Decrying Federal Deportation Flights, Eureka Stops Use of Avelo
By OrangeRye – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, Via WikiCommons
Vilified for contracting with the federal government on deportation flights, Avelo Airlines has lost the City of Eureka’s business.
It only amounts to about $2,500 a year but the city’s snub of Avelo was described as meaningful by councilmembers and public speakers when the decision was made at the July 8 council meeting.
Brought forward by Councilmember Mario Fernandez, directing an end to the city’s Avelo travel was described as being in alignment with Eureka’s status as a Sanctuary City.
Avelo is locally valued for its comparatively cheap flights to Burbank from the county’s main airport.
There’s only one local alternative, United Airlines, which City Manager Miles Slattery said would be about 30 to 40 percent more expensive.
But councilmembers and those who spoke during a public comment period described use of Avelo as morally bankrupt.
The majority of public commenters were from two groups – Humboldt Democratic Socialists of America and Humboldt Democracy Connections.
A member of the latter group was one of several speakers who said the country is backsliding away from democracy and Avelo is assisting it.
She said the federal government has “super-charged ICE (the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency)” and the country is “violently crashing, ramming hatred and power into democratic obstacles, ramming propaganda down the throats of an already apathetic citizenry whose thrill comes from watching others be destroyed.”
Other members of the groups said doing business with Avelo supports a “hatred machine,” “racist, cruel and vile” policies, and Eureka should stop patronizing “fascist airlines.”
One woman said Eureka, too, is vulnerable to ICE actions.
Gesturing her hands in a sweeping motion, she said “it doesn’t matter if they’re citizens or not, they’re just gonna take ‘em away – it’s like a vacuum cleaner, whoosh!”
Councilmembers were receptive to the calls for morality.
Saying he’s “not one to quote from religious texts,” Fernandez nevertheless related a quote from the Bible about not oppressing foreigners.
He added, “Avelo’s operation of deportation flights and contract with immigration and ICE customs enforcement is legal, though not moral, and we should not be complicit or complacent in the denial of due process or other 14th Amendment rights.”
Legal staff had advised the council to make the decision via a “consensus” process instead of a formal vote to sidestep potential litigation from Avelo and ICE, but Fernandez said he’d “be remiss” not to call for a vote and he motioned to do so.
Other councilmembers supported that.
Councilmember Kati Moulton described use of Avelo as morally and economically irresponsible.
“The campaign of terror is being waged against the innocent Latino community with or without their papers in order,” she said. “The suspension of due process is not only a stain on the soul of our democracy, it is a crippling injury to our economy that we will feel soon, harming every consumer, every investor, every worker, but hitting working-class people like most of us in Eureka the hardest.”
Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLouche said people with “valid green cards are being removed,” which has personal significance.
“My name is Contreras, it doesn’t matter how I look, the rest of my family does not look like me,” she said. “And that’s not my name by marriage, it’s my name by heritage, and I have the benefit of some protection here but other members of my family do not and they have the misfortune of being down in Arizona and closer to the border.”
She said the city has “an opportunity to make a statement and take a stand and say that we want our constitutional standards to continue forward as they have been.”
Councilmember Leslie Castellano said the country is “experiencing an onslaught of attacks on human rights and community well-being” and deciding not to use Avelo is “a statement that there are better choices and better futures possible for our community.”
Mayor Kim Bergel said the decision “may not make a big difference to Avelo but I think it makes a huge difference to our community – a huge difference.”
Councilmember Scott Bauer agreed with all that was said and called for the vote to stop using Avelo, which was unanimous.
Join the discussion! For rules visit: https://kymkemp.com/commenting-rules
Comments system how-to: https://wpdiscuz.com/community/postid/10599/
Standing up, Eureka! Doing the right thing here.
Good for you Eureka. From a citizen of Eureka.
I will gladly second your comment Zipline!
Let’s close down that pathetic excuse for an airport. Think of the money we’ll save.
That’s not a very good solution then there would be no way to get out of here on an airplane. We don’t need to shut down the whole airport just because we’re against one airline. The other airlines are wonderful shutting down the airport. Definitely would not save us money that’s ridiculous.
Why do you need to get out of here on an airline?
Not going to happen Zip. Why are you even here anymore? Always so negative.
👏👏👏👏👏
and thanks to DSA and HDC for holding space and turning words into actions!
Democrats are not a legitimate opposition. The Democrats are part of the problem and why we are here in the first place. And they only cry about genocide when the president is now a Republican. Controlled opposition at best. We all deserve to be free of our ridiculous, “two-sides” propaganda narrative that keeps us all downtrodden.
That’s why we need ranked choice voting, and why we’ll probably never get it.
If its one of the DSA trying to get on the council it’s going to be a no from me.
We have ranked choice voting for primaries. Personally, I think it’s a disaster because the top ranked are always from one party. What’s the “democracy” in that?
Well, that’ll teach them…
The Eureka City Council is SO pathetic…
This will do nothing but put a burden on people trying to get out of Humboldt. The government doesnt care what piddely eureka council does But it may bring there attention to all the people who get Gov. help and do not work.
Lucky to have an Airport with a 10 million dollar parking lot or whatever…
AND and air company willing to fly there…
Gift Horse, kiss on lips, all of that…
The damn airport isn’t even IN Eureka!
The last time I was at the airport I couldn’t figure out how to get into the parking area. I tried two different what I thought were entrances and neither one seemed to work.
Pardon? Avelo still services our airport; it’s just that no Eureka employees will use it for work-related travel. The only question is, will $2,500 less per year chase Avelo away?
$2500? That’s not even the fuel cost from a single flight hour. But out of curiosity I looked at flights for the next couple weeks. Prices avg. ~$120 and planes 30-40% full out of 149 seats on their 737-700s per their website, they’re already at about $7000 per flight. 4-5 flights per week, just going to Burbank. So no, they aren’t going to miss that $2500, if they even blink.
Sounds like this hits close to home—can I ask what part of it feels most frustrating to you?
For a lot of us, this wasn’t about stopping flights for locals—it was about pushing back on secret deportations happening without public input. Do you think cities like Eureka should just stay quiet?
Appreciate you speaking up either way.
