HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 15 2026 - Public Comment - Lizett Rodriguez Pena1
Stefan Mercer
From:Lizett Rodriguez Pena <attorneylrp@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 15, 2026 12:27 PM
To:Public Comments; Mayor Greg Bozzo; Council Member Dion Bracco; Council Member
Tom Cline; Council Member Terence Fugazzi; Council Member Zachary Hilton; Council
Member Carol Marques; Council Member Kelly Ramirez
Cc:Kim Mancera; Matt Morley; Diane Ortiz
Subject:EXTERNAL - Public Comment: Amicus Brief, No Staging Policy, Emergency Plan
Dear Mayor, Mayor Pro Tempore, and City Councilmembers,
My name is Lizett Rodriguez Pena, and I am a Board Member of Youth Alliance, an nonprofit that
supports youth families in Gilroy, CA, and a local immigration.Thank you for unanimously approving
the resolution opposing the proposed ICE facility on unincorporated County land near Gilroy. I am
writing to ask you to build on your resolution with three actions to provide concrete protections.
1. Before the end of June, join the amicus brief being filed by the County of Monterey with the Public
Rights Project. The brief supports the lawsuit filed jointly by Santa Clara County and the California
Attorney General on June 10. The counties of Monterey and Alameda and the cities of San Jose and
Alameda have already signed on, with more in process. Gilroy belongs in this coalition.
2. Agendize a "No-Staging Zone" policy for your next Council meeting, prohibiting the use of City
property — parking lots, parks, and other City-owned or City-controlled land — for civil immigration
enforcement staging and operations. City property should be used for City and community purposes.
Gilroy can move quickly, as Campbell, Sunnyvale, and Mountain View did, by adapting the policies
adopted by San Jose (1/13/26) and Santa Clara (2/3/26). These were developed with thorough review by
County Counsel and the San Jose City Attorney, and have also been adopted by VTA and the Counties
of Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Alameda. Gilroy benefits from that legal
groundwork.
3. Establish an emergency response plan so the City is prepared to protect public safety and support
residents in the event of a large-scale enforcement operation, using the models from the City of San Jose
and Santa Clara County to strengthen Gilroy's existing protocols.
This matters deeply to me because I have personally witnessed the pain and suffering caused by family
separation and the growing fear that many immigrant families live with every day. Across the country,
short-term and long-term immigration detention facilities have repeatedly raised concerns about
inhumane conditions, lack of transparency, and systems that can prioritize detention and profits over
human dignity.
Opening an immigration detention facility in the City of Gilroy and near surrounding communities
would have serious consequences for residents, especially in neighborhoods made up largely of
farmworker families and mixed-immigration-status households. The presence of such a facility would
create fear and instability for people who already face barriers to accessing legal support and navigating
an extremely complex immigration system.
CAUTION: This email originated from an External Source. Please use proper judgment and caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or
responding to this email.
2
The City of Gilroy should be a place where all people feel safe, welcome, and connected, not a place
associated with detention and fear. There are also broader community impacts to consider. Local
businesses and public spaces depend on residents and visitors feeling comfortable participating in
community life. Increased fear and insecurity can discourage people from coming into town, supporting
local commerce, accessing services, or participating in civic life.
A March 2026 report from the Bay Area Council Economic Institute found that mass deportation could
reduce regional economic output by as much as $67 billion annually. Gilroy's businesses depend on
workers and customers who will be driven away by fear and detention.
Also, we are already seeing serious strain in the local immigration court system, with large numbers of
people scheduled for hearings at the same time and many receiving limited notice or lacking meaningful
opportunities to secure legal counsel. Expanding detention infrastructure risks increasing pressure on a
system that many families already struggle to navigate and raises concerns about access to due process
and legal representation.
We urge city leaders to consider not only the economic and operational impacts of this proposal, but also
its human impact. The City of Gilroy should choose policies that strengthen community trust, protect
human dignity, and ensure that all residents and neighboring communities can live without fear. Today
the City of Gilroy has an opportunity to reflect values of inclusion, community well-being, and respect
for human rights. Gilroy has been built by diverse immigrant and farmworker communities.
Thank you for your leadership, and for taking these next steps for the safety and well-being of our
community.
Respectfully,
Lizett Rodriguez Pena, Esq.
Youth Alliance Board Member/ Local Immigration Attorney
--
Best regards,
Lizett Rodriguez Pena, Esq.
LRP Law Firm, APC
Phone: 831 245-9618| Email: attorneylrp@gmail.com
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the
Internet.
3
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged
information and are intended only for the named recipient. Unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited.
If you received this in error, please reply to the sender and delete all copies. Protected by the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521.
AVISO DE CONFIDENCIALIDAD: Este mensaje y sus adjuntos pueden contener información
confidencial o privilegiada y están destinados solo al destinatario indicado. El uso o divulgación no
autorizados está prohibido. Si lo recibió por error, responda al remitente y elimine todas las copias.
Protegido por la Ley de Privacidad de las Comunicaciones Electrónicas, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2521.