Montclair Council: Residents Say Yes To Sanctuary City For Immigrants, No To Trump

BY  |  Wednesday, Feb 08, 2017 7:39am  |  COMMENTS (12)

A proposal to make Montclair a sanctuary city for immigrants was not on the Montclair Township council’s agenda for its February 7 meeting, but supporters of the initiative came out in droves, to make sure their voices heard on the issue.  Though the meeting was a conference meeting, not a regularly televised one, Mayor Robert Jackson and the council held the meeting in the council chambers in anticipation of the overflow of residents they expected.  Even that wasn’t enough.

A protester at the Montclair Township Council’s February 7 holds up a sign asking the council to keep the township “on the right side of history.”

One resident after another got up to voice support for Montclair becoming a sanctuary city, a municipality that has adopted a policy of protecting unauthorized immigrants.  President Donald Trump’s executive order barring citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries has sparked similar calls for such a status in various municipalities, which the White House has threatened to withhold federal funds from.

Resident Serge Demefack, an immigrant himself and an immigrant-rights activist, said the township had to be more proactive in standing up to anti-immigrant policies.  Another resident, Rosa Neel, presented herself as an example of how immigrants add value to America, noting that she was born to a Peruvian mother but was mostly raised in Peru and returned to the United States at the age of 10, learning English, graduating from college, and becoming a lawyer thereafter.  She was quick to note how many immigrants in Montclair were doctors, lawyers, students and entrepreneurs as well as child care providers, office cleaners, and restaurant workers.

The Rev. Ann Ralosky addresses the Montclair township Council.

The Reverend Ann Ralosky of First Congregational Church took the opportunity to read a statement supporting Montclair as a sanctuary city on behalf of the Montclair Clergy Association.  “The Montclair Clergy Association stands in solidarity in supporting the initiative to have Montclair designated as a sanctuary city, joining hundreds of other cities, large and small across our great country.  It’s at the core of every faith tradition that the vulnerable and disenfranchised be protected and provided for, especially in these perilous and unstable times.   We believe that the enduring values of compassion and inclusion, historically exhibited by the Montclair community, will be most meaningfully manifested by such an action.  This is the community we aspire to be.”

Councilor-at-Large Robert Russo, who attended as a resident and left early due to illness,  reminded the council that Italian-Americans like his own family had been unwanted like Latin American and Islamic immigrants are today, and he was quick to note the new sister-city relationship with the Italian town of Aquilonia reflected Montclair’s commitment to welcoming diverse cultures.  Another Italian-American resident, lawyer Joseph Fortunato, said he was motivated by his own work as a lawyer at Newark Airport, having volunteered to help people coming into the country along with several other attorneys.  He said he helped an Iranian-British national who had been detained for five hours and whose luggage was searched before she was finally let in.  He said it was “critically important” that Montclair continue to be diverse and inclusive.  “We have to take leadership once again in order to do that by making Montclair a sanctuary city,” he said.

Not everyone agreed with the sanctuary-city idea.  Resident John Van Wagner, citing the illegal statuses of many immigrants, said he knew a Muslim immigrant from Afghanistan who voted for Trump because he had entered the country legally and had become a citizen through the proper channels, and he regarded illegal immigrants as being disrespectful to the rule of law. Van Wagner concurred that the rule of law should be followed.

Protesters at the Montclair Township Council meeting continue to hold up signs in favor of immigration as one resident signs up for public comment.

The council was supportive of the pro-sanctuary opinions expressed, however.  Fourth Ward Councilor Renée Baskerville thanked everyone for sharing their sentiments and said she stood with them.  She noted that she had introduced a sanctuary city resolution earlier, and that she and the rest of the council had been doing research to write a resolution with help from Township Attorney Ira Karasick, who recently shared with the council a draft that could pass muster legally.  Third Ward Councilor Sean Spiller stated that laws aren’t always right, and he called for standing up to the Trump administration, because doing the right thing is more important.

Mayor Jackson handled the law enforcement question, responding to resident Jeffrey Jacobson’s question as to whether the police have to inquire about the immigration status of a person who needs help and if there are circumstances when a Montclair police officer has to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The mayor said not one person has ever been referred to ICE and no person has ever been asked for his immigration status.  Police officers are only obliged to ask, he said, if there is an arrest for drunk driving or for an indictable offense.  The police, Mayor Jackson said, are usually the first people residents go to for help, and he cited Officer Garth Guthrie’s quiet philanthropy in giving necessary items such as food and clothing to people in need.  Karasick added that officers don’t investigate the immigration statuses of a crime victim, witness, or a person seeking help from the police per regulations from the Attorney General.

The council passed seven resolutions after public comment, including one scheduled for consideration at the February 21 that authorizes the execution of a professional services agreement with H2M Associates, LLC for professional services connected with off-site groundwater investigation at 399 Orange Road.  Dr. Baskerville had asked that it be voted on immediately instead of later, and the council did so.

Maintaining Open Space at Future Seymour Street Plaza

A resolution approving and authorizing an agreement governing use and access of the future plaza slated for Seymour Street aroused concern from Councilor Spiller, who asked about how scheduled events at the plaza would be run.  Karasick said events could be scheduled by the township or the owners of the surrounding property.  The township would provide the owners with an annual schedule of events it intends to hold, and then it would get those days; any other events would require three days’ notice to the owners, and any events not previously scheduled would require three days’ notice to the township.  Each side would work with the other over a calendar, and the agreement stresses that the public always has access to the plaza.  Councilor Spiller was concern that free time on the plazas between events could be filled and lead to too many events and not enough open time.  Councilor Spiller proposed an amendment that plaza use would be jointly discussed with the owners in a year-end review, with a final list of the number of events being subject to township approval.  It was so amended and passed.

