Mayor Barbara Lee and the Oakland City Council, in open defiance of the Trump administration, are in the process of doubling down on our Sanctuary City policy by making it considerably more difficult for city agencies to work with Federal agencies on immigration. The so-called “City of Refuge” policy, authored by City Council members Charlene Wang, Noel Gallo and Ken Houston, will “shield local families from federal surges in immigration enforcement.” Developed in conjunction with a local church, Faith in Action East Bay, the ordinance goes further than any similar law I’m aware of; it offers what Wang calls “a legal framework” that “ensures local police focus on local safety—not federal documentation status.”
To be sure, there’s always been an inherent conflict in our Constitution between the rights of cities and states, on the one hand, and the federal government, on the other, for jurisdiction in legal disputes. We fought a Civil War over this; we may be headed toward another. In this case, as I’m sure you’re aware, the Trump administration has expressed its desire to expel non-citizens. The city of Oakland, meanwhile, has declared its intention to protect those non-citizens and has crafted city policy to adhere to that goal. In essence, the city of Oakland is telling the government, “What are you going to do about it? We’re going to protect the thousands of Oaklanders who are living here illegally. And we’re not going to allow your ICE agents to enter city property without a valid judicial warrant.”
This is the move of an emboldened bureaucracy secure in its belief it can fend off federal authorities. Just how Oakland intends to resist ICE, though, is unclear. During the last 1-1/2 years or so, since Trump regained power, he and his minions have repeatedly threatened sanctuary cities with all sorts of dreadful punishments, including withholding federal grants (for instance, for affordable housing and homeless shelters), suing the city, and even blocking international travel at Oakland Airport. Any of these retaliatory moves would have drastic consequences on Oakland’s already tenuous finances. Should there be a big fire or earthquake here, Trump could even withhold FEMA funds. There is no law requiring him to sign a disaster declaration, and given his temperament, we know that vengeance is important to him.
I agree that there’s a certain malign satisfaction in opposing this administration. By not cooperating with the federal government on immigration, Oakland plays a powerful card of virtue signaling. Despite its emotional appeal, however, we have to ask if such a move is warranted. Is it wise to spit in the monster’s eye? The monster is big and powerful. The monster currently controls the entire government, including the Supreme Court. If it comes down to a fight, who do you think will prevail?
For this reason alone I recommend scrapping the City of Refuge ordinance. It’s strictly performative. It accomplishes precisely nothing that would help undocumented immigrants. It gives Lee and the Council bragging rights for “Who’s the most progressive?” while endangering Oakland’s financial viability. It simply makes our town more of an outlier among American cities, and we’ve already seen how harmful that is to our health. Businesses don’t want to be here; people don’t want to live here; shoppers don’t want to spend their money here. We’re an international symbol of urban failure.
It’s also a joke that Wang insists Oakland’s job is to focus on public safety. How exactly is that supposed to happen when the City deliberately underfunds the Oakland Police Department so that it cannot hire even a fraction of the number of cops required to fight crime? Barbara Lee talks about public safety all the time, but we know she’s lying because she’s never supported the police in her entire political career. Lee has, in fact, hobnobbed with the Black Panther types who still want to defund the police, and who want to prevent OPD from using the high-tech tools that most other urban police forces have at their disposal. This is done, presumably, to protect our “privacy,” when in fact privacy is a meaningless quality if you’re afraid of walking alone at night or if you find your car in the morning with the windows smashed. “Let our people be free!” is the Oakland progressive mantra, but what’s the point of being “free” in a collapsing dystopia where your “rights” cease at the end of some thug’s fist?
Don’t get me wrong. I would fight against this Trump regime if it came to that. But that doesn’t mean I unequivocally agree with the way Oakland is governed. I hate the obsession with race, with “equity,” with “equal outcomes.” It’s sad that we’re presented with two unacceptable outcomes: either to submit to a terrible national tyranny, or to accede to a quasi-Communist local cabal of petty bureaucrats.
Steve Heimoff