Los Angeles council hears accounts of federal immigration raids, advocates and police give differing accounts of scope and response

Los Angeles City Council members on June 10 heard from immigrant-rights advocates, clergy and the Los Angeles Police Department about a series of federal immigration enforcement operations that advocates say have included mass arrests at workplaces and other locations across Los Angeles County.

Angélica Salas, identified to the council as a leader with the Coalition for the Rights of Immigrants (CHIRLA), told members the first wave of enforcement began May 23 and that local defenders had logged calls and field reports from multiple locations. “La capacidad de detención ya se llegó al límite,” Salas said, and she estimated “300 personas se les tuvieron, pero no hemos tenido acceso” to many detainees or to courts for legal counsel.

Why it matters: Council members said the reports of arrests, denials of lawyer access and the appearance of federal tactical units are producing fear in immigrant communities, disrupting workplaces and schools, and — they said — risking unlawful removals to out-of-state facilities. Councilmembers asked what the city can do to document cases, coordinate rapid legal response and support families while staying within the limits of local authority.

Angélica Salas told the council that defenders and pro-bono attorneys had been unable to see many detainees, that families reported coercion to sign so-called voluntary departure forms under the threat of fines, and that organizers had recorded detentions at multiple workplaces and neighborhoods including Ambiance (a worksite identified in testimony), Santa Fe, Paramount, Huntington Park, Home Depot locations, Cerritos, Santa Ana, Westminster and Pasadena. Salas said volunteers and legal teams received thousands of incoming calls to rapid-response lines; she told the council that “el sábado recibimos 2000 llamadas” and that “35 furgonetas llegaron” to transport detainees, according to witnesses.

The council also heard a briefing from the chief of police on the law-enforcement response to protests that followed the enforcement actions. The chief said federal and local activity unfolded across several days and summarized arrest counts the LAPD had recorded: no arrests on the first Friday, 27 on Saturday, 40 on Sunday and a later figure of 114 (the chief provided the sequence to the council during the public briefing). He described a mix of largely peaceful demonstrations and concentrated episodes of vandalism and looting that stretched city resources and prompted mutual-aid requests from other jurisdictions.

Council members repeatedly distinguished between peaceful protesters and people who engaged in looting or other violence. Several members urged the chief to prioritize de-escalation and to make clear the department’s tactics and training for crowd management. “Esto no es normal,” Councilmember Soto Martínez told the council while urging a unified city response to keep families together and to document purported civil-rights violations.

Council members asked for concrete steps staff and community groups could take. Salas and other advocates recommended: (1) routing reports of detentions to a city-coordinated rapid-response relay so district offices and legal teams can document cases in real time; (2) distributing ‘‘know-your-rights’’ materials in schools and workplaces; and (3) compiling lists of business and worksite incidents to support legal challenges. Salas said she would share toolkits for employers and workers and asked council offices to designate district liaisons to the rapid-response network.

Legal and policy context mentioned to the council included the Brown Act (open-meetings law), the state’s AB 49 and the California Values Act; speakers urged the council to use the city’s existing sanctuary protections and state law to shield residents and to press federal agencies for accountability.

What the council did: The meeting also contained routine and non-routine votes on dozens of agenda items. Several items were continued or taken for separate votes; the council approved a number of settlement recommendations, and it approved substituted motions and special motions on various unrelated agenda items later in the meeting. (See “Votes at a glance” below for items the council recorded on the public record.)

Ending note: Members emphasized that the city’s tools are limited against federal enforcement, but they said the council could still act to document alleged abuses, expand legal help and coordinate school and district outreach to protect children and families. Advocates asked the council to press for legal access for detainees and to publicize concrete steps residents can take if an employer, school or family member is targeted.

Votes at a glance: - Item (special) 0.16 — moved for separate consideration; motion advanced. Vote recorded: 15 in favor, 0 opposed (as announced during the meeting). - Settlement approvals (closed-session items and claims) — the council voted to approve a package of settlement recommendations the city attorney presented for multiple cases (amounts and case captions were read into the record). The council recorded votes of 15 in favor on the set of recommended settlements presented during closed session. - Items 28 & 29 (substitute motion) — council voted to substitute and then to adopt substitute motions; the substitute was approved: 15 in favor. Item 29 final recorded vote: 14 in favor, 1 opposed. - Item 33 (special-vote item) — final recorded tally: 13 in favor, 2 opposed. - Two special motions introduced by Councilmember Jurado — each adopted by the council; recorded votes for the special motions were 14 in favor on each.

(Agenda tallies and item numbers are recorded on the council’s official docket. The council’s public minutes and the posted video are the official record for precise dispositions and ordinance text.)