An informational meeting was held yesterday in Fresno for leaders desiring to know more about the possibility of opposing California’s Sanctuary State law commonly referred to as SB 54 or the California Values Act.
The meeting was organized by the Fresno County Republican Party Chairman Fred Vanderhoof and the presenters were Republican National Committeeman Shawn Steel and Susan Tully, the national director for Federation for American Immigration Reform.
Chairman Vanderhoof wanted to give leaders an opportunity to learn about the options available in opposing the newly enacted law.
The meeting received statewide attention when it was printed in the LA Times and activists from “SIREN BAY Area” encouraged Central Valley residents to oppose the meeting by stating on Twitter:
“Various Elected Officials are gathering in Fresno this Monday, May 7, 2018 to plot out against SB54, The California Values Act. Join us as we STAND UP AND FIGHT BACK.”
Chairman Vanderhoof commented at the end of the meeting to CVO:
“It was very effective as leaders were able to discuss options and ask questions.”
Three options were presented at the Monday meeting for opposing the California Values Act:
- Enact a local ordinance to not comply with the California Values Act
- File an amicus curiae brief in future litigation or
- File a lawsuit against the state
Chairman Vanderhoof reiterated to CVO his desire to have leaders know the options and make the determination if formally opposing the California Values Act was something each desired to take on.
Fresno County Republican Party Chairman Fred Vanderhoof did an outstanding job setting up this informational meeting.
Despite Bay area activists, and the regular local anti-ICE activists, attempting to make this into something bigger, the meeting went on as scheduled. This was not an official action taken by any governing body, nor was this a press conference.
Activists simply wanted to act as bullies by shaming local leaders for even attending the meeting.
Why would activities deem an informational meeting a place to protest?
It seems clear that proponents of the California Values Act despise the exchange of ideas.
Sure, I welcome the right to protest. This should be done on public property and a public forum.
Further, the appropriate place to protest and voice an opinion would be during a meeting where a governing body is taking an actual action against the California Values Act.