Making us a sanctuary city certainly wasn’t well thought out. It’s all about How the Eureka City council “feels” is happening with no evidence or proof. I really don’t understand how they can mandate something that will inconvenience so many. What “secret” deportations have occured? Let’s see how many of the worst of the worst end up here on our streets committing crimes like they do in other larger cities. Being a “sanctuary” simply invites trouble most of us would rather avoid.
I hear you—public safety and transparency matter to me too.
The concern isn’t about letting “the worst of the worst” in. It’s about not letting our city be used for quiet deportations without any say from the people who live here. When we don’t ask questions, bad things can happen in the dark.
Can I ask—what would count as proof to you that something is worth opposing, if it’s happening behind closed doors?
Virtue signaling is expensive——–30-40% more expensive. Whaaa ha ah ha, I love it.
Except not even one red cent of the added cost of their self righteous virtue signaling will be coming out of their OWN pockets…
How very ALTRUISTIC of them…
And now they will be getting free drinks…
Such a self sacrifice…
Oh wait, it was actually parasitic virtue signaling…
Nothing screams superior ethics and unsurpassed morality quite like voting that other people must fund your free flight, free upgrade, and free drinks, booze, and snacks …
No question whatsoever about that, right…???
Oh, wait…!!!
Booze for the win…!!!
This.
You don’t think that anyone on the city council finds what Avelo’s doing to be morally repugnant? Or do you think everyone on the city council is evil and trying to rob you blind to line their own pockets?
No to #1. #2 doesn’t comport to first statement. Set up. This isn’t a heads or tails option where when you ask questions, the responder loses either way. IE; 1) your stupid if you don’t realize the city council has feelings, or 2) you are stupid if you think the city council is evil and wants to rob your bank account. Philosophy 101.
You sound overly emotional…
I think it matters not a whit what the Eureka City Council thinks of Avelo, individually, and/or collectively speaking, when it comes to ECC properly and legally performing their fiduciary duty on behalf of the citizens of Eureka…
And it also matters not a whit what I think of ECC, when it comes to them properly and legally performing their fiduciary duty on behalf of the citizens of Eureka…
You are confusing things that don’t matter, with things that do matter…
If they do not properly and legally perform their fiduciary duty to the citizens of Eureka, and play biased politics, instead, then my opinion of them as far as their ethics and professionalism is concerned, will surely have diminished significantly and irreparably…
What I think is that the Eureka City Council doesn’t realize or understand what its fiduciary duty really entails, and what its fiduciary duty really doesn’t entail…
Maybe I’m wrong, and they’re really on point…
But maybe I’m right, and they are unprofessionally letting their unchecked personal and collective antipathy and biased political ideology cloud proper judgement, and that they just made a big mistake…
You’ve clearly put a lot of thought into this, and I respect that.
It sounds like you’re drawing a firm line around what you believe the council’s duty should be. I think others see standing up for human rights as part of that duty.
Out of curiosity—do you think government spending should ever reflect moral values, or should it always stick strictly to neutral services?
I think the Eureka City Council is simply clueless and led by their feelings and desire to make everything pretty with no attention paid to all the empty store fronts, dwindling medical personnel not to mention the closing of drug stores and the fact you will no longer be able to get an RX from Walgreens on the week-end. The job of city council members and the city manager is to manage the budget and to improve our economy. Immigration is a privilege offered to those who come here legally and become citizens. Offering a sanctuary to the lawless isn’t exactly as virtuous as the city council believes. I wonder how long it will be before we have the “the worst of the worst” hiding out here and committing crimes like we see in larger cities.
Sounds like this really struck a nerve. Is there something about this issue that feels personal to you?
I ask because a lot of folks are frustrated right now, and I want to understand where you’re coming from.
Something really struck a lot of nerves within the Eureka City Council..
There is clearly something about this issue that appears to be very personal to THEM…
That’s what you should be focusing on, if you really want answers…
You are barking up the wrong tree, by asking me…
If you want to understand where someone is coming from, ask the Eureka City Council members…
Sounds like you might be one of them…
They are the one’s that are “reasoning” using their triggered emotions, instead of reasoning using only their brains, like they are supposed to be doing…
And they are grandstanding, politically, outside the scope of their employment…
That is self interest…
If they want to boycott Avelo, they should just shut up and do it…
No need to make a spectacle of themselves, unless they think it will win them votes, which would make it unethical…
But if they are breaching or terminating a mutually binding contract with Avelo, without due cause, merely due to a conflicting political and or personal agenda, and have exposed the City of Eureka to potential litigation, they have all crossed a professional line, in my opinion, that would be grounds for termination…
Boycotting is one thing, conspiring to complicity and explicitly breach a legally binding contract, is quite another…
Whether or not there exists such a binding contract has not been revealed…
If there is one, the prudent thing for the Eureka City Council to have done is to have just simply let the contact expire, and then recontracted with United for services…
Justifying why they didn’t go with the lowest bidder at that point would possibly be less subject to a lawsuit from Avelo, but the Eureka City Council might still need to PROPERLY justify the increased expenditure…
Emotional outbursts and political preferences don’t cut it…
I hope that answers your questions…
Now, if you don’t mind me also asking…
Where, exactly, are you coming from…???
Fair question. I live in Eureka. I’m not on the City Council—I just care about what kind of city we are.
For me, it’s personal because I’ve seen how people get treated when their rights aren’t protected. I don’t think it’s “emotional” to stand up and say, “Let’s not be silent partners in something cruel.”
If there’s a legal issue, it should be handled transparently—but morality doesn’t have to wait for a contract to expire.
What kind of city do you want us to be known as?
I don’t think an extra $700 or so per year will bankrupt the city. If it does, they have bigger issues.
That’s the same excuse they us for every spending increase.. It’s just a few $ more. That shit all ads up And that’s why our state is almostteo trillion dollars in debt now..
Just so you know, ECC, I am officially declaring my hard earned money as a sanctuary status of not supporting anything Eureka. That’s going to cost Eureka more money than their airline tickets for the year. Hopefully anyone who thinks you’re bigoted way of doing business is wrong, please join me. Leftist lunatics are useless.
ME TOO. I WILL NOT JOIN THEIR Social justice intimidation.
lol ok. You must be a joy at family gatherings
I’d like to know what bigoted behavior is being displayed by refusing to spend city funds with an organization abetting kidnappings of brown and black people to third party countries of brown and black peoples🧐. how is supporting the incarceration of children, the elderly, and the hardworking without due process NOT bigoted? I’ll wait…
is your pretzel 🥨 logic done fermenting yet?
