Breaking News: Whittier Council Votes 5–0 to Draft ICE Response Protocol After Special Meeting Draws Public Debate
- Rebecca Canales
- 1 hour ago
- 10 min read
The Whittier City Council voted unanimously Friday to direct staff to draft a formal protocol for responding to ICE activity near City facilities, City-coordinated events, and locations within Whittier.
The special meeting was called at the request of Councilmember Aida Macedo, Mayor James Becerra, and Councilmember Vicky Santana to address federal immigration activity within the City of Whittier. The vote followed public comment that leaned heavily against ICE, council discussion over what the City can legally do, and a staff presentation on how the City responded when federal immigration agents were reported near the Whittier Central Library on June 10.
The final motion directed staff to gather input from the public and Council, draft an appropriate protocol document, and bring it back for Council review and possible adoption by the first meeting in July. The motion passed 5–0, with Santana, Macedo, Warner, Mayor Pro Tem Marianne Pacheco, and Becerra voting yes.
The meeting came two days after ICE agents were reported near Washington Avenue and Mar Vista Street, close to the Whittier Central Library. The City previously stated that federal immigration authorities did not notify the City or the Whittier Police Department in advance, that agents did not enter City facilities, and that the City had no information indicating any arrests or detentions occurred.
During Friday’s special meeting, City staff said ICE agents were on Washington Avenue outside the library, not on City property. Staff said agents did not enter City facilities and did not communicate with library staff. According to staff, the City responded by closing the Washington-side entrance to the library, redirecting children and residents to the front entrance, and having staff monitor the situation to help keep people away from the area where ICE was present.
The proposed protocol, shown on screen during the meeting, was titled “Protocol for Response to ICE Presence in the City of Whittier.” Its stated purpose was to ensure “consistent, lawful, and respectful handling” of situations in which ICE agents appear at City facilities, City-coordinated events, or locations within the city.
Councilmember Macedo said the goal was to establish clear short-term procedures for City facilities after ICE activity occurred near the library while children were arriving for the free lunch program. She said the City should have a system for confirming whether ICE is present before taking action, communicating with the public and media, alerting City leaders, notifying parents and guardians of children in City programs, and considering a shelter-in-place type procedure for City buildings if ICE enters a facility.
Macedo emphasized that the City cannot stop federal agents from entering Whittier or carrying out federal operations.
“I don’t want to give the public a false expectation that we can stop ICE from coming to the city,” Macedo said during the discussion.
However, she said the City does have a responsibility to communicate, protect residents using City facilities, and ensure that City policy complies with California law, including SB 54. Macedo also asked staff to review resources from Public Counsel and other legal organizations, examine compliance with SB 54, the TRUST Act, and the TRUTH Act, and report back on what policies already exist and where improvements may be needed.
Santana said she had shared protocols from her professional experience with County Parks and wanted Whittier to make its own response plan more robust. She said the City should consider how to notify parents, seniors, staff, and councilmembers when federal immigration activity is confirmed near City programs or facilities.
Santana also raised concerns about City workers in the field, including maintenance and grounds staff, who could be questioned or mistaken for targets during immigration enforcement operations. She said staff should have updated identification and visible uniforms so they can be clearly recognized as City employees.
Mayor Pro Tem Marianne Pacheco gave an emotional defense of her record, saying last year’s ICE activity occurred in District 1 and that she had previously been the only councilmember speaking up against it. Pacheco said her past motion to curb ICE failed because it did not receive a second. She said ICE activity in Whittier is wrong, terrorizes residents, and can psychologically tear a community apart.
Pacheco also pushed back against public criticism suggesting she had not acted or did not care.
“Before you judge someone, maybe you should ask,” Pacheco said, adding that residents should contact her directly if they believe she is not doing something.
Councilmember Cathy Warner also became emotional during the discussion. Warner said no child, family, or person should have to suffer fear, and she said she supported developing clearer protocols. She referenced family members who served in the armed forces and said the way some residents are being treated does not reflect what they served for. Warner also said she had not been informed of the June 10 ICE activity when it occurred, and said better communication protocols would help ensure all councilmembers are alerted in the future.
Warner also referenced former State Senator Martha Escutia, who spoke during public comment and offered one of the meeting’s most legally focused statements.
