Supervisor Dave Cortese to Deliver State of the County Address for 3rd Straight Year

Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese, who’s heading into his third consecutive year as president of the Board of Supervisors, will share his vision for the coming year at the State of the County address this week.

Doors open at 5pm Tuesday for the annual event, which takes place at the County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding St., in San Jose. After Cortese’s speech, the public is invited to join local officials for a reception in the building’s lower level.

Supervisor Joe Simitian, who was elected vice president of the board, will also deliver some remarks, along with supervisors Mike Wasserman, Cindy Chavez and Ken Yeager.

Last year, Cortese promised to make 2016 a year of transformation. He called for jail reforms and highlighted strides made in addressing homelessness and helping immigrants. In light of recent events, there’s no doubt that immigration will continue to remain a regional priority.

Santa Clara County, which is home to nearly 2 million residents, has one of the highest concentrations of foreign-born residents in the nation.

Last month, the county announced plans to sue President Donald Trump over his discriminatory immigration policies. Supervisors also made a commitment to work with community organizations and provide legal help to immigrants facing deportation and other threats presented by the Trump administration and a conservative Congress.

Santa Clara County is considered a sanctuary jurisdiction due to its policy to ignore federal requests to extend holds on jailed undocumented immigrants—except for defendants with certain serious or violent criminal convictions. The county could be at risk of losing federal funds, according to President Trump, who has threatened to withhold if local officials refuse to comply with his orders on immigration.

To RSVP for Tuesday’s event, click here.

5 Comments

  1. I was curious – you stated “Santa Clara County is considered a sanctuary jurisdiction due to its policy to ignore federal requests to extend holds on jailed undocumented immigrants—but only if they are arrested on non-violent crimes” – but is this accurate? When did they make an exception to their non-cooperation policy? I thought that an exception for dangerous criminals was proposed and supported by Supervisors Wasserman & Simitian but blocked by Supervisors Chavez, Cortese, and Yeager.

    • We’re running a Q&A with county counsel about the lawsuit filed against Trump tomorrow morning. In it, they address this policy specifically. Below is an excerpt from that Q&A that should help clarify:

      “The county has a policy of only honoring such requests for individuals with certain serious or violent criminal convictions, and only if ICE will enter into a prior written agreement agreeing to reimburse the county for the costs it incurs in holding immigrants beyond their usual release dates. Currently, the county’s jails operate at or near capacity. ICE has refused to enter into a reimbursement agreement with the county.”

      • Hi Jennifer – it sounds as if it is just as I suspected – they have a de-facto sanctuary policy, since ICE does NOT typically enter into reimbursement agreements. It’s dishonest of them to say that their policy provides for a hold of “individuals with certain serious of violent convictions” if they know they will not ACTUALLY hold them. The fact is, the county could very well release those unauthorized to be here who have convictions for “certain serious or violent” crimes into our community. You might ask them how routinely ICE agrees to institute blanket reimbursement agreements with counties – it’s not something they typically do. And why should they have to do so for the County to do the right thing to protect the community from people with a history of serious crime?

        • If ICE wants cities and counties to hold prisoners until ICE takes custody of those prisoners for deportation, then the feds should reimburse the cities and counties for the costs of holding those prisoners until ICE takes custody of them. It is not the responsibility of any local jurisdiction to pay for the failure of ICE to take control of those deportable prisoners in a timely manner. Congress and the President need to pass and sign legislation to pick up those costs at the federal level. That said, it remains the responsibility of the counties to inform ICE of the deportable criminals they have in their custody in a timely manner. Sanctuary city policy of releasing deportable criminals back into our communities is a deplorable threat to public safety and security.

  2. As I recall, we’re already going to have large number of convicts released into our territory. Just wait for crime to increase….

Leave a Reply