On page 37 of Meg Whitman’s “Meg 2010, Building a New California, Meg Whitman’s Policy Agenda”, her campaign magazine, under the topic of “Eliminate Sanctuary Cities”, the magazine states that, “Meg will seek a legislative solution to prevent cities, such as San Francisco, from shielding undocumented immigrants from federal immigration laws.” Then just two weeks following the June 2nd primary, she publically opposed Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, aka Arizona’s Immigration Law. As an Ex-Mayor of a California City, and one who has read SB 1070 in its entirety, this law is specifically written to prohibit sanctuary cities and does contain specific language to guard against “racial profiling”.
When I attended the League of California Cities meetings and conventions the topic of sanctuary cities was discussed quite often starting as early as the 1970’s. The same arguments waged then as they do now regarding the need for immigration reform, racial profiling, the rights of illegal aliens etc. I suppose what startled me as an elected official was the cavalier nature of the arguments in support of ignoring federal immigration law that was affirmed in 1976 in a Supreme Court decision, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, where the court stated that Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution gave Congress the right to regulate naturalization which includes the power to regulate immigration. I am sure the same City, County and State Governments who advocated the policy of sanctuaries for illegal immigrants would have been appalled if one or more of their citizens would have refused to obey a city/county ordinance because those citizens did not agree with the ordinance or they felt the ordinance was unconstitutional. How about, the city has no right to make me accept and pay for garbage collection. Sound silly? So is disobedience by a local law enforcement officer who knowingly fails to follow federal law. How about federal income taxes?
We have to determine what core principals our elected officials believe in and whether our elected officials live by those core set of principals in their everyday life. Too often we find and are disappointed to learn that our elected officials live by the law of “political expediency”. This law basically means that a politician will do anything to get elected and anything to stay in power. Sound familiar. The problem is that we have ended up with a ruling class whose long term planning for our nation, our states, our counties and our cities only spans the current election cycle. Elizabeth Sidiropoulos and Lyal White coined the phrase; “Political expediency means that a lot of planning is still short term.”1 Politicians believe that the electorate has a short memory and if enough pork can be packed back home before the election then no harm no foul. In this age of the internet, instant communications and 24-7 news, the electorate is wide awake, watching, and keeping score.
Meg, I can only ask that you personally come out and state your true policies regarding not only illegal immigration but the other core principals you campaigned on. We do not want to read, “Meg believes…..” We want to hear it from you from your soul. California cannot afford another “Arnold” and certainly cannot survive the second coming of “Brown”. That said, many people who truly care for this state, and pay a lot of taxes, need to know if we should start packing now because the November election is irrelevant or if you are truly principled. You owe this to your constituents and those who voted for you.
1Elizabeth Sidiropoulos & Lyal White; How Brazil Beats Poverty Trap; Mail & Guardian (Johannesburg, South Africa); Aug 25, 2009