San Jose Police Chief: City Will Not Work with Federal Govt. on Deportations under Trump

Citing “real fear” in the community since Donald Trump was elected president last month, San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia vowed to continue the city’s policy of not cooperating with federal immigration enforcement.

In a press conference held Friday morning at SJPD headquarters, Mayor Sam Liccardo, City Manager Norberto Dueñas and Mauricio Toussaint, Mexico’s consul general to San Jose, joined Garcia in trying to ease concerns about promises the president-elect has made. These include the deportation of all undocumented immigrants, including children. On Friday, city officials insisted the city and police department’s policy would not change in the face of pressure from the federal level.

“This is nothing new in San Jose,” Garcia said. “I am here to reassure the community that our long standing stance on immigration laws will not change.”

Three weeks have passed since the new president was elected, and Toussaint warned of scam artists trying to take advantage of fears within immigrant communities.

“Mexicans are scared of what is going to happen to them,” he said, “and unfortunately there are people out there who are trying to take legal advantage of this situation with deportation.”

Last summer, a Trump campaign rally in San Jose turned violent when protestors started fighting with the Republican nominee’s supporters. In some cases, people wearing Trump shirts and hats were targeted. Rather than go out into crowds and risk escalating the situation, Garcia said, law enforcement chose to hold the line outside of the Convention Center.

Trump supporters were angered by this decision and filed a lawsuit against the city of San Jose, blaming Chief Garcia and Mayor Liccardo for the violence that ensued. A day after the event, Liccardo suggested that Trump’s divisive campaign rhetoric was, in part, responsible for enflaming tensions at his rallies.

“While it’s a sad statement about our political discourse that Mr. Trump has focused on stirring antagonism instead of offering real solutions to our nation’s challenges, there is absolutely no place for violence against people who are simply exercising their rights to participate in the political process,” Liccardo said.

A day later, the mayor put out a clarifying statement.

“Nothing that Donald Trump says absolves those individuals of responsibility for their violent conduct,” Liccardo said.

According to Trump’s website, the president-elect intends to “prioritize jobs, wages and security of the American people,” and to “establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.”

Part of this plan will apparently involve the deportation of more than 11 million undocumented immigrants, as well as cutting off federal funds to sanctuary cities, which San Jose would be according to the city’s current position.

At Friday’s press conference, Mayor Liccardo was careful not to use that term as he spoke about San Jose’s long-standing tradition as a city open to all immigrants. The mayor said that San Jose has a strong bond between its police officers and residents. If people are scared to interact with police because of fears of being deported, he added, the whole community suffers.

“San Jose is at the forefront of creating a community policing framework that dates back to the 1980s,” Liccardo said. “The linchpin of that strategy is creating trust within the community. We have to be sure that this relationship of trust continues.”

Chief Garcia emphasized that the city’s position is nothing new and the department would not change policies for any particular president.

“To me, it is not about politics,” Garcia said. “It is about a real fear that is within my community, that I have to make sure is calmed down.”

This article has been updated.


  1. “Resistance is Futile”, the law is clear the Federal government is in charge of immigration law as ruled on by the Obama
    lawsuit against the State of Arizona. Just the way you guys wanted it!

    Now the shoe is on the other foot. Stop the fear mongering legal immigrants are not in danger of being deported.
    Illegal immigrants are not much in danger if they have not been arrested for some crime they have committed.

    If our local politicians and police are committing crimes by harboring and aiding fugitives then they should be arrested and jailed as well.

    Funding from the Federal Government cut off to all states, counties, and cities.
    You wanted an almighty powerful central government, you got it!
    “Now You Will Comply!”

  2. There is no trust when the Chief of Police and Mayor failing to protect citizens from harm. The City of San Jose needs a new police chief and Mayor period. San Jose has more crime than ever, and nothing is being done. It just came to me that the Mexican drug cartels have these 2 people in their pockets. San Jose is the hub for all the illegal traffic coming from Mexico. To protect this route cartels have people like Eddie Garcia and Liccardo in their pockets. I wish the Federal government can come in and regulate this hotbed of criminal activity that is rooted into the police force. But half of the problem lies with the Federal government to allow what gets through.

  3. Well, 4 people who took an oath to uphold the State and Federal Constitutions have publicly stated they will violate those oaths. Well they are all Mexicans, yes Liccardo is Mexican. Your City Council is mostly Mexican and American Citizens in San Jose had better learn to vote even with a Mexican running the elections and Mexicans controlling the ballet boxes. There is a hint in this article that your Chief is possibly here illegally???? I live here with an army of real Americans and we will shortly start the Political turn around. Donald has promised us he will return to the issue of the anarchists in control of San Jose.

    Well shortly some huge scandals will break within the City’s structure and Americans will start to regain control. It just takes a little while just like Trumps win. Yes, run the illegals out of San Jose. Bottom line ALL OF THEM. THIS IS MY COUNTRY!!!!!!!!

    Jack Slade Retired USMC, Retired Chicago PD.

