onto the San Francisco streets, knowing full well the illegal invader’s felonious criminal history and illegal status. The SF authorities IGNORED a Federal detainer that ICE sent them on this illegal. Kate had everything to live for and her life was snuffed out as she walked along the SF piers with her father. The SF liberals have Kate’s blood dripping from their fingers. Repugnant.

          This is not a complicated subject. People only try to make it so to cover up the tremendous damage it does to the social, financial and cultural fabric of our nation.

          “Sanctuary” is defined as: “A place of refuge and protection”. A ‘sanctuary city’ protects immigration criminals. This would be no different than a city declaring sanctuary protection for tax evaders or those who counterfeit currency or those who commit mail fraud. Naturally the liberals would protest not holding those criminals accountable, particularly the tax scofflaws who should help pay for all the social programs and government pension funds. lol. So we know the INTENT behind ‘sanctuary cities’…to protect criminals. This is not brain science.

          There is a Federal Statute under 8 U.S. Code, section 1324 that declares the following: “Any person who, knowing that an alien has come to the U.S. in violation
          of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection such alien in any
          place, including any building… shall be imprisoned not more than 5
          years.”

          If sworn public officials who run our government refuse to voluntarily comply with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution that gives primacy to federal law over contrary state or local laws, perhaps a few should take the perp walk to over to the Metropolitan Detention Center for some free lodging and food.

          Many of us little people are tired of being compelled to follow the letter of the law – or else – while the ones who enact the laws have the special privilege of obeying the law only when it suits them and furthers their personal agendas. It’s disgraceful and a slap in the face of the traditional American principles and beliefs (ie. equality under the law) that made the USA the shining beacon on the hill and the envy of the globe. Now we’re being torn asunder by leaders at all levels of government who scoff at their sworn oaths and openly profess to promote protecting a criminal element that infiltrated our communities.

          You can sugar coat it all your want. These political scoundrels are conspiring together to do an end run around our justice system and provide “sanctuary” to those who broke our laws – many times MULTIPLE laws.

          The Illegal Immigration Reform Act of 1996 requires states and
          municipalities to cooperate with federal authorities on immigration
          requests. It’s not an option. Even Obama’s own DOJ Inspector General issued a report concluding that the policies
          and practices of sanctuary jurisdictions violate federal law and they
          are, therefore, ineligible for federal funds.

          The aiders and abettors claim that simply declining to honor ICE detainers is not the same
          thing as a refusal to “send or receive” information. That’s a falsehood. Detainers
          require a response from local law enforcement. Refusing or restricting a
          response is clearly covered in the Federal statutory language. (See Supremacy Clause for further instructions).

          We are the United States of America, a sovereign nation. As a sovereign nation we have our own laws, borders and obligation to protect the best interests of our citizens and LEGAL immigrants. It’s particularly degrading for LEGAL immigrants who played by all the rules to come to America who are forced to compete with illegal aliens for jobs and resources. I feel tremendously sorry for all the prospective immigrants overseas who are told to wait in line for 10 years or more after submitting all their paperwork and following all the steps in the process to achieve their dream of coming to America and become productive members of our society THE LEGAL WAY!

          As children most of us were taught a moral code. To do things the right way. We were told that rules were in place so that we could live in a civilized world. Although we didn’t like all the rules – we followed them for the greater good.

          It appears that the parents some of our public officials who took a sworn oath failed to instill these same traditional American values in their children.

          For shame.

          • Greg Diamond

            Well, Dan, there’s an example of the sort of overheated hysteria to which you demand Dr. Moreno subject himself needlessly.

            Given that your stated interest is solely in the “anti-commandeering” aspect associated with a less sweeping view of the term, why do you want him to rush jaw-first into this sort of argument?

            Do you think that he needs more distraction from the central issue? Do you think that his activism on the part of the Latino community is somehow deficient? Do you just want to make it more likely that he loses by framing the issue of non-cooperation with ICE in an unnecessarily incendiary way?

            I hope that you’ll clarify – and that you’ll take over my recent task of arguing here with LFOldTimer about immigration. Maybe I’ll learn something from your technique.

          • LFOldTimer

            So you refuse to debate the illegal immigration subject matter with me.? As I figured. You’ve been known to call me ridiculous vile names then run off. Surely you realize I make solid persuasive and compelling arguments on the topic. I suspect you understand that if you got into a debate with me over the immigration issues you’d be in over your head and end up on the losing end. So why take the risk? Your long-winded comments stop at real debate with me. 🙂

            But at least I thank you for not calling me a “bigot”, a “racist”, a “child molester”, contemplating whether I wear a ‘hooded robe’ or other nonsensical vile names in your latest comment.

