Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Whittier council adopts amended resolution directing local responses to federal immigration enforcement

Whittier City Council · April 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Whittier City Council on Aug. 12, 2025, adopted an amended Resolution No. 2025-38 directing city staff to support community-based legal and outreach services, restrict sharing of Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR) data with federal immigration authorities consistent with SB 54, and provide monthly implementation updates. Several amendments added modest funding allocations; one proposed ordinance failed to receive a second.

Whittier — The Whittier City Council adopted an amended Resolution No. 2025-38 on Aug. 12, 2025, directing a suite of local responses to federal immigration enforcement, including funding for community organizations, guidance limiting data-sharing with federal immigration authorities, and monthly implementation updates.

Council members debated and approved multiple amendments to the draft resolution after a presentation from outside counsel David King of the Hensley Law Group, who outlined legal constraints such as federal preemption and Fourth Amendment considerations. Council Member Mary Ann Pacheco moved several of the successful amendments and the final adoption motion; Mayor Pro Tem Octavio Martinez and other council members seconded and supported various provisions.

The most notable adopted amendments directed the appropriation of up to $130,000 to support the Hispanic Outreach Taskforce and/or the Interfaith Food Center to assist families affected by immigration enforcement (amendment to subsection 2.3, moved by Council Member Pacheco and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Martinez; carried 4-1, Council Member Cathy Warner dissenting). Council Member Pacheco also moved and Council Member Fernando Dutra seconded an amendment to direct staff to support community-based organizations and legal-aid groups with $50,000 to assist residents with immigration-related paperwork (subsection 2.5; carried 4-1, Warner dissenting).

Council also added a requirement for monthly updates at City Council meetings on implementation progress (subsection 2.8; carried 3-2), and unanimously adopted provisions urging state and federal officials to act: an amendment urging the California Legislature to make impersonation of a law enforcement officer a felony (subsection 2.7), a request for monthly updates from federal representatives on ICE and CBP detentions within the city (subsection 2.9), and two subsections directing advocacy for free legal education/representation and instructing staff not to share information, including ALPR data, with federal immigration authorities consistent with Senate Bill 54 (subsections 2.11 and 2.10).

A separate proposal by Council Member Pacheco to replace subsection 2.1 with an ordinance prohibiting masks by immigration-enforcement agents, requiring visible identification, and joining litigation against the Department of Homeland Security failed to receive a second and did not proceed.

The minutes record that the council adopted the amended Resolution No. 2025-38 with recorded abstentions noted for specific subsections: Council Member Cathy Warner is listed as abstaining on subsections 2.3 and 2.5, and Council Member Pacheco is listed as abstaining on subsection 2.1. The minutes indicate the question was called and the motion carried.

City staff and outside counsel discussed legal risks, the Supremacy Clause, and scope of local authority during deliberations; David King answered questions about pending federal bills the minutes name as Senate Bill 221 and House Bill No. 4176. The adopted resolution directs staff to implement the provisions and provide monthly status reports to the council.

The council took the action as part of Item 14.A after accepting public comment earlier in the meeting. The council did not adopt any city ordinance on masks or join federal litigation; that specific motion failed for lack of a second.