    • It ain’t your country, dear Mr. Marine, it is our country, all 330 or so million of us. And wearing your insignia on your sleeve in civilian life will get you the respect it deserves and not more.

      The officials quoted here have acted entirely within the law. The San Jose police have nothing to do with the INS. And will not, unless we evolve into a police state (where “police” always means a group answering to a national dictator).

      Your Marine Corps will then be at the beck and call of said dictator. Is that what you want?

      • Jayna,

        It’s my country too. And it is being invaded by millions of citizens of other countries. There are many laws already on the books that give the President the necessary tools to turn back the invasion. Those laws were disregarded and ignored for the past eight years. But that was only a temporary aberration, as the current election results demonstrate.


        FYI: federal law TRUMPS state law, per the XIV Amendment. So what these folks are posturing about is not in compliance with federal immigration laws, or their Oath of Office.

        (But they’re just media-posturing, so it will be amusing to watch their climb-down.)

        Next, FYI: the country has chosen the next President. It’s a Done Deal.

        And finally, FYI: the entire U.S. military is already at the ‘beck and call’ of the President. Read the Constitution; Art. II, Sec. 2, for edification.

    • You are simply not very well informed Jackie! If Liccardo is Mexican I am as white as you are. Trust me. The only candidate Liccardo supported for the council this year was a white Republican. Give me a break! You are retired USMC and Cop? Really? First of all Chief Garcia was born in the USA incorporated territory of Puerto Rico where all of its inhabitants are USA Citizens by birth! Secondly maybe the reason there are so many Spanish American council members in San Jose is because 35% of the population is Hispanic …… if you want to live in an all white State …. move to Texas Jackie … we will not miss you!

  4. Families of victims of crime will sue the City the next time someone is hurt or killed by an illegal immigrant that should have been deported, as they should.

    • Of course they won’t (and shouldn’t, although the latter is a matter for legislative action within the Constitution), since liability for public safety is strictly a matter of proper implementation of the laws. And the police chief is obeying the law.

  5. Seriously… WTF is wrong with people? Get your facts straight! To think “immigrants” are to blame for everything wrong with society is idiotic. Hello!!! There are more important issues that we should be addressing! For instance, stopping the NDPL!

  6. ^^How often does that even happen in San Jose?Please educate me. Most of the crime is by individuals that are legal. Do you think illegal immigrants would want to attract attention to themselves by committing crimes that include hurting or killing others? NO ! They are too busy trying to make a living for their families. By running small businesses and taking the odd jobs that no one wants. They work hard and aren’t fed with a silver spoon. Give them a little more credit and stop being so ignorant.

    • V, please explain to me how can an illegal immigrant own and operate a licensed business, pay taxes, without an SSI number, unless it was obtained Illegally? I know that Americans that go to the Philippines can’t own property or own establishments. How then does that work here in the U.S.?

  7. San Jose CA is a diverse city that includes people from every corner of the world. We get along fine. People from Mexico were here before any Anglo were and will remain so. This state is not worried about bigots trying to make it theirs by scare tactics. Crime is not just committed by undocumented immigrants but by us citizens running around terrorizing other Americans as well. San Jose is a solid City with a great communitythat works together to remain so. This city is almost 250 years old and Trump and his grumpy following can’t change much here.

    • Matter of fact Eric,
      I spent my first 5 years here working side by side with Mexicano’s, Filipino’s, Native Americans, and White People doing just those sort of jobs no body thinks Americans will do.
      When the canneries were run out of town I worked with those same people and “Legal Immigrants” in other manufacturing jobs for the next 32 years till Obummer shut us down.

  8. The chief is in the wrong line of work. He should be a social worker, or better yet a ‘community organizer’ rather than an LEO. This guy’s goofy notions about law enforcement and the constitution coupled with his unabashed adoption of idiotic so-called progressive talking points is staggering.

  9. “I am here to reassure the community that our long standing stance on immigration laws will not change.” — Chief Eddie Garcia

    What does the chief mean by the term “long standing?” In this case, long standing can be defined as “since the police department took a political position on an issue of law.” Prior to about 30 years ago no one at San Jose PD could’ve cited the department’s “stance” on immigration, one way or the other, because the police department wasn’t in the business of taking stances; it was in the business of enforcing the law, cooperating with other law enforcement agencies, and leaving the law-making where it belonged, in the legislative branch. Prior to the “ stance,” it was routine for an officer (arresting or booking), suspicious of the immigration status of an arrested party, to contact INS (now ICE) by telephone (for a determination regarding the placing of a hold). It was also routine for INS (ICE) to request and receive local assistance when conducting a raid. And, just as it was with all routine enforcement actions, these things would happen without coming to the attention of the police chief, mayor, or any other local official.

