🟦 Official Position Statement from Citizens’ Coalition for Change (CC4C)

Regarding the Presence of Federal Immigration Authorities in the City of Compton and the City's Public Response

🔹 Context:

The City of Compton recently issued a bilingual public statement asserting it was not involved in the presence of federal immigration enforcement agents—namely ICE—operating within the city. The City clarified that a private leasing agreement exists between federal authorities and a private property owner, and that Compton has no contractual ties or foreknowledge of the operation. The statement also referenced California SB 54 and reaffirmed Compton's commitment to supporting its residents regardless of immigration status.

🔹 Citizens’ Coalition for Change (CC4C) Position:

The City’s statement is legally accurate but politically and socially fragile.

We understand the intention to provide reassurance to residents who fear government overreach or discriminatory enforcement. However, such statements—while attempting neutrality—risk:

• Alienating one side of the community

• Signaling non-cooperation to federal agencies

• Encouraging fringe actors to act out (on either side of the issue)

• Exposing law enforcement to unnecessary tension and ambiguity

✅ What the City Got Right:

• Legal Distance: The City does not need to be involved in or approve private leasing deals between federal agencies and private landowners. That’s accurate and valid.

• SB 54 Compliance: California law indeed restricts local law enforcement from helping federal immigration authorities unless there’s a judicial warrant or the individual has committed certain serious or violent crimes.

• Community Reassurance: Attempting to calm a concerned immigrant population is appropriate and responsible governance.

🔍 Clarifications & Realities:

🏢 “Federal leasing”

This means ICE or DHS could lease space from private property owners—e.g., warehouses, office buildings, or staging sites—without municipal permission or notification. If a federal agency signs a lease with a commercial landlord in Compton, the city doesn’t have to approve it or even be informed.

As of now, there’s no public record of ICE operating out of a federal building owned by the GSA in Compton. They are likely using a privately-owned site under lease, which is legal and within federal jurisdiction.

📜 California SB 54 Limitations

SB 54, or the California Values Act, does not allow local police to:

• Ask about immigration status

• Hold individuals for ICE detainers without a warrant

• Share non-public personal data (e.g., release dates, home addresses)

However, it does not give them authority to hinder, obstruct, or leak information about federal operations. Doing so would:

• Violate federal obstruction laws

• Potentially endanger public safety

• Expose the city and officers to civil or criminal liability

Law enforcement cannot sabotage ICE. They cannot legally leak info, tip off suspects, or impede operations. Doing so would constitute interference with a federal operation and would carry consequences.

🧯 Civil Unrest & Civic Responsibility

The City cannot:

• Endorse violent protests or riots

• Block federal agents or the National Guard from entering

• Instruct law enforcement to ignore threats of violence

• Block freeway access or allow unlawful assemblies

Such actions would violate multiple federal and state laws. If unrest breaks out, city officials and police leadership are bound to enforce the law and protect both public and private property, including federal infrastructure or leased sites.

🧠 Political Demographics & Emotional Calculus

It's true: Compton’s governing body is predominantly Black, although Latinos make up approximately 71% of the population, while Black residents represent about 25%. This creates a delicate balancing act:

• Latino residents, while forming the majority, are often underrepresented politically due to lower civic participation (voter turnout, community engagement).

• A large portion of multi-generational Latino citizens do not support open borders but remain emotionally or socially connected to undocumented individuals.

• City leadership faces the reality that ignoring immigrant concerns would erode trust, while over-empathizing could alienate law-abiding residents or the federal government.

🧭 CC4C’s Recommended Course of Action:

1. Tone Down the Rhetoric, Focus on Facts

Public messaging should stick to neutral, civic language that:

• Respects residents' fears

• Reinforces city compliance with the law

• Avoids undermining lawful federal actions

Avoid language like “we stand with all residents regardless of immigration status” unless it is qualified. Instead say:

“We are committed to protecting the safety and dignity of every resident in accordance with California and federal law.”

2. Reinforce Law Enforcement Neutrality

Police officers must:

• Follow SB 54 strictly

• Not interfere with ICE unless there’s imminent public safety concern

• Coordinate with federal agencies only when legally mandated

Any officer or city official violating this should face internal review.

3. Quietly Coordinate with Federal Authorities

The City can remain publicly “uninvolved” while discreetly:

• Maintaining practical communication with federal agencies

• Sharing logistical concerns (e.g., areas at risk of unrest)

• Requesting advance notice of future operations

• Preparing emergency response protocols in advance

This is responsible governance.

4. Engage All Demographics

Begin a citywide civic engagement initiative that:

• Encourages Latino voter registration and participation

• Opens forums for lawful residents to voice their concerns

• Brings multi-generational Black and Latino communities into dialogue

5. Condemn and Prevent Violence—Preemptively

Publicly state:

• Destruction of property and violence will not be tolerated

• Law enforcement will act to protect all citizens and property, regardless of ideology

• Any calls for violent protest or riots will be dealt with swiftly and transparently

🟨 Final CC4C Summary:

The City of Compton’s statement is technically sound, but its framing must be recalibrated to avoid stoking unnecessary division or giving the appearance of resistance to lawful federal authority. The city must walk a line between state law, federal respect, and emotional realities in its diverse population. Avoiding political posturing, ensuring public safety, and fostering civic engagement among underrepresented groups—especially Latinos—must be at the heart of the city’s next steps.