They came here illegally which is a felony. It’s illegal Federally to have a sanctuary city. Beings the elected officials sware to uphold and protect the US Constitution when taking office, they are all traitors to the country. It’s illegal for any government agency to discriminate against businesses in an open bid based on political affiliation. There’s so much more. Eureka “government” and California in general are not leaders, but far left activists. And yes, if the city was run by the right, the same discrimination would be taboo. There’s zero integrity in activist “leadership,” mostly a leftist way of doing things. So, say goodbye to my money. I’m unwilling to support this kind of BS.
Entering the country illegally is a misdemeanor
And a CIVIL offense
facts don’t matter to the pretzel logic folk
Being deported and then come back again illegally into the US, then it becomes a felony.
Entering the country illegally isn’t a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. Unless you’re already a criminal; most of the people you’re complaining about came here to work.
It is a Federal crime, which if Federally prosecuted is a felony. If it’s state prosecuted, maybe it’s only misdemeanor
That’s what due process is for. If they’re not allowed that, then you should have no expectation of it either.
Just to clarify the legal facts: Entering the U.S. without authorization is not a felony for first-time offenders. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
If you enter the country at age two, then eventually try to reenter the country after leaving the country for a vacation trip to Mexico, is that then legitimately considered a deportable felony…???
(Just to clarify the legal facts:)
Uhhh I work for several local contractors, all of their best employees are illegal. They do amazing work and go home at the end of the day to support their families. All of the local white employees suck including myself in comparison. The contractors are pissed off at trump at this point.
They like under the table tax free workers. That doesn’t make it ok. I would never work for or hire a contractor with illegal immigrants working for them. And… I’ve been doing construction off and on since I was a child. I was always one of the most efficient on the crew.
Pa
Well said, Alf.
To add more to it, the Democrat leadership, you know, Biden and Harris, opened the border and invited illegal entry to the country. Since entering illegally is a felony, how about the former P and VP being charged with an estimated 15 million counts of felony aiding and abetting in the commission of felonies? That’s what it is, plain and simple. Add to that the aiding and abetting of known terrorists, violent gang members and drug trafficking cartels. Aiding and abetting the violent criminals should actually be capital crimes.
Oh, come on. That’s nothing compared to paying a Hooker A couple hundred thousand dollars to keep her mouth shut.. Although ironically enough most people pay them to open their mouth, LOL.
What was it stretched out to? 37 counts of lawfair? Yeah, even if you only count the violent intruders, it’s hundreds of thousands of actual counts. Liberal TDS is burying their heads in the sand again because it’s their P and VP that are actually the criminals.
Aiding and abetting farm workers, dishwashers, construction workers, nannies…
Illegal is illegal. It’s a crime to hire an undocumented alien who doesn’t have a work permit, so there’s more aiding and abetting, just so they can hire under the table tax free for a reduced wage, thus having no more moral high ground than a sweat shop. Yeah…
Just an FYI, you know what other entity detains folks trying to get here illegally or stops them before they can? The Coast Guard. Good luck shutting those bases down.
Ha the feds don’t think so try to pull that sanctuary city crap on them. Let’s see how that goes for you.
The more these sanctuary cities fight and resist federal law the more attention they bring to every illegal immigrant they are trying to protect. Just hand over the known criminals and the “innocent” illegal immigrants would be left alone. Looking forward to having Tom Homan in my back yard.
I don’t read this as the city of Eureka trying to prove anything, nor as “virtue signaling.” The council simply was repelled by supporting an airline that is abetting cruel treatment to persons who have not had due process of law. It’s true there’s not much money involved with these tickets, and I doubt that Alf’s withholding of his “hard earned money” is going to make much difference, either. These actions are expressions of feelings, and that’s reason enough.
This is wild. Do we know if any of the city council members hold United Airlines stock? Do the people of eureka need to pay 50-80% more to travel so that the City Council can sleep at night in their virtue signal blankets?
Will Avelo truly suffer without the $2500/year from the city of Eureka?
I think we all know the answers here.
Great, our only affordable flight to or from here. Good job Humboldt, find more ways to lose us money! Everybody here is doing so great and doesn’t need it at all
This is childish. Are we going to ban Nike’s from Eureka stores because they run sweatshops? Stopping Avelo flights will accomplish nothing other than making it more difficult for people to get here. You know who uses those Avelo flights? BUYERS flying up here to bring money to our community. Way to take a stand, I swear this county WANTS to go broke.
Just to be clear…anyone can still use Avelo EXCEPT the City of Eureka. They are choosing to not spend their money with the airline. It is no different than you deciding not to buy a brand of beer because they made a commercial you didn’t like.
LOL! Or to quote an expert, “snort!”
Avelo made a beer commercial that the Eureka City Council didn’t like…???
I guess I must have missed it…
Are you sure it wasn’t a cold turkey commercial…???
I think that is what the Eureka City Council REALLY DIDN’T LIKE…!!!
MUCH TOO SOBERING OF AN EXPERIENCE…!!!
Funny that you bring up alcoholic beverages…
You see, Avelo doesn’t serve them for free, or at all…
No alcohol consumption is served or allowed on their flights, free or otherwise…
And they don’t serve snacks either…
However, United does…
Eureka City Council just decided they would rather be provided with free taxpayer funded flights on an airline that they didn’t have to fly “cold turkey” and snackless…
It wasn’t about what kind of beer at all, it was about no alcohol or snacks or free alcohol and snacks…
Let’s not kid ourselves…
And it’s not like it is/was the Eureka City Council who was actually paying for the flights either way…
All taxpayer funded…
Now, alcohol will be included, with United…
With Avelo, it was all about, “cold turkey”…
Thank you for clarifying, the language is confusing. Hard to look at this as anything more than politicians rewarding themselves with a nice pat on the back. “For political reasons, we are no longer going to use the affordable airline, we will now use your money on more expensive airline tickets because…we don’t like Trump.” I stand by my initial statement, this is childish behavior.
The difference is around $700 per year, out of a budget in the millions. There are much more significant things to get upset about.
A fiduciary duty is a fiduciary duty…
That is the significant thing…
To ignore that is to breach that fiduciary trust…
Respectfully, I buy my beer with my own money. The city will now pay more with the people’s money.
Excellent point Kym!
