Alameda Councilmember Oddie wants island to be a sanctuary city

Alameda Councilmember Jim Oddie

Alameda may be the next Bay Area city to resist President-elect Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric by becoming a sanctuary city.

Alameda Councilmember Jim Oddie will seek to kickstart a push on the island for sanctuary city status at the year’s final council meeting on Dec. 20.

The referral will not only direct city staff to begin assessing the potential costs and risks for becoming a sanctuary city but also seeks to instructs Alameda Police to refuse any request by the Trump administration to use its resources for mass arrests or internment.

In addition, Oddies wants the city to declare that no city department will participate in any registering of individuals based on their religious beliefs.

“This is pretty much about values,” said Oddie. “Are we going to stand up to Trump or not? By doing this we could be a fortress of defense against Trump.”

Oakland, Berkeley and San Francisco leaders recently reaffirmed their status as a sanctuary city in moves readily viewed as attempts to forcefully oppose the incoming Trump administration.

In Alameda County, Sheriff Gregory Ahern has said in the past his department will comply with requests by agents from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) seeking to detain or even deport undocumented immigrants.

Oddie said his proposal will also protect many law-abiding undocumented immigrants who are at risk of being detained for minor infractions. “If someone gets pulled over for a broken tail light they won’t be reported to ICE,” said Oddie. “They’re raising a family and paying their taxes. Are we going to stand and protect hardworking people or not?”

One of the concerns over sanctuary cities is the risk of a punitive response from the Trump administration, for instance, pulling some federal dollars from Bay Area cities or even the entire state.

A portion of Oddie’s referral asks the city staff to discern what those risks will be, but he said Alameda currently receives limited federal funds, primarily in public safety and transportation. “We need to find out realistically what they could take away,” said Oddie. “If all the cities along the state are sanctuary cities, are they going to withhold federal money? I don’t think so. In my opinion, if they do, there will be riots in the streets.”

Oddie’s proposal may also be the first test of the next City Council’s potential shift to the left. The referral is scheduled to be heard following Councilmember-elect Malia Vella’s swearing-in on Dec. 20. She replaces the more moderate Councilmember Tony Daysog on the five-person council.

4 thoughts on “Alameda Councilmember Oddie wants island to be a sanctuary city

  1. “Alameda Progressives” are actually Alameda Degenerates, a.k.a. Communists and “useful idiots”.
    Jim Odie has sworn to uphold the laws of California and the U.S. Constitrution. He should be Impeached!


  2. I'm not for Alameda becoming a Sanctuary City:
    1. Sanctuary cities are a violation of federal law.
    2. Sanctuary cities undermine law enforcement.
    3. Sanctuary cities are “akin to roulette.” Why take a chance with our safety?
    4. Crime has surged in sanctuary cities. According to Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, crime has risen in “sanctuary cities” across the nation.
    Landry told the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, that sanctuary city policies “allow illegals to commit crimes, then roam free in our communities.” Landry’s appearance was prompted by the changed status of New Orleans, where city police are now banned from asking an individual's immigration status.
    Using recent statistics from Los Angeles, another sanctuary city, Landry asserted, “Los Angeles saw all crime rise in 2015: violent crime up 19.9 percent, homicides up 10.2 percent, shooting victims up 12.6 percent, rapes up 8.6 percent, robberies up 12.3 percent, and aggravated assault up 27.5 percent … (sanctuary cities) encourage further illegal immigration and promote an underground economy that sabotages the tax base.” This would make sense given the aforementioned statistics and the fact that there is a clear link between illegal immigration and crime.
    5. There are an estimated 300 sanctuary cities, counties, and states, according to Vaughn.


  3. By MW:

    The group that comprises the Bay area's higher ranking “liberal” politicians is loaded to the gills with demagogues and charlatans who pretend they are great humanitarians, and they are great humanitarians – as long as it does not cost them very much of their own money and/or cause them to start seriously wondering whether their “great liberal” and “wonderful humanitarian” policies are causing large increases in the crime rate in their own neighborhood, and rather than only in someone else's neighborhood.

    In fact, Alameda County DA Nancy O'Malley, and who is one of the very “greatest” of the phonies and big windbags who pretends to be a “liberal,” actually lives in the city of Alameda, and so as to “prove” that she is a “real” liberal, and not just one of those sleazy and phony “liberal” windbags who is in favor of integrating everyone else's neighborhood, but NOT her own, a few years ago she very strongly came out against a certain proposed road construction project, since she felt it would bring into the city of Alameda too many people from Oakland, and the way she said it was obvious that believed that a high percentage of Oakland residents are criminals.

    However I am going to see if I can get some restrictions on the types of people who will be allowed to move into my neighborhood, or even to come for a visit.

    Specifically, I am going to see if we can get some restrictions enacted that will make it illegal for my neighborhood to allow anyone in who is a lawyer (Nancy O'Malley is a lawyer) and/or a phony, windbag, or scam artist who pretends to be a liberal.

    (NOTE: Some years ago a large company that built houses did actually try to keep lawyers from buying any of the homes in one of the subdivisions that it was building, and by basically arguing that lawyers are jerks and are very inclined to start and cause trouble. And an even better reason not to rent or sell to lawyers, or to even rent or buy a residence that was previously occupied by a lawyer, is that lawyers have skyhigh rates of drug addiction, and that decontaminating a house that was previously occupied by a drug addict can easily cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if you do not do the necessary contamination, you are very likely to get extremely sick and/or die many years prematurely. So therefore I would not agree to occupy a house that had previously been occupied by Nadia Lockyer even if it was offered to me for free.)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s