Also, Dr. Baskerville was concerned about a resolution amending the temporary 2017 budget, saying there should be hearings for such items and the council should not blindly approve amendments.   Acting Township Manager Tim Stafford explained that Chief Financial Officer Padmaja Rao had requested 50 percent of the 2016 operating budget to get through the temporary phase.  In general discussion, Dr. Baskerville also asked Karasick for an update on hiring an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance officer, and he said that the township has had no luck in finding a qualified applicant.  Dr. Baskerville suggested a shared-service arrangement with the school district to have one common ADA officer.

12 Comments

  1. POSTED BY AZarenin  |  February 08, 2017 @ 5:59 pm

    Do I miss something as I cannot understand how promoting illegal immigration by sheltering illegals improves Montclair’s diversity? How illegal immigrants could be legal residents of Montclair – do they pay taxes? Why do we need to protect “privacy and liberties” of the people that violated the law of the land? And why following the law and reporting illegal immigrants to proper authorities suddenly became demonstration of “Hate”?

  2. POSTED BY jimbo8  |  February 09, 2017 @ 9:51 am

    AZarenin, you could not have said it better. As for Steven Maginnis, your claims would make it seem as if all 36k some odd Montclair residents agree with this. I’m not sure if you work for CNN part time, but please do not cite hysteria by your false claims, “RESIDENTS, say yes to sanctuary city”. When a mere 100 far leftists showed up. To AZarenin’s point, since when did Montclair strive to become a safe harboring city for ILLEGAL immigrants? I have always been proud to be from Montclair, a town where diversity is so openly accepted. I think too many New York transplants and their far left ideology are over populating this great town, further driving it to the Berkeley CA of the east coast. The exact opposite direction that would depict a “unique” and “diverse” town. Illegal immigrants will not help improve Montclair in the slightest, let alone cause Montclair to lose federal funding, increasing our taxes only more.

  3. POSTED BY jonbonesteel  |  February 09, 2017 @ 10:06 am

    “Third Ward Councilor Sean Spiller stated that laws aren’t always right, and he called for standing up to the Trump administration, because doing the right thing is more important.”

    Laws aren’t always right?

    Mr. Spiller seems to have an interesting take on how the checks and balances of our government work. With statements like this, he sinks to the lowest common denominator. Attacking the “laws” is no different than Trump attacking a justice.

  4. POSTED BY flipside  |  February 09, 2017 @ 10:34 am

    There seems to be this great confusion between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. Perhaps these 100 passionate supporters of illegals are willing to shoulder the financial burden of educating their children, their medical bills, and any loss of federally funding. While they are at it take legal responsibility for them as well. Are the sign carriers just having a little fun or are they serious and willing to take responsibility for what they believe in? Grandstanding is fun until the bill comes….

  5. POSTED BY agideon  |  February 09, 2017 @ 11:04 am

    “do they pay taxes?”

    If they live here, they pay property tax (perhaps via rent if they don’t own).

    It is also worth recalling the story of Miami-Dade. They had refused to jail for indefinite periods illegals at the request of the federal government not for any reason of principle but simply cost. They recognized this as an unfunded mandate.

    We think unfunded mandates are bad, right? I’m just checking.

    …Andrew

  6. POSTED BY johnlayne  |  February 09, 2017 @ 11:46 am

    “Mr. Spiller seems to have an interesting take on how the checks and balances of our government work.”

    Indeed, as well as conflicts of interest.

    In the final analysis, the resolution, if passed, will be symbolic and not much more. It nonetheless provides people who are (rightly) offended by Trump the opportunity to say, “We’re fighting back.”

    As for Spiller and Baskerville, they are bolstering their progressive bona fides, with obvious ambitions for higher office. No one, it seems, is passing up the chance to score political points.

  7. POSTED BY jcunningham  |  February 09, 2017 @ 1:07 pm

    “Attacking the “laws” is no different than Trump attacking a justice.”

    —so, for example, Rosa Parks riding the bus was “no different” than a sitting president referring to a federal judge as “so-called”?

  8. POSTED BY willjames  |  February 09, 2017 @ 3:42 pm

    Re: Jon Bonesteel’s idle question, “Laws aren’t always right?”, here’s a relevant quotation in response:

    “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

    That’s from Martin Luther King, Jr’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.”

  9. POSTED BY jonbonesteel  |  February 09, 2017 @ 4:38 pm

    I don’t see an equivalence between Spiller and MLK here. What exact law(s) does he have issue with? Will he be addressing the constitutionality of these with specific actions? Certainly, let’s hear what he’s going to do about it beyond the promotional aspect that @johnlayne describes.

  10. POSTED BY flipside  |  February 09, 2017 @ 5:56 pm

    willjames makes a great point…MLK was a great historical figure because he walked the walk. “Letter from Birmingham Jail” says it all….sign holding in Montclair…meh….

  11. POSTED BY algb  |  February 09, 2017 @ 8:00 pm

    The great Montclair think left live right hypocrites are in full throat again. I wonder how many Mid East refugees they’re housing and supporting. I for one do not want not 1 tax dollar going for this. Pass all the feel good bs resolutions they want but do not spend any money on it.

  12. POSTED BY montclairrepublican  |  February 09, 2017 @ 9:58 pm

    Some Montclair residents, as the comments above indicate, say ‘no’ to Sanctuary City status for Montclair. Montclair residents in opposition can join together by emailing [email protected] with NO in the subject line, plus your name, address, phone number and any comments/resources you’d like to share.

Featured Comment

I'm struck by how much attention is being paid to the details of a parking lot, as opposed to the attention paid to the future impact of the monstrous projects being planned.

Tip, Follow, Friend, Subscribe

Links & Information