There’s a difference between personal discrimination and government discrimination. Government discrimination is actually illegal.
It’s not “their money” they are choosing to spend more of, unnecessarily…
The Eureka City Council has a fiduciary duty to the citizens of Eureka to contract like services at the most affordable price…
The Eureka City Council subjecting their decisions to their very own personal, political, and/or idealogical principles, and unnecessarily spending more of the taxpayers money to achieve unnecessary, frivolent objectives, is, in my opinion, a blatant breach of their fiduciary duty to the financial well being of the citizens of Eureka whom they are suppose to be responsibly representing…
It would be interesting to hear an opinion from someone fluent in the associated law…
It seems to me that the Eureka City Council is playing a little too fast and loose with the City’s finances that they have been entrusted with, and are only doing so, in order to satisfy their personal and collective political agenda…
That is not in the interest of the citizens of Eureka, which makes it a conflict of interest, does it not…???
I don’t purport to be an expert on the matter, but it does seem pretty iffy to me…
I’d love to see Eureka get sued for political discrimination. Avelo, last stats I saw, has the best stats for both safety and on time flights, with also the lowest number in flight cancelation of any airline, any size. Plus they have cheaper fares. This is clearly illegal activism at the city taxpayers expense.
Unfortunately, any settlement wouldn’t come out of their pockets either…
Losing their City Council positions would be the best outcome…
Agreed! Discrimination of any kind used to mean automatic termination or removal from office, but not with the lefties.
The City of Eureka didn’t ban Avelo or prevent anyone from flying with them. This was a decision about where public money goes.
The city decided that, given Avelo’s participation in deportation flights, it no longer wanted to support the airline financially.
The cost difference is real, but it’s estimated at around $700 a year—out of a city budget that’s over $80 million. Cities consider cost, yes, but they also consider public values, community impact, and symbolic messages. That’s not new—and it’s not unique to this issue.
For what it’s worth, the Trump administration also made spending decisions based on politics. It redirected federal funds away from sanctuary cities, withheld grant money from states that disagreed with its policies, and is steering contracts toward companies aligned with its goals. Using public funds to express political priorities isn’t a new idea—it’s how government works at every level.
Even further, Trump appears to be enriching himself and his family by what laws he supports or denies: https://www.opensecrets.org/trump/trump-properties
He simply pulled funding from illegal activities, illegal immigrants and refuses to help the left with illegal activities. Sanctuary is indeed Federally illegal. Welfare for illegal immigrants is also illegal.
Maybe since Biden illegally allowed millions to enter the country illegally, the left should ask him for personal funding. Oh yeah… he’s been deemed mentally incompetent to be held accountable for his actions by some of his cronies.
Just to clarify:
The reality is that immigration law—and how it’s enforced—has long involved a mix of federal authority and local discretion. Cities legally have the right to make decisions about how their money is spent, including when those decisions are symbolic or rooted in community values. You have the right to disagree with the city council’s decisions. You have a right to work to get them changed.
But they are legal to the best of my knowledge.
The 9th Circuit, really? They are the most activist court of lawless behavior in the nation. As far as a local government not use money to support immigration enforcement, that’s true, but using it like California to assist them to evade is definitely not lawful. There’s actually a crime called criminal evasion. Certainly no ethical government would commit that crime, you know, like AOC, The LA Mayor and most far left districts.
U got this Alf. Keep the facts rolling….
Citing the 9th Circuit Court as some kind of bastion of legal authenticity is a damn joke. The lower level circuit court judges are appointed activist pawns. This administration is absolutely shaking things up and seem to be reminding everyone that it was a good run. And now the endless river of free EVERYTHING for grifter illegals looks like its coming to a screeching halt.
If people want to avoid interactions with ICE it’s time to self deport, and come in through the appropriate channels; not that hard to figure out.
“But they are legal to the best of my knowledge.”
-Kym Kemp-
___________________________________
Then why this…???
“Legal staff had advised the council to make the decision via a “consensus” process instead of a formal vote to sidestep potential litigation from Avelo and ICE, but Fernandez said he’d “be remiss” not to call for a vote and he motioned to do so.”
“Other councilmembers supported that.”
“Councilmember Scott Bauer agreed with all that was said and called for the vote to stop using Avelo, which was unanimous.”
___________________________________
Why did they act in opposition to, and in defiance of, their OWN legal counsel’s advice…???
Sounds pretty self serving, haughty, and arrogant, to me…
You’re entitled to think the City Council acted in a way that was self-serving, haughty, or arrogant.
But the point I was making is simply this: Sanctuary cities are not currently illegal. Courts have consistently upheld their legality, even if some disagree with the policy. You’re free to oppose the concept—and yes, the Trump and future administrations may try to change the law—but as it stands right now, being a sanctuary city is legal.
The legal staff’s caution was about avoiding potential litigation, not about whether the policy itself is illegal. Governments often weigh legal risk when taking symbolic or political actions, even if those actions are lawful.
“You have the right to disagree with ➡️ the city council’s decisions ⬅️ . You have a right to work to get them changed.
But they are legal to the best of my knowledge.”
_______________________________________
“The legal staff’s caution was about avoiding potential litigation, not about whether the policy itself is illegal.”
“Governments often weigh legal risk when taking symbolic or political actions, even if those actions are lawful.”
I didn’t say that the policy was illegal…
And what “legal risk” exists that you suggest, “even if those actions are lawful”…???
That’s a self contadiction…
Consider this…
Governments [ALSO] often weigh legal risk when taking symbolic or political actions, even if those actions are [UN]lawful.
Maybe that’s what you meant…???
Because there WOULD be a legal risk ONLY in doing something UNLAWFUL…
The legal staffs advice, was to take a consensus, and to NOT take a formal vote…
The Eureka City Council chose to discard and defy that legal advice…
“Legal staff had advised the council to make the decision via a “consensus” process instead of a formal vote to sidestep potential litigation from Avelo and ICE, but Fernandez said he’d “be remiss” not to call for a vote and he motioned to do so.
Other councilmembers supported that.”
An important consideration regarding the legality or illegality of their action is whether or not the City of Eureka had a mutually binding contract with Avelo that they just arbitrarily and unilaterally breached with their vote without a legitimate cause…
The article doesn’t mention such a contract, but I suspect that one must exist, or the Eureka City Council, etc., could have simply just chosen to fly United…
Is there any way to clarify that…???