    When police officers (or chiefs) take an oath of office it is a pledge to enforce the law, not a promise to adhere to a political stance, kowtow to a mayor, or sell their influence to keep their cushy position or bootlick their way into their next one. That said, the taking of such stances is not without precedent, and it was not so very long ago it was common for police chiefs and sheriffs in the Deep South to not only sanction a wide variety of unlawful acts by influential local citizen groups (acting as vigilantes), but to go so far as to order their subordinates to frustrate the investigative efforts of the federal government. And before you dismiss this analogy as alarmist, just consider that the SJPD has already been proven guilty of underreporting gang violence (in service to the Hispanic political agenda), and the chief’s reporting policies are still structured with a Clintonesque level of control over what “is” a gang crime.

    A police chief who claims the power to approve lawbreaking is a police chief who believes himself above the law. Is that the message we want sent down the ranks, that the city should be governed by the personal values of its police officers without regard to the law of the land? Shall the prevention of prostitution, drug use, gang activity, and graffiti vary from beat to beat, depending on the “stance” of the particular beat officer? You may comfort yourself with the thought that the local beat cop doesn’t have the discretion to excuse lawlessness, but remember this: neither does the chief.

    Because neither Eddie Garcia nor Mayor Liccardo can, without violating Title 8 U.S.C. 1373, prohibit or restrict a San Jose police officer from alerting ICE of the unlawful immigration status of any person, in or out of custody, the only teeth in their headline-grabbing “stance” lies in their power to professionally ruin any officer who dares violate their personal political position (which is indistinguishable from that of the Democratic Party). I can only hope the federal government will protect the civil rights and professional integrity of any officer bold enough to stay true to his oath, and, at the same time, “reassure” my particular community with a couple of high-profile arrests.

    • Is Title 8 U.S.C. 1373 still in effect? Hope so. I looked it up on the internet and it is very clear in it’s statement that “…a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” That was footnoted 1996. I have heard there have been revisions to the immigration law since that date.

      • Oatmeal is my preference. FYI: my comment was subjected to a two day delay and posted only after I repeatedly complained.

        • I’ve had some some similar experiences with the sight. Right now I’m having problems interfacing with SJI, as I type
          there is a delay or it stops altogether, drops letters.
          I’ve had to go back and re type this several times. Maybe we have created too much volume for SJI.

  10. Eddie Garcia (and Sam Liccardo and Dave Cortese and the rest of the “sanctuary city” law breakers) are going to learn that there is a new Sheriff in town: Sheriff Trump.

    Eddie might get a glimpse into his future if he would bone up on the history of James Meredith’s enrollment in the University of Mississippi in 1961:

    “On September 28, the Court of Appeals, en banc and after a hearing, found the Governor in civil contempt and ordered that he be arrested and pay a fine of $10,000 for each day that he kept up the refusal, unless he complied by October 2. On September 29, Lieutenant Governor Johnson was found in contempt by a panel of the court, and a similar order was entered against him, with a fine of $5,000 a day.

    US Army trucks loaded with steel-helmeted US Marshals roll across the University of Mississippi campus on October 3, 1962.

    The US Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy had a series of phone calls with Governor Barnett between September 27 to October 1 Barnett reluctantly agreed to let Meredith enroll in the university, but secretly bargained with Kennedy on a plan which would allow him to save face.

    Barnett committed to maintain civil order. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy ordered 500 U.S. Marshals to accompany Meredith during his arrival and registration. On September 29, President Kennedy issued a proclamation commanding all persons engaged in the obstruction of the laws and the orders of the courts to “cease and desist therefrom and to disperse and retire peaceably forthwith”, citing his authority under 10 U.S.C. § 332, § 333, and § 334 to use the militia or the armed forces to suppress any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.”

    Insurrection, Eddie. That’s YOU

    500 U.S. Marshals. Comin’ atcha.

    • I dunno. States defied Obamacare without getting in too much trouble. I suspect the same thing will happen here. Unless by “new sheriff” you mean “fascist dictator.”

      • Dear Calm:

        Are you asking to be included in the federal roundup of federal lawbreakers?

        Do you think you might resist arrest?

        • I would reply and did, but the moderators decided to be nice to you and deleted my post – likely because I quoted one of your earlier posts, which remains standing. Keep getting away with more than your share. It’s how your candidate got elected.

        • Just one other thing. Can you please let me know whether you are actually speaking on behalf of the incoming administration? The way you are threatening arrests suggests you are – in which case I should probably get a lawyer. But because you remain anonymous, it is impossible to know for sure. If you are not actually a federal official, and are instead just a citizen engaging in personal attacks unauthorized by the incoming administration, then are you using this site to impersonate a federal official? If so, and if that is illegal (you might know the answer better than me), are you using this site to break the law? If so, and if the new administration considers that illegal, would you be resisting arrest yourself? Just hypothetical questions. I don’t know the answers.

          • @CALMHERDOWN – You are giving #SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE too much credit – he is just an ignorant San Jose resident without a life. He has been making ridiculous comments on this site forever. He is just an angry an racist individual that loves to hate others. Don’t worry about him. He is insignificant!

    • There you go again insignificant #SJOUTSIDETHEBUBBLE angry man. You are constantly on this site. Last time I made comments here was some months ago – before leaving for a fun vacation to Europe. I come back and you are still spreading your vile? The problem with your long comment above is that it is wrong!

