Dear Editor:

I listened to the entirety of the April 25 Board of Supervisors discussion about the county’s collusion with ICE. The ordinance “restricting the use of county resources to assist or cooperate with immigration authorities” had been approved 4-1 on April 11.

The item was on the agenda again because Supervisor Ray Mueller, who had been outvoted two weeks before, now wanted to introduce amendments that would allow exceptions to the ordinance.

It was a contentious discussion. The other supervisors were angry and said it was highly unusual and against protocol.

The community showed up in droves, overwhelmingly against adding exceptions. Because of the number of speakers, we were limited to one minute. This was my one-minute comment:

I live in San Gregorio, in unincorporated San Mateo County, and am in Supervisor Mueller’s district. There are many of us that live in his district who strongly disagree with his position. As a community, we have worked hard to end the county’s collusion with ICE for many years.

The ordinance was voted upon two weeks ago and was approved, 4-1. Mueller has stated his dissenting opinion, and some of his constituents support his position, but at this point we expect him to uphold the decision of his colleagues and the community at large.

Monitoring violent ex-felons who have been returned to the community is a problem for law enforcement and for the community at large, but the issues won’t be solved by targeting the undocumented. Cooperating with ICE will bring more focus and scrutiny to vulnerable communities — making them feel less safe not more. San Mateo County should not be engaged in federal deportation activities.

I am disappointed in Mueller. He is a new supervisor and has created a contentious environment in both the board and in the community that he represents.

Susan Henkin-Haas

San Gregorio

Recommended for you

(6) comments


So when the rapist or child molester isn't deported we can send them to live with you lol.


It's just a matter of time before these virtue-signalling activists will be demanding protection from the criminals that are going to overrun the Bay Area.


Maybe. Like most things, though, it probably won’t be that black and and white.

Once again, people are talking past each other. If we’re going to keep doing this, I just don’t think it matters much what the laws say (or who the supervisors are, or what’s on cable news, or which man is president next).


The writer asserts that "the community showed up in droves" but I am not sure as to what "community" is being identified. A couple of weeks ago Phil Matier reported on KCBS that a poll of San Franciscans showed that 70% did not want the City's sanctuary status to cover drug dealers. 70%. San Francisco. It is doubtful that murder, rape and molestation would have drawn a lower percentage. It is even more doubtful that San Mateo County residents would have a more lenient outlook.. I think Supervisor Mueller understands his constituents better than the "community" that "showed up in droves."



John Charles Ullom

Yep. Someday, somebody horrible that could be deported, won’t be. And the community that will mostly pay the price ain’t in my demographic.

Absolutism absolutely always sucks.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

More Stories