The Sanctuary Resolution : Controversial Issue Took Councilman Woo on a Path From Stunning Political Triumph to Trench Warfare

It began as a stunning political triumph for the youngest member on the Los Angeles City Council but quickly turned into trench warfare over a single word: sanctuary.

In his first major legislative effort, 34-year-old Michael Woo had skillfully maneuvered a controversial statement on refugee policy through the council and persuaded a majority of his colleagues to vote for it. The statement, adopted Nov. 27 in the form of an official resolution, declared Los Angeles a “city of sanctuary” for political refugees.

Then on Feb. 7 council members, feeling the intensifying heat of potentially widespread backlash, took the rare step of reversing themselves.

Facing a Fight

Confronted by the prospects of a bloody initiative campaign, the council threw out the sanctuary provision in a deal that left Woo with his refugee policy largely intact but scrambling to salvage some of his tattered prestige.

“I learned a few lessons,” admitted Woo who, seven months after taking office, found himself riding an issue that attracted national attention. But the furor over the symbolic meaning of sanctuary nearly undercut it all.

“To me, it was very clear,” Woo said. “I wasn’t willing to prolong the battle over that one word.”

Continuing the fight meant skirmishing again with Harold Ezell, the western regional director for the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service. If there was one person who emerged as a political victor in the aftermath of the city’s fizzled sanctuary resolution, it was Ezell--an outspoken Reagan appointee who attacked Woo’s proposal as if he were on a personal combat mission.

“I think he is single-handedly responsible for (the repeal),” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky.

A ‘Broadside’ Issue

“I don’t think there is any question that Harold Ezell whipped this town into a frenzy and used it and exploited the (sanctuary) issue to broadside the City Council,” added Yaroslavsky, who backed the sanctuary resolution.

For his part, Ezell scoffed at that characterization but added: “If they want to give me credit for reversing one of the most irresponsible resolutions that the City of Los Angeles has ever done, I’ll take it. But I think the credit belongs to a silent majority that finally spoke out.”

Applying public pressure was clearly Ezell’s goal, and the council’s reversal climaxed what had been an intense period of public posturing and behind-the-scenes scrambling by both supporters and critics of sanctuary.

The sanctuary movement--which seeks to create havens for illegal immigrants on the run from persecution in their homelands--has traditionally been considered the domain of religious groups. But as more and more cities become involved in the issue, Ezell and the Reagan Administration have made it plain that they consider most refugees to be economic refugees who do not qualify for political asylum.

Into a Prominent Role

When the council voted in November to declare Los Angeles a sanctuary, although the purpose was not directly to flout the federal immigration laws, it nevertheless vaulted the city into a prominent role as the largest city to support the sanctuary cause.

The city’s nonbinding resolution commended sanctuary workers for providing a haven for refugees fleeing civil warfare and violence in their native countries--particularly the estimated 350,000 Salvadorans and Guatemalans living in Los Angeles. It also instructed city employees to provide public services regardless of someone’s immigration status.

Although the change was more symbolism than anything, it triggered a wave of negative mail and phone calls--including one death threat directed at Woo, who reported it to police--and a torrent of irate protests from federal officials and county supervisors.

Ezell rode the media circuit and renewed his verbal attacks on the council. He warned that the city was extending an open invitation to illegal aliens and threatened to seek ways to cut off funds to cities that enact sanctuary resolutions.

He also found an ally in Councilman Ernani Bernardi, one of the six council members who voted against the Woo resolution. Arguing that the city was overstepping its authority and warning that the nonbinding resolution gave false hopes to refugees, Bernardi launched a petition drive to qualify an initiative on the November ballot seeking to overturn the council resolution.

Response From Bernardi

Although his colleagues accused him of sowing the seeds of a potentially divisive and disruptive campaign, Bernardi dismissed those arguments and blamed council members who voted for the sanctuary resolution for any threatened racial friction.

“They should have known when they drew up that resolution that it would stir up a certain amount of tension and resentment in the community,” Bernardi said. “The bottom line was that sanctuary resolution had to be repealed.”

As it turned out, Ezell’s high-profile lobbying campaign and Bernardi’s initiative threat were the twin catalysts that did precisely that.

Council President Pat Russell, who described Ezell as a “demagogue,” said that he put sanctuary proponents on the defensive with his “misleading” attacks. And council members were fearful of more of the same if Bernardi qualified his initiative.

“It was unanimous from both (council) supporters and opponents of the resolution that we did not want that initiative on the ballot,” Russell said.

Sources of Concern

Some council members worried publicly about a drawn-out, emotionally charged campaign that would split the city and, perhaps, exacerbate racial tensions. Others privately expressed concern that a political backlash could harm not only Mayor Tom Bradley, who supported the sanctuary resolution and who is expected to run against Gov. George Deukmejian, but their own political futures.

“For some, the concern about saving Tom Bradley’s neck was less of a concern than the more immediate concern about having to answer . . . questions about this issue so close to the April, 1987, primary,” Woo said. Seven council members will be up for reelection then.