      What Barnett and Governor Wallace were doing was a violation of American citizens (Blacks, but nonetheless American citizens) civil rights. A constitutional violation of the Equal Rights provision. What mayors in many American cities and Chief Garcia are doing is not to served as a vehicle – not assist federal immigration enforcement of Trump’s policies. I am sure that you know that states are sovereign and as such not required to assist the federal government do their job. To compared this situation with what happened with Wallace speaks volume of a racist understanding of civil rights history in America. Again local police are not required by law to enforced federal immigration law/policy. If any undocumented alien were to violated state or local law – local police would then have an obligation to act. Have a nice day sir. You are such an insignificant voice whoever you are. I bet you are a very lonely person. God Bless You amigo – Sorry, your argument is wrong – wrong like Trump!

      • > God Bless You amigo – Sorry, your argument is wrong – wrong like Trump!

        That would be “President Elect Trump”.

        I’m sure this will be resolved in a democratic fashion, Carlos. You get one vote and President Trump gets 300 million votes.

        Whoever gets the most votes gets their way.

        • OK since you are hiding and not giving your name, I am going to call you Bubble. If you want me to call you something else I will be glad to do that. Please let me know amigo! Bubble you are going to make me correct you again. I got one vote out of 62,403,269 for Clinton. We elected a loser…. right? 62,403,269 Americans, the majority of Americans, Citizens of this great country of ours voted for Clinton. The loser with 61,242,652 votes is your President elect ….
          #NotMyPresident …… Yeah that’s right the majority wants Hillary Bubble!

          • > Yeah that’s right the majority wants Hillary Bubble!

            Hillary can be the President of California. Unfortunately, it’s only an honorary position with no job description or responsibilities or paycheck.

            But Trump got the majority of electoral votes AND the majority of lawful popular votes. Under the rules, Trump was elected President of the United States.

            Baseball games are won by the team that has the most runs, not by the team that has the most home runs, or the most hits, or the most bases on balls.

            Read the rulebook.

          • If we throw out the the votes of 5 million illegal voters, she loses, but we aren’t calling for the recount!
            Next time don’t put them all in California.

          • I’d be happy if they just started by deporting Empty Gun and Robertito who is gullible enough to think this matter is not a racial matter or mean enough to use it as a pretext to deport Mexicans!

            US8USC1324 States:

            Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).

            Alien Smuggling — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing that a person is an alien, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien.

            Domestic Transporting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law.

            Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.

            Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.

            Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.

            Bringing Aliens to the United States — Subsection 1324(a)(2) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has not received prior authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, to bring to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever, such alien, regardless of any official action which may later be taken with respect to such alien.

            The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), enacted on September 30, 1996, added a new 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3)(A) which makes it an offense for any person, during any 12-month period, to knowingly hire at least 10 individuals with actual knowledge that these individuals are unauthorized aliens. See this Manual at 1908 (unlawful employment of aliens).

            Unit of Prosecution — With regard to offenses defined in subsections 1324(a)(1)(A)(i)-(v), (alien smuggling, domestic transporting, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or conspiracy/aiding or abetting) each alien with respect to whom a violation occurs constitutes a unit of prosecution. Prior to enactment of the IIRIRA, the unit of prosecution for violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2) was each transaction, regardless of the number of aliens involved. However, the unit of prosecution is now based on each alien in respect to whom a violation occurs.

            Knowledge — Prosecutions for alien smuggling, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(i) require proof that defendant knew that the person brought to the United States was an alien. With regard to the other violations in 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a), proof of knowledge or reckless disregard of alienage is sufficient.

            Penalties — The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.

            What the Citizen by birth American born Chief Garcia and what the American born Mayor of the minority Caucasian city of San Jose, as well as the American born Chinese American Mayor of San Francisco and so many other cities in this great country of all of us are saying is that they will not do the job of the Federal Government with respect to UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS. These good people are not Smuggling, Transporting, Harboring, Encouraging, Conspiring or Bringing Undocumented Aliens into the USA. All they are doing is establishing a policy of not doing the job of the Feds!

      • I agree with you Carlos. But if he is threatening people with arrest by US Marshals, he should specify whether he has an ability to make that happen. He is implying he does. But instead of implying, he should say so, and specify exactly who he is. Or is he working an undercover sting operation? If none of the above is true, and he has no ability to influence an arrest, he should say that as well. I know it’s just Bubbles and we should pay no heed. Like it’s just Donald – he doesn’t really mean it. But in 1939, it was just Adolf. Until it wasn’t.

        • Trust me #CALMHERDOWN this guy is a nobody. People with the authority to arrest would not go in the internet to harass others like this guy does. We ought to feel sorry for him – he’s a loser. Trust me. Don’t worry about it.

  11. Kids, don’t trust the two fashy officials who are pictured at the top of this story.

    If the Mayor and Police Chief will not protect American citizens on July 2 as they leave a peaceful political assembly, and then fib to us about their inability to do so, just how much can non-American citizens rely on them to protect non-American citizens who do not pay their salary or have the political power to vote these guys out of office directly or indirectly?