            That’s mighty civilized of you.

          • Greg Diamond

            Maybe Mr. Chmielewski will take up the gantlet. His view on the necessity for all good public officials to defend the label of “Santuary City,” and not merely an anti-commandeering position, is more extreme than mine.

          • LFOldTimer

            So after all the vile name-calling you pass the torch to Mr. Chmielewski?

            Normally when people start fights they remain in the ring long enough to settle it as opposed to asking some guy in the audience to finish it for them.

            But alas. I’m grateful you didn’t call me any vile names in your last 2 comments. A positive metamorphosis. Go buy yourself an ice cream cone.

          • Greg Diamond

            I don’t think that you understand. I won’t talk to a white nationalist about immigration policy *on principle*. As yet, we have no indication that Mr. Chmielewski has such a principle.

          • LFOldTimer

            Oh stop it.

            I’m no “white nationalist” and I’m not a ‘racist’ or a ‘bigot’ or a ‘child molester’ either. Nor do I wear a hooded robe. You’re wrong on all counts.

            I have repeatedly asked you to offer a proof source to substantiate your goofy claims. And you back down time after time. In American culture when one person accuses another of being something despicable they normally back it up with evidence. You’ve shown us NOTHING!

            So let the other readers be the judge.

            I suspect that you refuse to enter into a debate with me on illegal immigration because you fear I’d mop the floor with you.

            So please. Stop with the convenience dodge.

            Oh, and don’t forget. You started the fight. Not me.

          • Greg Diamond

            OK, open up your currently closed list of comments on Disqus and I’ll identify the ones that I think demonstrate your stance.

            Dan, you may want to investigate this person’s comment history yourself.

          • LFOldTimer

            Oh, now we have a tag team match of the 2 liberals against the guy who has the nerve to oppose illegal immigration? 2 on 1??? lol. I’m skeeerd.

          • Greg Diamond

            I would not say that we’re exactly buddies. A close reading of our comments above should tip you off to that.

            I’ll have more to say after Dan responds. (If he does.) I don’t want to usurp his opportunity to address you.

          • LFOldTimer

            This has nothing to do with Dan. It’s between me and you. You dissed me with despicable names for my viewpoints on illegal immigration and then you folded when it came time to debate the matter. This is about you. Not him. The only subject Dan and I disagree on (to my knowledge) is the suitability of high speed rail in California. Dan didn’t fold. You did.

          • Greg Diamond

            I’m not “folding” at all. I stand by every description I’ve ever applied to you, you contemptible bigot (bearing in mind that assessing your sexual kinks involve some inferences.) But ESPECIALLY as you’ve now said that you don’t think that you and Dan disagree about anything, and as he’s commented here on thus very post, I’d like to see him confront you on your position here — IF he is so disposed. And if he isn’t, that will be interesting to know.

            After that time, we’ll engage on the underlying topic of your bigotry again. You DO want Dan to weigh in on this topic if he’s so disposed, right? I’m presuming that you disagree with the position he’s posted above with respect to making such a demand on Dr. Moreno — correct? Taken at face value, any other reaction would be surprising.

            Meanwhile, can you stop polluting this comment section with this tangent? I — given that I’m writing under my own name here — have a reputation to defend; you, being a sniveling coward acting “under a hood,” as it were, do not.

          • LFOldTimer

            There you go again with your quick-draw potty mouth. I knew you couldn’t resist.

            And yet STILL – no proof source to back up your despicable claims on my character. That’s really nasty. Calling someone awful names while publicly providing nothing of substance to support your putrid words

            Have you ever taken the time to read VOC’s comment guidelines? What makes you so bold that you can come here and behave this way?

            I don’t follow Dan around and badger him on his every opinion like some do to me. If he wants to exchange ideas on illegal immigration I’d be happy to oblige. I’m sure it would be a more cordial discussion than what I’ve experienced with you.

            The problem is that most pro-sanctuary city advocates refuse to debate me on the subject because they understand my knowledge on the subject and are afraid to enter the ring. Sound familiar?