On the other hand, if the Eureka City Council was simply arbitrarily setting non contractual, binding City policy on which airline they would pay fares on, and which airline they would not pay fares on, for it’s employees, based on anything besides cost, or more specifically based on a political agenda, that would be political discrimination, and unfair business practices, which could result in legal consequences, like the legal staff clearly indicated…
You clearly like and agree with their decision…
That doesn’t make it right, a legal, or an appropriate decision…
It wasa partisan decision…
That’s what makes it questionable…
The Council has sworn fiscal and fiduciary duties, not sworn political duties…
The decision just so happens to be one you agree with…
You are entitled to that, also…
Of course they are illegal. Just as illegal as if some town declared that no one can be prosecuted for having nuclear bombs inside their town limits or no police can pursue a an insurrectionist onto their streets or a myriad of others things. Such a town has taken a power the Constitution has given elsewhere despite carefully avoiding declaring it because they know it will not fly.
The intent to frustrate the Federal power over immigration is of course clear and you approve but that approval is not material. Even the Mayor of LA knows this. “As the federal government blamed the city and California’s sanctuary status for sending federal agents to conduct immigration raids, Bass admitted she cannot promise that LA will stay as a sanctuary city even though she pledges to do everything within her power to protect the status.”
The Supreme Court has just not ruled on it but it will be forced to soon. The minute sanctuary was declared instead of simply not funding and keeping their mouths shut, they offered a direct challenge they can not win.
https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/why-mayor-bass-cannot-promise-la-will-stay-sanctuary-city-as-she-looks-to-2026-reelection/3741755/
Sanctuary city: one in which police cannot turn in anyone they think of as here illegally because they know that people who are afraid to report crime will cause crimes to proliferate. Not illegal, simple trying to keep it safe. And most immigrants are NOT criminals.
What Trump is doing is illegal, using masked thugs to grab people and deport them with no due process or no proof they are here illegally, so the ECC said,” we will no longer do business with a crook” Simple.
Bud light comes to mind. Sales dropped 10%.
Read the article, man
Facts and details matter. This article is not about telling avelo to skedaddle from the county airport
It should be… but that’s a fight for another day
Past weekend flew to LA round trip for 90 dollars. Sorry, I am all about Avelo.
The weekend of Aug 1 is $225 … Miles cannot math properly and covers for them with an increase of only 30-40% – laughable. What does he care though, he lives in McK. 🙄
It is almost affordable to fly to LA to shop for all the stuff we cant get here.
Flying is proving very dangerous now that trumpnfired all those air traffic controllers…..safer to drive, go by bus or train…
I’m proud of the Eureka City Council for taking this stand against Avelo/ICE deportation flights.
You like they way they tax you then over spend for airfare?
Im ashamed and embarrassed for the failed Eureka city council.
The Democrat Administration’s, supercharged immigration, including undocumented immigration…
Did they expect it to be overlooked by the New Administration that was elected at least partially because of it…???
So effing what if the few self righteous Eureka City employees fly the much more expensive United flights…
It’s just a meaningless sham…
A facade…
It’s a difference entirely without a distinction…
It’s not like they are, or were ever, going to pay for their own flights, either way…!!!
So, it’s definitely not like they are going to pay for the added difference, either…
What sacrifice did they ACTUALLY make…???
NADA…!!!
Not one red cent came out of their “collective” pockets before, and not one additional red cent will come out of their “collective” pockets, after this decision…
It’s ONLY the taxpayers of Eureka that will bear the additional burden of the additional cost of the Eureka City Council’s self righteous “morality” statement…
What’s not EASY, or should I say, SLEAZY, about feigning morality, when they are just putting the additional cost of it on the already overburdened, taxpayer’s dime..???
That’s predatory…
All they did was vote themselves a free upgrade akin to going from flying coach or economy, for free, on the backs of Eureka’s taxpayers, to flying first class, for free, on the backs of Eureka’s taxpayers, instead…
Forgive me, but I fail to see anything moral or upstanding about that WHATSOEVER…
It’s actually immorality, parading and masquerading as morality, nothing more…
It’s hypocrisy…
It’s dispicable, really…
As in…
“We are going to spend MORE of YOUR tax money, on OUR taxpayer funded flights, unquestionably proving OUR moral righteousness and ethical superiority…”
And as in…
(“Pay no attention to the fact that no skin will be coming off of OUR ECC proverbial noses, in the process, whatsoever, or to the fact that every bit of it WILL be coming of YOUR Eka City Taxpayer, proverbial noses, instead…”)
Give me a break…
How can the expense of the financial consequences resulting from anyone’s supposed, alleged, moral and or ethical superiority actually, or even possibly, be parasitically coming from someone else…???
This is just a bunch of meaningless bullshit political posing and posturing…
It’s just more shameless graft, waste, and lack of fiscal accountability…
Leave it to the Deficit and Disorder Democrats to not only propose it, but to also proudly cheer it on with self aggrandizement…
The epitome of fiscal irresponsibility and corruption…
They made a hopeless mess, and now they want to timidly throw a meaningless taxpayer funded temper tantrum, when someone rolls up their sleeves, and boldly steps in to finally address it…
At least now they might get a taxpayer funded, in flight, alcoholic beverage, on United, that they weren’t getting on Avelo…
That’s probably what this was really all about, anyway…
Let’s not kid ourselves…
Exactly.
Just who supports all the millions of illegals here illegally? The city of inveterate liars?
No, you, the taxpayer, do.
Immigrants mostly pay their own way and get paid by check where they pay taxes, sorry to burst your bubble, or they are IT or techies hired by big businesses so they don’t have to pay them as much, but they also pay taxes…Trump also hires immigrants, difference is, he usually doesn’t pay them.
I have a better idea. How about we propose a Voter approved Initiative which requires all of the unhappy and perpetually bitter Democrats in California be mandated to involuntarily move to Mexico. Call it a State taking, meaning they get moved out, like it or not. In return, we will import an equivalent number of Mexican citizens to make up the difference here. That seems like a fair trade and should take care of the problem once and for all. The Democrats can enjoy their Socialism down there, and the new American Mexican citizens will breathe a sigh of relief, realizing their life goal dreams do come true!, “Fweedom – beahahahaha” Kamala Harris, 2024.
In a solidly blue state? You’ll be voting for your own removal.