    If you believe their squeaks of resistance to federal authority, you rely on a weak reed, indeed.

  12. The Chief’s concern about what he calls ‘real fear’ in the community is really misleading. Foreigners in the United States illegally maybe somewhat apprehensive and they may turn to their respective consulates for advice. But American citizens are not afraid. Perhaps Chief Garcia should worry less about international affairs and just obey the laws of the land and cooperate when asked. This sort of defiance to a reasonable federal authority reminds me of George Wallace. Do you really want to go down that road, Chief?

    • Mistaken analogy John. What Governor Wallace was doing was a violation of American citizens (Blacks, but nonetheless American citizens) civil rights. A constitutional violation of the Equal Rights provision. What mayors in many American cities and Chief Garcia are doing is not to served as a vehicle – not assist federal immigration enforcement of Trump’s policies. I am sure that you know that states are sovereign and as such not required to assist the federal government do their job. To compared this situation with what happened with Wallace speaks volume of a racist understanding of civil rights history in America. Again local police are not required by law to enforced federal immigration law/policy. If any undocumented alien were to violated state or local law – local police would then have an obligation to act. Have a nice day sir.

      • Mr. Garcia,

        If you’re going to engage in the analogy critiquing business you should avoid shooting from the hip. The similarities between what Governor Wallace did and Chief Garcia’s proclamation are many, including:

        — Taking a local stand on a matter reserved for the federal government.
        — Basing that stand on a personal judgment not supported by law.
        — Wrongfully exercising one’s lawful authority for personal gain (political capital).
        — Wrongfully exercising one’s lawful authority for the benefit of one particular group (Wallace: segregationists; Garcia: foreigners here in violation of the law).
        — Wrongfully exercising one’s lawful authority to the detriment of one particular group (Wallace: African-Americans; Garcia: citizens who oppose illegal immigration).
        — Utilizing law enforcement officers as political agents.
        — Creating a counterproductive discord between local and federal law enforcement agencies.

        When George Wallace wanted to animate his personal beliefs he turned to law enforcement, just as Sam Liccardo has done by manipulating his wooden-headed puppet Eddie Garcia.

        • Another hiding my name fellow that is not getting what the issue is. Once again …. I will write … s l o w l y f o r y o u t o ….. understand ….. in one instance ….. the Equal Rights Provision … of the USA Constitution …… 14th Amendment …… “no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”. ( Are you following so far Finfan?) …… no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction “the equal protection of the laws”. 14th Amendment of the USA constitution was then (Wallace – as in racist Governor) was involved. On this issue there is NOT a constitutional provision forcing state and local governments to ENFORCED – immigration laws….. such is the job of the Federal Government ….. so Trumpie needs to send his Gestapo to get rid of the Mejicanos – because that is not the locals job…. this is a very simple thing ….. it does not required a Nuclear Scientist degree to understand – Wallace – the racist Governor was in violation of the Constitution – Brown/Liccardo/Garcia are not ….. to throw away the Mejicanos is the Job of Trumpie the racist President elect….. You can save your list because it is not relevant!

          • Mr. Garcia,

            You may be deficient in the critiquing of analogies but in the arrogance department you’ve proved yourself no slouch. Too bad I can’t say the same for your credibility and reasoning power.

            Nowhere in my response did I suggest that police officers are mandated (or even authorized) to enforce immigration laws, nor did I imply that either Liccardo or Garcia had violated the Constitution, which leads me to wonder why, given that I listed the similarities supporting Mr. Kracht’s analogy, you chose to ignore what I wrote and instead chastise me for what I didn’t? Was it because once confronted with a list of points you realized you had no game? Your evasive and dishonest response reminds me of how the argument against “illegal immigration” is always met with a disingenuous defense of “immigration.”

            Branding my list as irrelevant does not make it so, just as decades of ignoring immigration laws doesn’t make immigration status irrelevant — something Mr. Trump is making patently clear to an entire population of arrogant liberals. As for the issue of the police chief and lawbreaking, he has no business or authority to offer safety to lawbreakers, and the minute he goes so far as to act on his words and penalize an officer for reporting an illegal alien to ICE he will be in violation of the law, just as Governor Wallace’s violation occurred only after his words were put to action.

  13. > “To me, it is not about politics,” Garcia said. “It is about a real fear that is within my community, that I have to make sure is calmed down.”

    To what community is Garcia referring when he ways “my community”?

  14. That little Garcia-disgrace in his lint-free uniform with his shiny head and unscuffed shoes has no idea how totally impotent he is.

    Officer arrests “immigrationally handicaped” individual. Officer makes anonymous phone call to ICE, provides the name, charges and other identifiers and ICE determines if it is worth their time to come to the jail and snap up the little “posterior spinal area hydrated” one. Officers develop better relationships with ICE than with mayor and chief.

    The officers don’t need the chief to give them permission to do what is right. Stupid rules call for transparent evasion.