          • verifiedsane

            You can not have civil discourse or debate with close minded open border anti-American socialist like Diamond in the buff….All they have is name calling with no substantive argument…One would be better off debating a block wall…that is just our present day reality…It’s quite obvious the Zr. Diamond isn’t getting his ego stroked with his “incredibly popular” (LMAO) blog that no one reads; so he’s here drumming up fights with indefensible positions in a vain attempt to give himself some twisted and inept form of pseudo legitimacy.

          • verifiedsane

            Zr. Diamond Quote: “have a reputation to defend” – Holy Fatty Cow!!!!….the coffee went flying when I read those words….I can’t stop laughing….. 🙂

        • @Dan Chmielewski

          In case you missed this in the piece above, “The protection of undocumented immigrants isn’t and shouldn’t ever be a political stunt ***but was used on the campaign trail just last year*** and is being used again in order to insight petty political drama.”

          The party has issued resolutions on topics far less impactful, often to hold elected of both parties accountable for their actions or inactions. The party has issued a resolution calling on all OC elected to support sanctuary cities and the party has issued statements in support of SB54. Abstaining is ignoring the will of the party on both of those things.

          The issue isn’t nearly as complex as you present. I think Moreno asking Kring to define what she means by “Sanctuary City” was brilliant. I’d like to know his definition as well. Because I remember his speeches on the campaign trail talking about this issue.
          Kring was laughed at by OC GOP types for saying some issues she ran on “weren’t in her literature” and criticized by many for that — including you — as she should have been. Your defense of candidates who ran on support for sanctuary cities by didn’t list it on websites or literature strikes me as hypocritical.
          Maybe the substitute motion could reflect support for SB54?

          • Greg Diamond

            The issue may have been used on the campaign trail BY KRING. It was not used BY MORENO.

            You say that you recall hearing Moreno give “speeches on the campaign trail” on this issue. Can you give more details about these memories? As I recall, he was asked this question once in a candidate forum and said that he supported the underlying issue – which is along the lines of what you stated, but CLEARLY not how Kring and the bigot joining us in this conversation define it.

            That is not “campaigning on the issue” of adopting the “sanctuary city” label. And it certainly is not like what Kring did: promising Mayor Tait to support his position on a roster of issues in exchange for his highly coveted endorsement, and then entirely reversing course after the election on the grounds that she had never included her positions on those issues on her campaign website.

            Moreno’s campaign website – still available online – is wide-ranging, admirably comprehensive, and not at all focused on adopting a label that gives opponents of immigrant rights an easy peg on which to hang their demagoguery. He did not promise anyone to adopt a slogan (let alone a whole platform!) to get a critical endorsement – as did Kring. I hope that you will acknowledge this huge difference.

            Meanwhile, our hateful anonymous companion here has helpfully recounted some of the recent arguments we have had on this site. Now that you’ve arrived, do you think that you could perhaps join me in rebutting him? You present yourself as caring so deeply about this issue; here’s a chance for you to demonstrate your mettle against a wily opponent on this issue, a far better target for you than Jose Moreno. You relish a good fight and have no problem with anonymous commenters attacking people: is it too much to ask that you, as a fellow DPOC Central Committee member, do your share here?

          • @Dan Chmielewski

            I’m not your monkey Greg.
            You can fight your own battles. I don’t need your help in fighting mine.
            I have no issue with undocumented immigrants in this country but abhor their low pay, poor working conditions and the fact they are often victims of crime. I believe our national immigration laws need reform and they need to not only have paths for citizenship but superhighways towards citizenship for those who seek it. This has been a long time position of mine and I’m sorry if you are only now becoming aware of it.
            I have seen no evidence of Kring using sanctuary city status or immigration reform as anything she campaigned on. Dr. Moreno spoke frequently about it during the campaign. Jordan Brandman spoke frequently about it and actually had a stronger position on it than Moreno did.
            There’s a stark contrast to what’s said while campaigning and governing. I would hope that Dr. Moreno supports efforts to make Anaheim a sanctuary city even if the measure loses on the city council floor. It says who he stands with. Sometimes you lose a battle to win a war.

          • LFOldTimer

            Thank you for your opinion, Dan. I don’t agree with it; however, you laid it out in an unambiguous way for all to understand. What more could we ask of a commenter?

            No need to offer counterarguments. The previous comments tell you where I stand. We can coexist without analyzing who’s right and who’s wrong. It’s futile anyway.

            It was weird that Diamond wanted you to step into the ring on his behalf. Go figure.

            You have a great weekend.