Increased cost of $2,500 which is nothing…. especially when you’re spending other peoples money to make yourself feel good. This council has surpassed Arcata for stupidity, and that’s saying something.
Spent 2500 with a savings of 1000 No dems here are complaining, and we are not bitter. That would be you. Ya’ll can leave anytime. Idaho awaits you.
I may have been born in the night, but it wasn’t last night…
I figure this is what this whole commotion is REALLY ALL ABOUT…
SNORT…!!!
-AI Overview-
“Yes, United Airlines serves alcoholic beverages on many of its flights. In United First and United Business, alcoholic drinks are complimentary. In United Economy, alcoholic beverages are complimentary on select long-haul international flights and available for purchase on other flights. United has also recently reverted to its pre-pandemic policy of allowing flight attendants to serve two alcoholic beverages per customer upon request.
Here’s a more detailed breakdown:
United First and United Business: Complimentary alcoholic beverages are part of the service.”
______________________________________
-AI Overview-
“No, Avelo Airlines does not provide free alcoholic beverages on their flights. Avelo focuses on low-cost, no-frills travel, and this includes not offering complimentary snacks or alcoholic beverages. Passengers are welcome to bring their own snacks and drinks, including non-alcoholic beverages, on board. Water is available upon request. They also have a “Wine Travels Free” program for certain routes, where passengers can check a case of wine for free.
Key points about Avelo’s in-flight service:
No complimentary snacks or alcoholic beverages: Passengers are encouraged to bring their own snacks and drinks.
Water available upon request: Flight attendants can provide bottled water.”
______________________________________
The Eureka City Council lushes have spoken, and they were obviously tired of having to dry out on free flights…
Sooo…
“Freeloading mixed drinks all around, United style…!!!”,
“Make ’em DOUBLES…!!!”
“Avelo’s tea totaling, freeloading flights warn’t cuttin’ it…!!!”
“Those days are DONE…!!!”
“Put it ALL on the Eureka taxpayers tab…!!!”
“Buuurp…!!!”
“Hiccup…!!!”
“Slobber..!!!”
I think the failed Eureka city council is more into weed than alcohol. They just gummy up before TSA.
Here’s an image of eureka city council after making this decision
Big Rick, you had the right idea, but you made them look too good!
LOL!
Y’all do realize that United — as well as other national carriers — also are contracted to provide ICE deportation flights, right? So are Eureka employees going to be banned from flying United, too? Are all of you who are going to “protest” against ICE carriers now planning on travelling only via bus? Jeesh.
Also every 1st world country does deportation flights, including Canada.
Theres no effort to contextualize information anymore, its always just the most extreme interpretation to fit political biases.
Come on ICE and FBI.
Would love to see the City Councils end up in orange jumpsuits… be dumped off in Cuba.
Same thing as the board of dupes.
Be a big start to resurrecting the north coast.
I completely agree with this. I mean what is next? They gonna shoot federal law enforcement officers? This is very dangerous way of thinking.
No, the federal officers, who wear no badges, wear masks, will next deport you and not ask for proof of citizenship.
No, that’s not going to happen.I don’t live in fear because I’m a law abiding citizen. You and like minded thinkers are spiraling out of control and making it even more dangerous for the ones you claim to be standing up for.
I’m really curious; how do you want the county to look? In your daydreams, how is it run?
First of all, it’s run currently by incompetent airheads. They have zero job skills and we’re elected by the far left, not because they know anything about city government, but because they were the most extreme activists.
So, putting politics aside, I want people with practical brains and a skill set in varying management styles that complement each other in a cohesive group. I want people that have integrity and actually want to serve the community as a whole, not just themselves or maybe their district. I want laws followed for everyone equally, not just what they “feel” is important. I want those who work to protect the interests of all, not just “their” people and showing nothing but hate to those they personally disagree with.
There’s noone in the current ECC, ACC, BOS HCSO, DA Office SSB Office or any branch of the local government that can fill even one of these boxes. It’s all ME ME ME. It’s all f*** you before you f*** me. It’s like one big insane asylum is running the county and it’s major cities.
So how much is this going to cost Eureka tax payers. Who did not vote for this. Or are you all just not going to Fly. I like that plan.
I thought the City Counsel was supposed to make unbiased decisions on how to spend our tax dollars. I can’t help but to think that when traveling to the LA area it is more convenient to land at LAX so they found an excuse to us a more expensive airline. Why not it is the tax payers money.
Five of the main reasons that the Eureka City Council opted to fly United instead of Avelo…???
And ten to one they are gonna want ice onboard…
I think they are more into weed. The decision was a typical weed smokers mentality.
Why not united?why just avelo?
Good point…
Maybe it’s because it’s not about deportations, it’s about alcohol…!!!
Not saying I agree. Just giving some facts.
What’s different in Avelo’s case, according to multiple sources including The Washington Post, is that Avelo operated retail flights for ICE—meaning people could book tickets on the same flights being used for deportations. https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2025/04/11/avelo-airlines-ice-deportation-flights/ That’s a less common practice and has drawn heightened attention.
The City of Eureka’s decision focused on that contract as a direct and current example of participation in ICE’s deportation operations. The City’s action was also symbolic—meant to express concern about deportation policy rather than to single out every company that has ever worked with ICE.
I’d gladly buy a ticket on an ICE flight, if for nothing else other than to witness ICE in action and see illegals getting sent back where they came from. Something about watching criminals get their just reward just makes me happy, unlike the norm in liberal California, where crime is generally rewarded instead.
I could believe that you would enjoy watching people suffering. You say it so I have to acknowledge that you know yourself. But I refuse to believe that you would enjoy watching the small children crying and stressed out. You do remember that the immigrants being deported include small children?
I hope even if you believe it is true about yourself that you are wrong.
It’s not about suffering. It’s about the fact that the parents (or whoever brought them here) are the ones causing the suffering. There’s an honest, legal way to come here. Anyone who chooses to sneak in by ANY other method is a cheater, a despicable human. Therefore Trump is not responsible for their suffering upon removal. They are responsible by trying to scam the system. Under no circumstance, will I care one shred about the inconvenience to any illegal being deported. The millions who come, steal identities on the black market, and are not considered criminals by the left is just insanity. I came across it regularly at “Social Services” so, yes, I think every one of them deported is good riddance. There’s no such thing as a good illegal immigrant. And yes, send their children with them.
