Our friend Igmar Rodas wrote this on his “OC Reporter” blog yesterday, and asked us to reprint it here, and it was in response to Santa Ana Mayor Valerie Amezcua‘s closing remarks at the last, May 6, Council meeting, which you can hear by clicking here: (ALL CUED UP! Caution: Valerie does the “weave: a la Trump.)
In a city recognized for its dedication to immigrant populations, Mayor Valerie Amezcua of Santa Ana is at the heart of a rising controversy that casts doubt on her leadership and the priorities she holds. At the City Council meeting on May 6th, 2025, the remarks made by Mayor Amezcua indicated a disturbing shift in attention—one that seems more focused on securing federal funds and political authority rather than safeguarding the very individuals she was elected to represent.
Santa Ana has been esteemed as a sanctuary city for many years, a stance based on the principle that all residents—irrespective of their immigration status—are entitled to public services, safety, and respect. This dedication has turned the city into a haven for many, particularly during uncertain times surrounding immigration laws. However, recent comments from Mayor Amezcua imply that this core value is now at risk—not from outside influences, but from officials within City Hall.
During the tense council meeting on May 6th, Amezcua expressed worries about the possible loss of federal financing linked to law enforcement activities, emphasizing how it could affect police resources and her own position. While financial management is crucial, framing the conversation in such self-focused terms has unsettled the community. It has conveyed to many that the mayor may be contemplating compromising the city’s sanctuary policy—not out of necessity, but from apprehension—fear of losing authority, funding, and ultimately, control.
This type of leadership—or the lack thereof—is genuinely concerning. Sanctuary policies represent more than mere symbols; they function as critical protections. By discouraging collaboration with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), these policies help undocumented individuals feel secure when reporting crimes, accessing emergency aid, and engaging in community affairs. Dismantling those protections would lead to immediate and severe repercussions, especially for the most vulnerable segments of our society.
The mayor’s seemingly open approach to modifying the city’s sanctuary policy without a defined strategy or community agreement erodes trust in local governance. Citizens should have leaders who uphold principles amidst political challenges, not ones who falter when facing financial difficulties or partisan pressures.
Additionally, the timing and manner of Amezcua’s comments were highly inappropriate. In a year characterized by escalating anti-immigrant feelings across the country, Santa Ana should be strengthening—not stepping back from—its standing as an example of inclusive governance. Instead, the mayor’s statements have created confusion, fear, and division at a time when solidarity is urgently needed.
We urge Mayor Amezcua to clarify her stance publicly and clearly reaffirm her dedication to Santa Ana’s sanctuary values. If she is unable to do so sincerely, perhaps it is time for new leadership to emerge—leadership that embodies the principles of compassion, bravery, and community that Santa Ana truly deserves.
Let’s keep in mind the purpose of sanctuary cities: they are meant to preserve lives, not to challenge federal power. The mayor should be aware that her responsibilities involve ensuring the safety of individuals, rather than just obtaining financial support. At this moment, the residents of Santa Ana are closely observing her decisions and the direction she takes.
Oh no. Oh no no no no no.
If the city gets one of those letters, it should go to court and challenge its constitutionality, as many have done before. You don’t promise to roll over and play dead. You don’t out-and-out explain to them in advance the one simple thing that they could do if they want your outright surrender.
What if they said that Santa Ana would lose its grants unless Mayor Amezcua’s family was willing to go be the guests — “hostages” is such an ugly word — of the Trump Administration, remaining in Mar-a-Lago (at the city’s expense, of course) until she left office? If she’d object to that, would she object to the same requirement of any other Council members?
I could come up with more lurid unconstitutional demands they could make to put the city in duress, but I’ll spare you.
She should literally resign over being such an idiot and go take as many courses she needs in negotiation to learn what not to say to a law-breaking would-be dictator. (Shouldn’t take more than a decade, because she’s so smart.)
What if Trump’s demand was that Phil Bacerra become the Mayor (on the grounds that he’s the Councilmember who looks most like a white male (aka “qualified”)? Would she be ok with that bit of dictation by Thump?
(That’s not a rhetorical question. Would she? To, you know, “save the city’s HUD money?” Based on her statement here, “cowering is empowering”!)
Anyone is free to ask her this question at the next meeting — no need to credit me, although she’d turn the topic to outside agitators trying to tell a Latina what to do rather than trying to defend paying protection money without even having been asked for it!
Resign, you squish!
Everyone should listen to the ten minutes of Valerie I put up. It’s all cued up. Over and over she says “I’m not running scared. I’m just smart.”
But the most revealing part is “Even Lou Correa says we should keep our heads down.” Oh! That’s where Lou is. Biff, are you out there?