Meanwhile, for Woo, the pressure to do something was building.

With the addition of Councilman Richard Alatorre, the council membership’s dynamics had changed since November. As a former state assemblyman and Latino, Alatorre arrived with considerable political credentials of his own and said flatly that he would have opposed the sanctuary resolution if he had been on the council.

Councilman Hal Bernson, who opposed the sanctuary measure and also Bernardi’s threatened initiative, vowed that he would scuttle the entire resolution unless a compromise was reached removing the sanctuary designation.

Overtures Begin

Amid this growing anxiety on the council, Woo made his first overtures to Bernardi. He first used an intermediary, Councilman John Ferraro, who had voted against his resolution. Later, Woo said that Councilman Marvin Braude, who supported the measure, also spoke with Bernardi about possibly dropping his initiative.

Like some of the other veteran council members, Ferraro saw Woo locked in a tight political spot but he counseled his young colleague to reach an accommodation with Bernardi and avoid a prolonged fight. “I told Mike, Look, you might get a lump in the head now, but it’ll only hurt for a little while,” Ferraro recalled. “But if this goes ahead, you’re going to be getting a lump on the head every day.”

Woo concluded that the sanctuary wording was expendable but that it was important to retain a refugee policy that would encourage immigrants to seek police help and city services without fear of deportation.

On Feb. 4, a Tuesday, Woo said he approached Bernardi in the hallway as they walked to council chambers and suggested a compromise. When Bernardi balked, Woo said he waited for the day’s session to end, then went to his colleague’s office and got Bernardi to agree to negotiations.

Over the next three days, as the compromise took shape, it was clear that Bernardi was adamant about removing the sanctuary language while Woo was insistent on retaining most of the remaining resolution.

Busy Time for Staffs

As their staffs shuttled back and forth between offices with revised drafts, Woo and Bernardi consulted with officials in the city legislative analyst’s office and kept in touch with other members.

Woo said a deal was struck late Thursday, Feb. 6, when both men agreed to drop the sanctuary clause but retain the substance of the old city refugee policy.

Woo acceded to Bernardi’s request for a 15-member task force to look at the impact of undocumented aliens on city services. Woo met with sanctuary activists to inform them of the compromise.

At midnight, after a half-hour spent making final wording changes by telephone, Woo and Bernardi reached agreement.

The next morning, the two men appeared at a joint news conference with separate press statements. And then the council overwhelmingly rescinded the old resolution and approved a replacement--with no mention of sanctuary.

Compromise Defended

Woo defended the new resolution as a sensible compromise that kept as city policy the substantive part of his original proposal.

On the council, only Robert Farrell did not go along. He cast the lone vote against repealing the sanctuary clause. “There was no compromise,” he said. “There was a backing off of the commitment to sanctuary. What we did was take a step back from our commitment to a basic principle.”

After the council vote, representatives from five refugee organizations in the city released a formal statement also questioning the council action.

“It is apparent that the City Council acted to withdraw the word sanctuary from its resolution out of concern for the racist hysteria which was being provoked by critics of the resolution,” the statement said in part.

Sister Jo’Ann De Quattro, the sanctuary chair for the Interfaith Task Force on Central America of the Southern California Ecumenical Council, said the council should not have been scared off by the Bernardi initiative. “My hope was that we could have used it to discuss this (refugee) issue and educate people,” she said.

Opposed by Wide Margin

Bernardi said that although he was relieved that his initiative drive had ended, a telephone poll he commissioned showed voters were lined up nearly 3-1 against the idea of “a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants.”

The INS’ Ezell also argued that the prospects of a one-sided vote pushed the council to reverse itself.

“I think the councilmen who led that irresponsible thing could see the handwriting on the wall. If this had gone to the people for a vote, I think they would have been swept out of office,” Ezell said.

Reflecting on his compromise, Woo told The Times he has no regrets about the outcome.

His own father and grandfather were refugees from China, Woo explained, and he had introduced the sanctuary resolution to make good on a campaign promise to do what he could to keep the door open to refugees of this generation.

“Some people will think I’m a sellout,” said Woo, “and some people will think I can put a compromise together. I guess we’ll have to wait until we find the real impact.”

Political Error Seen

One political consultant familiar with the issue, who asked not to be identified, said he believes Woo made a big political mistake. “I think he lost a lot credibility with his colleagues because he didn’t go to the mat. This was his issue, and the first thing out of the block he backs away from it. It’s got to hurt him.”

Among his colleagues, however, there is little public criticism of Woo. Russell and Yaroslavsky, in fact, say that Woo rose in their esteem in fashioning a compromise out of a ticklish political situation.

And Woo said the sanctuary fight was only “a brush fire” in what looms as a larger debate about immigration in Los Angeles.

“Basically, the role I’m trying to carve out for myself here is that I’d like to be known as someone who has some kind of vision of the future for our city and someone who is willing to fight for principle but also as somebody who is pragmatic and knows how to count votes and knows when to push and when to step back,” he said. KEY PLAYERS IN THE DEBATE