    • I just wonder if ICE has changed from the 1990s. My brother-in-law retired as a police sargent in Colorado. He told me they would call ICE to come pickup the illegal perp and no Federal officer would ever show up. So, I think most of this is just grandstanding because they know ICE’s history.

  15. Come on Bill, who told ICE not to pick these people up…………. time is up, their, boss happy face Obama!

  16. Its always interesting to me to hear people complain about crime increasing. Then on the other foot they don’t want illegal aliens deported. If they took a look at many, many, many reports, there is a correlation.

    • Mr. Starfas, I do look at many reports and important to remember “Correlation does not equal causality”. SJ’s crime spike this year (homicides up 60% so far) seems primarily due to Vietnamese and Latin gangs per SJPD reports. Their legal status isn’t provided. Most in high crime rate cities are black US citizens – at substantially disproportionate numbers to their population percentage. Blacks are also significantly impacted by crime. About 85% is black-on-black crime.

      Criminal illegals present a tough challenge. We can incarcerate them here (at substantial cost) or deport them. From a practical standpoint Mexico and El Salvador are failed states. Unless the US subsidizes their prisons and criminal justice systems, those counties have virtually no incentive to keep prisoners found guilty of violating US law. And those felons often find ways to return to the US.

      What *has* worked in housing projects is to evict an entire family that harbors a criminal. Many view granny’s eviction as grossly unfair just because she provides accommodation for her thug grandson. But this draconian response has substantially reduced housing project crime. Israel has adopted a similar response. They destroy houses of relatives.

      Netnet: our major crime problem is with US citizens,not illegals. But one response to harboring criminal illegals might be deport non-citizen households that harbor them.

      • > From a practical standpoint Mexico and El Salvador are failed states.

        Good point.

        Maybe it’s time for some “nation building”.

        If Mexico were like Switzerland, the U.S. would have a very different problem: too many latino’s crossing the border to try to get into Mexico.

    • Can you please explain your statement – and cite the basis for your explanation? Cite the reports, articles, and anything else that in your opinion gives any validity to what you are saying? Thank You.

  17. No clue why everyone here is making a massive fuss about this. With or without the Mayor or Chief’s help the federal gov can and will deport people as they please (with merit).

    This comment section is just a bunch of old disgruntled retired people who have no true understanding of how our government works. Luckily for the younger generation of San Jose residents, these political days are your last gasps. Unfortunately for you disgruntled folk, the State of California for the most part operates with autonomy. More than the other states do. (You do what you want when you keep pay the bills and keep the lights on, America)

    Ready to get this Trump era over.

    • > Luckily for the younger generation of San Jose residents, these political days are your last gasps.

      Oh, right. A dictatorship of the “young people”.

      Re-read your copy of “Lord of the Flies”.

      • No. The last gasp is a reference used for older generations with archaic mindsets or ideologies that do not align with evolving societies. Essentially their last attempt to “keep the old ways”.

        • For the last 8 years this society has been “Devolving”, time to reinstate the constitution and law and order!

        • Reality seems simple to those who don’t know anything.

          Please tell us old fuddy duddies what is an archaic ideology and what is a shiny new evolving ideology.

    • Contrary to your delusions about this state’s autonomy, should the federal government choose to deny grants (which fund positions, programs, and equipment purchases) to any police department that allows politics to influence its law enforcement function, tools like Chief Garcia would quickly grab for the mute button.

      • You are correct on the stance of federal funding. Money that we pay into and can definitely leverage with the right leaders if this were to happen.

    • > No clue why everyone here is making a massive fuss about this

      You probably should have just stopped after the “No clue” part and left it at that.

      “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”
      — George Santayana

    • POASFBA sez:

      “Ready to get this Trump era over.”

      It hasn’t even started yet. Get back to us in 8 years. ☺

  18. So this is the same San Jose Police Chief who condoned one of his officers throwing a handcuffed man to a cement floor and smashing his face in and costing SJ residents over $535,000 in settlement fees?
    I am sure he will be awarded the Mother Teresa Humanatarian Award by the current Mayor.
    What a b**t kisser! Even worse is his choice of whose fanny perpendicular he chooses to kiss. What a pity!

  19. Is there an operational definition for SJ’s announced “non-cooperation”?

    My understanding is that SJPD’s policy (enacted under prior chief Esquivel as I recall) is to not impound vehicles of uninsured, unlicensed drivers since it might adversely affect illegals. I believe SJ and other cities incur a fee for every arrestee.

    I understand Santa Clara County’s sanctuary practices result in releases jail inmates when eligible, fail to notify ICE when illegals are jailed, and ignore ICE requests for an additional 2-3 days (to allow ICE to retrieve them).

    Part of the rationale is that federal authorities decline to reimburse to SJ and SCC for the processing costs associated with illegals. If accurate, I can see some merit in their position: why should SJ or SCC incur costs that should be borne by the federal government?

    How would SJ/SJPD employees know if they are cooperating or not cooperating. Will appreciate clarification if my understanding is incorrect and non-cooperation specifics.