You’ve laid your stance out clearly: no empathy, no exceptions, not even for children. That kind of rigidity—where every undocumented person is labeled “despicable” and every child treated as collateral damage—speaks for itself.
You say it’s not about suffering, but your words describe a worldview where suffering isn’t just accepted—it’s dismissed as deserved. That’s a hard posture to square with the values many of us hold dear, like compassion, justice, and the belief that people, especially children, are more than their paperwork.
I’m not trying to change your mind—I know I won’t—but I hope someone reading this sees the humanity that’s missing in your message and chooses to carry a little more of it themselves.
Is it compassionate to support child slavery?
“The Biden administration lost ~300,000 unaccompanied children—many of these innocent children were trafficked and exploited.
At the Ventura, California marijuana facility, @ICEgov and @CBP law enforcement rescued 8 unaccompanied migrant children from what looks like exploitation, violation of child labor laws and potentially human trafficking or smuggling.
We take our responsibility to protect children seriously and will continue to work with federal law enforcement to ensure that children are safe and protected.”
https://x.com/dhsgov/status/1943670784183947394
Soon, he and MAGA will root for deporting or killing you too.
Stop kidding yourself.
I’m actually relieved that my paisanos will be transported in a very good reliable airline.
Good for the city of Eureka. I plan on still flying on Avelo and maybe even more because of the stupid decisions of the city and some of the residents. If you think other airlines are not flying ILLEGALS around, you might be hitting the pipe to hard. What a joke this is.
The city council’s decision wasn’t about Avelo flying illegal immigrants around, it was about Avelo’s contract with ICE to fly deportees to third countries (countries other than the ones the people came from) without due process. HTH.
What does that have to do with the interests of the citizens of Eureka…???
“Do the members of the Eureka City Council have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Eureka…???”
-AI Overview-
“Yes, members of the Eureka City Council do have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Eureka. This duty requires them to act in the best interests of the public and to avoid conflicts of interest that could harm the city or its residents. City officials are also required to file a statement of economic interest annually to promote transparency and accountability.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Fiduciary Duty:
A fiduciary duty is a legal and ethical obligation to act in the best interests of another party. In this case, the City Council members are fiduciaries for the citizens of Eureka.
Best Interests of the Public:
This means that when making decisions, council members must prioritize the well-being of the community over their personal interests or the interests of any specific group.
Transparency and Accountability:
The requirement for council members to file statements of economic interest is one mechanism to ensure transparency and accountability, helping to prevent conflicts of interest and promote public trust.
Charter and Regulations:
Eureka’s City Charter and other regulations reinforce this fiduciary duty, emphasizing that all actions must be taken in the public interest, according to Eureka, CA’s City Council Handbook.
Consequences of Breach:
If a council member is found to have breached their fiduciary duty, they could face legal and ethical consequences, including removal from office.”
______________________________________
Has the entire Eureka City Council ALL just effectively breached their fiduciary duty to the citizens of Eureka, by voting unanimously in favor of this ENTIRELY unnecessary additional financial burden…???
Kinda seems like it to me…
”Eureka City Council do have a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers of Eureka.”
Exactly. And they have chosen to ignore our position and get all political in their decision making. Sounds like this choice is not done.
Hey ECC, how is you parking lot going in the front of city hall. What a joke. Hope the owner puts up a low income tenement.
Next thing you know they’ll be boycotting chinese goods that are made by indentured servants.. Oh wait, I forgot liberals like indentured servitude..
Kind of selective approach to address a sensitive political issue. United Air flies Boeing planes . Boeing makes military aircraft and munition guidance systems that Israel uses to decimate Gaza and kill numerous civilians along with the Hamas terrorists. How about boycotting United Airlines also?
That’s next..
Damn, this is GREAT news! It will free up an extra seat on Avelo to fly an illegal alien to Alligator Alcatraz!
Everyone of these Leftist hand wringers probably have a maid, gardener or laborer who is an illegal alien.They’re terrified that what is happening in The Hamptons, could happen here…
https://thehamptonsbest.com/blog/the-impact-of-deportation-efforts-on-the-hamptons-seasonal-workforce
Just a question—have you ever actually known someone who was deported? Have you seen what it does to them, their families, their friends? To the jobs and communities they’re suddenly torn away from?
I knew a young woman who came to the U.S. at age two. She was engaged to a U.S. soldier and working in Southern Humboldt in a management role for a legitimate business (and no, I don’t know the details of how that was possible). She considered herself American. Then she went to Mexico for vacation. On her return flight, she was arrested and deported—to a country she couldn’t even remember. She landed in England wearing shorts, sandals, and a t-shirt. She had no money, no coat, no place to stay. Her fiancé had to report back to duty or face arrest, so she was alone. Thankfully, a family member met her at the airport. I won’t go into the rest of her story—it’s not mine to tell—but I will say this: whatever your stance on overstayed visas, if you knew how that one moment upended not only her life but the lives of so many others, I can’t imagine not feeling some empathy.
So maybe—just maybe—the so-called “Leftist hand wringers” aren’t worried about missing gardeners and maids. Maybe they’re worried about their friends, coworkers, fellow church members, and loved ones being swept out of their lives—losing jobs, families, medical care, education.
Empathy isn’t a partisan trait. It’s a human one.
What? How dare you.
You actually expect people to show some empathy, take a moral stand? That is so unpatriotic.
You must one of those communist liberals that people are talking about.
-AI Overview-
“Weaponized empathy” refers to the strategic use of empathetic emotions to manipulate or control others, often for personal gain ➡️or to advance a particular agenda⬅️. It involves exploiting another person’s emotional vulnerabilities and empathetic responses to influence their behavior, decisions, or beliefs.
Here’s a breakdown of how empathy can be weaponized:
Understanding the Concept:
Examples of Weaponized Empathy:
Recognizing Weaponized Empathy:
Protecting Yourself:
In essence, while empathy is a vital human capacity, it’s crucial to be aware of how it can be misused and to protect yourself from manipulative tactics.”
AI can’t feel empathy so getting answers there in this situation is
useless.
It’s what’s in your heart that counts.
You didn’t mention which administration she was deported under…
It was quite awhile ago maybe 20 years? The point I was making wasn’t about an administration but that LL ignoring other reasons for not wanting to deport people than wanting servants wasn’t seeing the whole picture.
