September 20, 2007 | 1:26 pm
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
SIMI VALLEY - In an unusual twist on the national immigration debate, the city of Simi Valley sent a $40,000 bill Wednesday to a church harboring an undocumented immigrant after a protest there over the weekend prompted a police presence.
The United Church of Christ has played host for several months to a Ventura woman named Liliana, a Mexican citizen seeking sanctuary from immigration laws.
On Sunday, the anti-illegal immigration group Save Our State sent a contingent of 100 protesters to Royal Avenue outside UCC, hollering slogans into bullhorns, toting signs and waving American flags. The church’s advocates dispatched more than two dozen counter-protestors who chanted in opposition.
Four Simi Valley Police Department officers arrived to keep an eye on things, swelling to 15 cops as the crowd grew. Aside from a minor scuffle between two protestors, all sides agreed the standoff was peaceful and orderly. Police arrested no one.
But the city was unhappy with footing the bill for the overtime and associated costs and decided someone had to pay.
The church got left holding the check.
That’s from the LA Daily News. But one of my other former employers, the Ventura County Star, reported today that Simi Valley is fixing for a lawsuit because its action stifled the church’s right to protest immigration policies.
“Paying for the cost of a political demonstration like this is paying for protection of freedom of expression, which is the price of living in a democracy,” ACLU attorney Peter Bibring said Wednesday. “If people had to pay, no one would ever demonstrate.”
Blogger and UCLA legal scholar Eugene Volokh makes an appearance, saying that a) regardless of whether the UCC congregation was breaking immigration laws, the city’s action was out of line and b) that Simi politicians are sticking their nose where it doesn’t belong (in federal business).
“They are complaining about a violation that isn’t their law and they are talking about an expense that is an indirect consequence of their illegal conduct,” he said. “On balance, their argument is so very weak, they are likely to lose.”
We welcome your feedback.
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com reserves the right to use your comment in our weekly print publication.
12.19.13 at 12:53 pm | Like Dana Friedman, a small proportion of the men. . .
12.10.13 at 11:33 am | Some 35 years after the LDS dropped the ban, the. . .
12.5.13 at 7:11 am | In some of the most astounding news I've heard. . .
12.3.13 at 7:11 am | The Supreme Court granted certiorari in ...
11.25.13 at 8:55 am | Judge Crabb ruled that the clergy housing. . .
11.23.13 at 7:46 pm | A time-lapse starting with Hinduism in 5,000 BC. . .
11.21.11 at 11:30 pm | Julian Edelman has been playing O, D and special. . . (199)
11.13.11 at 3:43 pm | Forensic anthropology may have something new to. . . (194)
11.16.13 at 10:41 am | His kebab cafe on hard times, Zablon Simintov. . . (103)