    Separately, Finfan – thanks for your USC citation.

  20. This whole thing of illegals has become somewhat of a racial issue when in fact it’s not. Illegals are illegals, the word clearly states it…you are in a place were you should not be, in this case because of legal status under the Laws of this Country. Therefore if you are not legal then you have to be removed…it is simple as that. In California for some odd reason we live under the laws of Mexico, where the illegals of this State are not considered illegal but legal ( under the California, Mexico Law ) which is a new Law that is sweeping this Country. I do not know the depths of the influence of the drug cartels in California/Mexico, but one thing for sure I do know is that Money can buy anyone and anything at anytime.

  21. Let’s play a thought experiment game. Let’s imagine for a second that this is not about Mexican-Americans or any particular group that currently lives here in large numbers, but instead is about some other group that just arrived in the US. Imagine that this group of immigrants was white and were not here with proper documentation. Imagine they were having dramatic impacts on low-wage employment and all kinds of social services. School districts would find that a majority of students came from these improperly documented immigrants, and so forth. Imagine also that the small percentage of these immigrants who committed crimes could sometimes drop out of sight in immigrant communities, or return to their home country, eluding police. And, because being here improperly made them vulnerable to deportation, some members of this community lived in the shadows, unable to access all the eduational opportunity or services that ordinary citizens did, leading to a portion of the immigrant population being stuck in a permanent underclass.

    Stripped of our natural emotions about our neighbors, this issue becomes clearer. It’s not about racism, despite the racism of some Trump supporters. It’s not really about protecting people from ICE either, because, let’s be honest, many politicians jumped on the sanctuary cities position partly because they intend to run for future offices and that is the safe position for Democrats to take.

    But it is about law and safe borders on one hand, and dignity and opportunity for all immigrants on the other. We should want safe borders. In a time of global terror fears, we should want our government to know who exactly is in the country and when they should be allowed to come or forced to leave. On the other hand we should want children born here to have all the opportunity in the world. We should want people who have dedicated their lives to building a life here to have full legal protections, integration into greater society, and full assimilation opportunities.

    I think these things are related and need to be solved together. But we have one political party that will punish its officeholders if they show too much compassion toward minorities and another that won’t admit that there are legitimate problems with porous borders and large illegal immigrant populations.

    • It is about racism mister – that you tried to minimized it by switching it to the privilege group your group – is even more racist. But you and your group can get it – it is not posible to comprehend racism when you were born and lived a life of privilege.

      • BTW Hoody – it is not Mexican Americans – these are American born citizens that happen to be Mexican descendants like you may be English descendant or something else. You are actually referring to Mexicans Or Mejicanos. People born and raised South of the Border!

      • It is not racism…the only reason it’s branded that way, is because that’s the Carte Blanc…in other words it is more easier to accept , and there is more empathy , when in reality…”IT’S THE LAW “

      • “… the privileged group…?” What group is that? The group that has white skin? Is that every white living in San Jose, even those in the worst neighborhoods? Is that every white in California, even those in the poorest towns? Is that every white in America, even those in Appalachia and other depressed areas?

        “… not possible to comprehend racism…?” Are you talking about white people again? Does that include young whites living in San Jose’s barrios, you know, the ones regularly victimized by racists Hispanics? Does that include whites who’ve been denied jobs and promotions because of the color of the skin? Does that include poor whites trapped in urban ghettos, surrounded by racist blacks?

        “… born and lived a life of privilege?” Unless you know Mr. Hood’s life story, your assumption can only be based on his presumed skin color; in other words, you have fashioned a fictitious scenario using nothing other than your own racism.

        Jose, have you ever once questioned your beliefs and assumptions, or are you just fine living a life of ignorance?

        • Absolutely Sir! Everything you say is historically factual. There is one privilege group in the USA, and frankly in the entire planet. Now let me tell you this – If you had honor enough to disclose your legal name I would never call you by anything but your name because I am a man of honor. I consider the ultimate insult to call a man in ridicule by a name that is not only not his name but a name that has racist connotations. You know my full and complete name because I am man enough not to hide under a pseudonymous, and you calling me “Jose” shows your kind. But I understand. No argument what’s left is insults….

          • Stay strong Carlos. The comments section of this site is trolled by the alt right.

          • Have you ever considered that this is a forum for opinions and ideas, and not identity? Is your honor insulted when Social Security identifies you by a number? Probably not, because you realize that agency’s interest in you is about dollars and cents and nothing else.

            I did you a favor by calling you Jose, because with that pseudonym you have a chance to distance your true identity from the dishonor of your ignorance.

          • CARLOS E. GARCIA says:

            “I would never call you by anything but your name because I am a man of honor.”

            Yet, you just called Phil Hood “Hoody”. Can you pick and choose what you call “honor”? (To most of us, a person is either honorable, or they aren’t. ‘Situation ethics’ does not apply to someone’s honor.)

            Next, you asserted that every Caucasian is a member of that “racist” group, and that all of them have privileges that are denied to you.