Escutia, a District 2 resident and former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Mayor Becerra had a First Amendment right to ask ICE agents questions and that residents had a right to record the encounter. She drew a distinction between protected speech and conduct that physically interferes with law enforcement.
Escutia said Becerra did not block ICE agents and that video showed he was asking questions rather than physically interfering. However, her First Amendment point has another side: while Becerra had a right to ask questions and residents had a right to record public officials in public, ICE agents also had the constitutional right not to answer questions or speak on camera. A right to ask or record does not create a legal obligation for federal agents to explain an active operation, identify a target, or participate in an on-camera exchange.
Escutia also said she was not calling for Whittier to declare itself a sanctuary city. Instead, she urged the City to examine what lawful conditions it may place on ICE’s use of City property and facilities. She referenced Santa Rosa’s approach that city property should be used only for city purposes and suggested Whittier consider whether facilities such as data centers or detention centers should be subject to land-use, insurance, environmental, and other requirements.
Public comment lasted roughly 35 minutes of the approximately 99-minute meeting. Based on the transcript reviewed by Whittier 360 News Network, 17 people spoke during public comment, including 13 in person and four remotely.
Of those 17 speakers, approximately 82% spoke against ICE or supported stronger City opposition to federal immigration enforcement. One speaker clearly defended immigration enforcement based on legal status. Another speaker warned that the Council risked becoming too focused on ICE because Whittier has limited control over federal immigration enforcement. Former State Senator Escutia, offered a more nuanced legal position by opposing a sanctuary-city declaration while urging the City to examine lawful limits on ICE’s use of City property.
Several speakers thanked Becerra, Macedo, and Santana for responding to the June 10 ICE activity. Others criticized President Donald Trump, called ICE an abusive or dangerous agency, and urged the City to take stronger action to protect residents.
Felicia, one of the first speakers, said the City was built by Latino families and working people and praised Macedo and Becerra for being present during the ICE incident. Ken Vodra, a District 2 resident, supported the Council’s actions and said local law enforcement should follow the letter and spirit of California law limiting ICE cooperation. Rolando Cano, who said he has patrolled Whittier since the ICE activity last year, called for a system allowing community groups to report ICE activity to the City and help inform the public.
Another speaker, Janice, offered the clearest pro-enforcement counterpoint during in-person public comment. She said her grandparents came from Armenia in the early 1900s and did so legally. She said she feels safe when people are protected and added that if someone is not here legally, something needs to be done to protect the public.
That comment drew an immediate response from another speaker, who argued that immigration law was different in the early 1900s and that many people who came then would be treated differently under today’s legal system.
One online speaker, Rolando de Grazos, said “citizens are citizens” regardless of immigration status and argued that people should be judged by how they contribute to the community. As a matter of federal law, however, citizenship and immigration status are not the same thing. U.S. citizenship is generally acquired by birth in the United States while subject to U.S. jurisdiction, qualifying citizenship transmission from U.S. citizen parents, or naturalization. People who live, work, pay taxes, raise families, and contribute to a city may be residents, neighbors, workers, parents, or community members, but they are not U.S. citizens unless they meet the legal requirements for citizenship. Simply living in Whittier does not make them citizens.
That distinction matters because citizens, lawful permanent residents, visa holders, asylum seekers, undocumented immigrants, and other noncitizens may have overlapping constitutional protections, but they do not have identical legal rights, immigration status, or voting rights.
Another online speaker, Tamora, identified herself as a member of People’s Union, a far left communist organization, and gave the Council an ultimatum. She praised Becerra for showing up but said more could have been done and demanded that councilmembers either stand with the people or step aside. She also alleged abuse in detention centers and described them as “concentration camps.”
A later online speaker warned that the Council risked becoming too focused on ICE. That speaker said Whittier cannot currently stop ICE and argued the City should also focus on problems it can directly control, including cost of living, rental protections, and rent control.
The meeting’s public comment stood in contrast to the online reaction under the City’s own special meeting announcement and related local social media posts. While public speakers at the meeting leaned strongly anti-ICE, online comments reviewed by Whittier 360 News Network were much more divided, with many commenters criticizing the Council’s focus on ICE, supporting federal immigration enforcement, or arguing that Whittier should prioritize crime, homelessness, street conditions, catalytic converter thefts, illegal vending, graffiti, and other local issues.
