Councilmembers who voted on opposite sides of Riverside's controversial Safe Communities Resolution agree on at least one thing: it has limited power to change federal immigration enforcement. Where they differ is whether that makes it worthless or worthwhile.
In exclusive interviews with the Raincross Gazette, councilmembers who supported and opposed the resolution—which passed 4-3 on Oct. 14 after more than three hours of public testimony—outlined their reasoning.
The resolution calls on federal immigration agents operating in Riverside to use clearly marked vehicles, wear visible identification and follow transparent protocols. It also directs the Riverside Police Department to monitor and document suspected federal enforcement activity when legally permissible, with monthly reports expected to begin by early December.
Cervantes said the City Manager's office will coordinate implementation, including preparing a public education campaign and creating a city website with resources for residents.
'People Are Living in Fear'
Cervantes said the resolution stemmed from a July operation at the Home Depot on Madison Street, where social media video showed masked agents wearing U.S. Border Patrol and Homeland Security Investigations uniforms handcuffing individuals and loading them into unmarked vehicles. RPD confirmed to the Gazette they were not notified of the operation.
"This prompted my office to partner with CHIRLA and IC4IJ to introduce the Safe Communities resolution," Cervantes said. "People are living in fear. By having the Chief of Police, Larry Gonzalez, at the table we are able to demonstrate the Riverside Police Department is prepared to work with us to ensure transparency, maintain public safety, and uphold new California state laws," including Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, which limits local resources in federal immigration enforcement.
When asked what success would look like in six months, Cervantes emphasized community impact over enforcement metrics.
"If one more family or person feels a little safer leaving their home to go to work, the grocery store, seek medical care, or visit one of our parks, that to me is also a measure of deep success," she said.
Jurisdictional Questions
Councilmember Steven Robillard, who voted against the resolution, said he appreciated dialogue with community groups but believes the measure oversteps city authority.
"Federal enforcement tactics are outside our jurisdiction, and any attempt to impose local policy on them is largely symbolic," Robillard said. "The resolution was, in my view, a political statement rather than a measure that produces meaningful outcomes for residents."
"I don't expect much from the monthly reports, since federal authorities have no obligation to share details of their operations with local police," he said. "In most cases, RPD only receives a courtesy notification, and after this vote, I suspect even that will happen less often."
'Aspirational' But Limited
Councilmember Philip Falcone voted yes while explicitly acknowledging the resolution's limitations.
"There is no concrete value or leverage the city has against the federal government (this is codified in the Supremacy Clause) but 98% of residents who spoke at the meeting and a majority of the City Council believed this was an important statement of values and an aspirational resolution," Falcone said.
Falcone, who represents the Eastside, said constituents told him they are afraid to leave their homes.
"In this country, no one should be afraid to leave their home, no matter their immigration status," he said.
When asked what success would look like, Falcone said federal agents removing themselves from "the shroud of secrecy by showing their names, faces, and label their vehicles" would be a positive step.
"Our police officers have operated effectively in Riverside for decades all while showing their faces, their names, and labeling their vehicles, how can it work for them but not work for ICE?" he said.
'Government Overreach'
Councilmember Sean Mill, who also voted yes, declined to answer specific questions about the resolution but provided a broader statement on his vote.
"I will always stand up against what I see are overreaching and authoritarian actions by the government," Mill said, drawing parallels to his opposition to COVID-19 restrictions on schools and businesses. "I stand for liberty, freedom and the Constitutional rights for all, it can't be situational. The Constitution is there to protect the governed from the government, not the other way around."
Mill said he is "not a fan of non-binding resolutions from the Council" and would prefer "dealing with filling potholes, trimming trees, improving infrastructure and working on trying to find solutions for our ever worsening homeless issue."
Mask Ban Contradiction
The resolution expresses concern about masked federal agents operating in Riverside—a stance that creates an apparent contradiction with votes several councilmembers took in October 2024 on a proposed ordinance that would have banned masks at protests.
The October 2024 proposal, which the council rejected 5-2, would have prohibited protesters from wearing face coverings. Police Chief Larry Gonzalez argued at the time that masks created "a shield of anonymity" that emboldened illegal activity and undermined accountability during protests.
Cervantes, who opposed the October 2024 mask ban proposal and sponsored the October 2025 immigration resolution, said the situations are fundamentally different.
"Masked federal agents are funded by our taxpayer dollars and armed with guns and or other weapons," she said. "The mask ban regarding individual protesters' right to privacy is incomparable to paid federal agents who serve the public and are armed."
Councilmembers Chuck Conder and Jim Perry, who supported the October 2024 protest mask ban proposal but opposed the immigration transparency resolution, did not respond to interview requests from the Raincross Gazette.
RPD's Role
The Riverside Police Department said the resolution aligns with its existing Foreign National Policy (Policy 417), which prohibits officers from asking about immigration status except in specific circumstances.
"Riverside Police do not enforce federal immigration laws; that's the role of ICE or Border Patrol," said Ryan Railsback, RPD's public information officer.
RPD said if officers learn of suspected federal immigration enforcement activity, they will contact the appropriate federal agency to confirm their presence and document the information in the computer-aided dispatch system or an incident report.
However, RPD did not provide specific data on how many times Policy 417 has been invoked in the past 12 months, saying only it had received "several reports" about immigration enforcement activity in Riverside. The department said some reports turned out to be RPD's own Public Safety Engagement Teams conducting homeless outreach, while others involved actual federal law enforcement.
Response to Critics
In a Facebook post after the vote and during his remarks at the Oct. 14 meeting, Councilmember Conder cited three specific individuals he said ICE arrested in Riverside with serious criminal convictions. Conder did not respond to requests for arrest dates, case numbers or documentation of the arrests.
"I would implore him to gather factual data and learn about the hundreds of U.S. Citizens wrongfully detained by immigration agents across the country," Cervantes said. "Being or appearing of Latino descent, working a certain job, having an accent, or speaking another language does not make people criminals. People have been taken without warrants or due process, and that is criminal. I have full faith in the Riverside Police Department and local law enforcement officials to apprehend dangerous criminals."
What's Next
Cervantes said she will work with the City Manager's office and nonprofit partners to ensure implementation. The resolution takes effect immediately, directing the city attorney and city manager to monitor federal enforcement and explore legal challenges to practices that violate residents' rights.
Councilmembers Steve Hemenway, who voted yes, and Jim Perry, who voted no, did not respond to interview requests. The City Manager's office and City PIO also did not respond to questions about implementation specifics.