            However, if you are here legally nothing is being denied to you (as it is to many Caucasians — have you noticed how very few of them are able to get coveted jobs in the Post Office?)

            Constantly deflecting to irrelevant arguments like “honor”, and the ridiculous belief that “it is not posible to comprehend racism when you were born and lived a life of privilege” are simply rhetorical tactics, used to avoid the central argument here — that millions of foreign citizens are here illegally.

            That is a fact, which you cannot credibly refute. Foreigners who are here in violation of American immigration laws are called ILLEGAL aliens because they are here ILLEGALLY.

            Honorable people obey the law, and they do not try to defend lawbreaking by others with “racist” name-calling. Personally, I have an equal view of everyone who is here illegally, whether they are Hispanic, Scandinavian, Asian, African, or Eskimo. The issue is not someone’s lineage, but the fact that they are deliberately and knowingly violating our immigration laws.

            The way to resolve your complaint is by changing the law, In the mean time, you have to understand that a nation without borders will quickly be overrun.

            Americans will not allow that, as the recent election made very clear.

            Finally, if you are here legally, you should understand the problem of illegal immigration. But if your name-calling and defensiveness are due to being here in contravention to U.S. immigration laws, then you can fix that by returning to your country of origin, and applying at the U.S. Consulate for one of the several ways to enter this country legally; via a temporary visa, or a green card, or by applying for American citizenship.

            Entering our country legally isn’t always easy. But millions upon millions of immigrants have done it; you can, too. And you can surely understand that coming here illegally is not honorable.

        • By the way – I forgot to answer your earlier posting calling me arrogant. I am not arrogant at all sir. In fact, I am the nicest person you could ever find. Again – and now more than ever I understand, the problem is that you in the privileged group are use to minorities that are humble, subservient, passive, non-argumentative, uneducated. That’s why you find me arrogant. You are just frustrated with your life.

          Sincerely yours,


  22. Phil Hood,

    In the first paragraph of your thought experiment you cite a number of social factors as being responsible for the illegal immigrant population being “stuck in a permanent underclass,” as if their plight were society’s doing instead of their own. But the fact is, as lawbreakers, they are no more or less stuck than are American citizens who live in the shadows because of outstanding criminal warrants. Just as is the case when a citizen decides to take flight from justice, when a foreigner decides to enter this country illegally, underclass status comes with the territory.

    You then go on to give lip service to the incontrovertible issue, our need for laws and safe borders, before shifting gears and suggesting we overlook the law and reward the lawbreakers based on their behavior. But how can we have the one, law and safe borders, if we reward those who disregard both? Also, it is more than unfair that you should assert we have “one political party that will punish its officeholders if they show too much compassion toward minorities,” as our immigration crisis is not about “minorities” anymore than it is about “Catholics” or “Spanish-speakers” (or any other attribute common to Hispanics).

    Illegal immigrants are lawbreakers in a nation built upon the law, thus justice demands that whatever their ultimate fate, their treatment must begin with the acknowledgement of their lawbreaking — and not with any form of compassion or politically-based nonsense not available to other lawbreakers at arraignment. Only by treating them according to the law can we have any hope of ever arriving at a just solution to this mess. The first step should be the creation of a registry with ICE, so that illegals who believe themselves deserving of special consideration can sign up and separate themselves from those who know themselves to be undesirable, the registered thereby demonstrating a level of respect for the law consistent with that demanded of legal immigrants. The next step should be the deportation of illegals who have failed to register, and the criminal prosecution of anyone employing or aiding in the support of an unregistered illegal. Once these steps are in place, then the registered illegals should be allowed the chance to present the evidence (including citizen references) proving themselves to be good investments, willing to accept consequences, and deserving of a chance to live here legally.

    Only by putting a reasonable, productive burden on the illegals themselves will we have a chance of finding a just solution and appeasing some, maybe most, on both sides of the issue.

    • I’d be happy if they just started by deporting illegals that have been arrested, sentenced or released for other crimes committed here. Please someone tell me why that is unreasonable.

      By the way check out US law 8USC1324 if you don’t think harboring a criminal alien won’t get you in trouble.

      • First you have to build the wall…then you can start deporting. I agree begin wih the prison system, then all those who have criminal records, gang memebers and thugs that run our streets. Then go down the list…we have a big problem because everyone jumped on the ban wagon, and this has been going on forever. Again this is not a racial issue…”IT’S THE LAW”.

        • I’m sure even with the complete wall the most desperate, desperado’s will again find a place in our finest jails.
          After 8 years of Obama fixing things it’s still better living here than down there.

          As bubbles said we need to do some nation building but we need smarter people than the guys that ran the Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt and Syria. Afghanistan maybe the next hopeless cause.

  23. I think these governors, Mayors and Police Chiefs need to be arrested under federal law and placed in prison for harboring these criminals and refuse to give any money to these states and cities, then see how fast they turn around, Hell most of them are run by Democrats and are already buried in debt, just let them go belly up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *