Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverside supervisors direct staff to evaluate data protections, funding and draft resolution for DACA and law‑abiding undocumented residents
Summary
After hours of public comment for and against, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors voted to ask staff to evaluate how DACA participants and law‑abiding undocumented residents’ data is handled, to explore funding for legal aid and to draft a resolution and resource webpage; the measure passed 4‑0.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a motion directing county staff to evaluate how data for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) participants and other law‑abiding undocumented residents is collected, managed, stored and protected, to identify existing and potential funding sources for legal defense and related services, and to prepare a draft resolution and public resource webpage.
The motion, introduced by Supervisors Manuel Perez and Yustan Gutierrez, did not itself allocate county funds. Gutierrez said the measures are meant to prepare the county for potential federal actions that could affect immigrants and to provide information and clarity for families and service providers. County Counsel advised the board the proposed evaluations, the draft resolution and a resource webpage are within the board’s authority and are consistent with state and federal law as written.
The hourlong public hearing drew dozens of callers and in‑person speakers. Supporters — including immigrant‑rights groups, community organizers and service providers — urged the board to move forward to protect residents’ privacy and access to legal counsel. “We support this item and the county taking steps to protect our community,” said Eddie Torres, policy director for an immigrant rights coalition, noting community reports of Border Patrol and ICE activity and requesting county support for legal services.
Opponents warned the board against using county resources to shield undocumented residents or to declare the county a sanctuary jurisdiction. In a written statement read aloud, Sheriff Bianco expressed concern about perceived sanctuary policies and urged the board to prioritize public safety; the undersheriff later clarified deputies do not use immigration status as the basis for ordinary policing encounters.
Supervisors discussed the legal limits of county authority and potential unintended consequences (including federal proposals that would restrict funding for jurisdictions labeled as “sanctuary”). County Counsel explained the item’s directives are limited to evaluations, a draft resolution and a web resource and do not by themselves create a sanctuary jurisdiction.
After deliberation, the board voted to approve the item as recommended, 4‑0. The item directs staff to return with reports — including an evaluation of data handling and potential funding sources, a draft resolution reaffirming the county’s approach, and development of an immigration resource webpage — by the dates specified in staff follow‑up. The board did not adopt a final resolution at the meeting; it instructed staff to prepare materials for future consideration.