Several online commenters also questioned why Whittier was holding a special meeting on a federal agency the City cannot control. Others argued that anti-ICE activists and speakers do not speak for all of Whittier. That tension — between the in-room public comment and the broader online backlash — became one of the clearest political takeaways from the controversy.
One speaker, Jenny Martin of District 2, added a more personal note to the debate. Martin said an ICE agent lives in her neighborhood, but she did not describe him as targeting residents. Instead, she said he “ignores us,” described him as a neighbor, and emphasized that “we are all human.” Her comment stood out because it placed a human face on both sides of the controversy: residents fearful of ICE activity and ICE agents who may also live in Whittier or nearby communities. Whittier 360 News Network is not publishing identifying information about any private individual connected to ICE, particularly given the risk of harassment or threats tied to this issue.
The meeting also showed that the City’s proposed response is not an attempt to directly block ICE from entering Whittier. Instead, the protocol discussion focused on City-controlled responsibilities: confirming information, communicating with residents, protecting children and seniors in City programs, giving staff clear instructions, notifying councilmembers and City leaders, reviewing compliance with state law, and establishing one point of contact if ICE enters a City facility with legal authority.
Macedo clarified that a shelter-in-place protocol would not mean holding people against their will. Instead, she said it would be intended to secure a facility and protect patrons while still allowing people to leave if they choose. If ICE entered a facility with a lawful warrant, the goal would be to have a clear point of contact and reduce disruption.
Staff confirmed that the City already has registration information for seniors and children in City programs and can contact parents, guardians, or emergency contacts if necessary. Staff also said emergency supplies and coordination with the Red Cross are part of the City’s existing emergency management planning.
The Council also discussed whether the City should make prior immigration-related reports, Flock camera information, or other existing policies more visible to the public. Santana asked for review of Flock camera contracts because of public concern about how data is shared and whether data could be sold or accessed indirectly. She said many residents would support cameras used to solve crimes, kidnappings, or major public safety incidents, but that the public deserves clarity about whether data could be shared beyond that purpose.
Becerra closed the meeting by saying he hoped the discussion demonstrated to the public that the Council is aware of the issue and is addressing it legally and professionally. He said information should be truthful and should produce calm and well-reasoned behavior.
The mayor also warned against threats and said the City must move forward as a community, even when people disagree.
The Council’s unanimous vote means staff will now draft a formal ICE response protocol and bring it back for review by the first City Council meeting in July. That future meeting may determine whether Whittier adopts a written policy governing how City officials and staff respond when ICE activity is confirmed near City facilities, City events, or other locations within the city.
For now, the Council has moved from public confrontation and online debate toward a formal policy process. But the public reaction shows the issue remains deeply divided. Anti-ICE speakers dominated the official public comment period. Online commenters were far more mixed, with many questioning why the City is focused on ICE at all.
The result is a City Council attempting to create protocols for a federal enforcement issue it cannot fully control, while residents remain divided over whether that response represents public safety, political theater, or necessary protection for vulnerable members of the community.
Final point that everyone should remember. The discussion also underscored that ICE agents themselves are human beings and have rights of their own. Elected officials, residents, and journalists may ask questions, criticize government conduct, and record public officials in public spaces, so long as they do not physically interfere with lawful enforcement activity. But federal agents also have constitutional protections and are not required to answer questions, speak on camera, or provide details about an active operation simply because they are being questioned or recorded.
That distinction matters because the Council’s actual action Friday was more limited than much of the public rhetoric surrounding the issue. The Council did not vote to block ICE from entering Whittier, declare the city a sanctuary city, or interfere with federal law enforcement. Instead, the Council voted 5–0 to direct staff to draft protocols for how the City should respond when ICE activity is confirmed near City facilities, City programs, or City-coordinated events.
Those protocols are expected to focus on public communication, staff notification, parent and guardian alerts, senior and child safety, City facility procedures, and compliance with state law.
For now, Whittier is not moving toward a blanket ban on ICE. It is moving toward a written policy for how City facilities and officials should respond when federal immigration activity occurs near public spaces. Whether residents view that as responsible public safety planning or unnecessary political involvement will likely remain part of the broader debate.
Whittier 360 News Network will continue following this developing story.
Comments