I had two friends deported while growing up. Both from the 3 strike rule, one got a dui and the other stole a bike. They both worked their way back and became legal citizens.
Nobody would have ever thought to call it fascism because it was much more rational times, politicians and media weren’t leveraging nazi fear propaganda back then
Yeah, but everything concerning deportation has been being centered around orange man bad, anti Trump rhetoric…
And then you use as an example of a deportation that you have as totally unjust, but under whose administration you specifically don’t specify, for whatever reason…
I find that a bit curious…
It could have been under Obama, but that wouldn’t fit the overarching anti Trump narrative would it…???
Even if it happened under Bush, it still wouldn’t fit an Anti-Trump narrative…
“Maybe 20 years” is no n specific puts it well below trump and even in the realm of Obama, who deported more than his share of folks…
It would also place it in the realm of the post 9/11/2001, Homeland Security crackdowns, which left little wiggle room for…
By not mentioning the timeframe, among other intricate details, even roughly, you left it open to interpretation that the deportation that you spoke of may have happened very recently, slipping it into possibly being within the anti Trump narrative, when it now becomes perfectly clear that could not even possibly be the case…
She could not have even possibly entered the country, nor could she even possibly been deported under Trump…
But it remains a mystery, beyond the possibility of Trump, as far as which presidents administration, that she was SO unfairly deported under…
Could it have been under Obama…???
Kinda seems like it…
Could it have been under Trump…???
Not an effing chance…
You might have mentioned that fact, but for whatever reason, you chose not to…
Plenty of other details, just not that one…
Go figure…
At least Trump is off the hook for that deportation of which you spoke, now…
Thanks for that all important clarification…
Yes, I have known people who were deported. Usually, they were back to work at the same job they were forced to abandon after a few months by coming across the border again, illegally. I also know what happens to people who cross the border in other countries illegally. There’s a process to become a citizen of the US and just about every other country. There’s laws and regulations in place to obtain citizenship for a reason.
Empathy isn’t for those who knowingly and willingly break our laws, as far as I’m concerned.
Should there be an easier path for citizenship? I say absolutely. In my opinion, if an illegal alien volunteers to serve in the Armed Forces, joins the Peace Corps or serves the country in a pre-determined, qualifying role for a minimum of four years, honorably and faithfully, citizenship should be granted automatically. If one of those members is wounded or injured in service to the country, citizenship should be granted immediately, as well. The role they fill should include an oath to the constitution of the United States and time set aside while on duty to learn the curriculum that all naturalized citizens have to take.
Those who have been here for years illegally can apply for citizenship. But if you’re here illegally and haven’t taken those steps? Bummer. Out you go once you are caught.
There’s probably more to the story of the young lady you mentioned, but just because she considered herself an American isn’t a qualifying factor. Ignorance of the law or one’s legal status is not a mitigating factor in MOST courts of law, despite the machinations of politicized, leftist jurists.
Sorry about her luck.
Empathy is sometimes misused to foment antipathy…
Sometimes antipathy is disguised, and then masquerades as empathy, to spread antipathy…
Loosely quoted from AI
And what of those grabbed by masked federal agents while waiting in line, legally for their turn at court with a legal green card? There were dozens of them!
I actually agree with much of what you said about creating a clearer, service-based path to citizenship.
That said, my original point wasn’t about who deserves citizenship or whether the law should be enforced—it was about how deportations are being carried out, and the very real human consequences involved. I was responding to the claim that people upset by deportations are just worried about losing their maid or gardener. That’s a narrow and, frankly, dismissive view. Some people are worried because they’ve seen coworkers, classmates, church members, or friends suddenly ripped out of their lives.
We can have different views on immigration policy and still recognize that the process affects real people—and that empathy isn’t weakness. It’s just a wider lens.
And whose fault is it she came at age two? Her parents? Was she shipped here by relatives? Trying to push the emotional buttons isn’t where I look. It goes back to the government, likely far left at the time, not enforcing the law when she was indeed still two. Unfortunately, this has been a progressively worse problem, especially the four “Biden” or whoever was pulling the strings years. Yes, I know people here illegally. Yes, I would like to see them deported. It’s not because I have hatred for them personally. I have a hatred for dishonesty, which includes sneaking in to my country. Identify thieves are just that, thieves. They have no place in society and that’s what millions of illegals are. If it means I pay more for groceries because a citizen or someone with a valid work permit is more expensive, that’s fine. Dishonesty just angers me and I want those involved gone.
Presumably, yes—it was her parents’ decision to bring her here. I don’t know the full backstory. But she herself didn’t do anything dishonest. She grew up here, worked here, got engaged to a U.S. soldier, and considered this country her home. And yet she was deported—without preparation—to a place she didn’t remember, with no money, no shelter, and no support.
You’re absolutely entitled to believe that enforcing the law in that way is the right call. My point is simply that there are also valid reasons—including empathy, community impact, and basic human decency—to question whether deportation, as it’s currently being carried out, is always just or wise.
LiberalLunacy suggested that “leftist hand wringers” are only upset because they don’t want to lose their maids or gardeners. I’m merely pointing out that there are broader, more human reasons people might feel differently than he does.
If she was an adult, she had every opportunity to go to immigration and attempt to become legal. If she didn’t, that’s on her.
I’ll just repeat myself here: You’re absolutely entitled to believe that enforcing the law in that way is the right call. My point is simply that there are also valid reasons—including empathy, community impact, and basic human decency—to question whether deportation, as it’s currently being carried out, is always just or wise.
The simple truth is there’s not a single adult illegal immigrant who was confused about coming here illegally, none that went out for a walk one day and oops, ended up on the wrong side of the border. For them, there’s no reasonable compassion. They choose not to come legally. If they brought their children with them, that’s just like a drunk parent taking their child in the car, crashing and injuring or killing them. The “adult” is the responsible party and should do a better job of being a human than to lie, cheat and steal their way here and then demand we take care of them. My answer is no.
” more human reasons”…???
Seriously…???
Are you really claiming that your reasons, and/or, reasons like yours, are “more human” than anyone/someone/everyone else’s…???
Well, certainly any reason an upright hairless mammal has is a ‘human reason’ –it might not be humane, but it is human reasoning so in that sense you got me. I’m absolutely wrong. I’ll make sure that my wording reflects your concerns in the future.
What….????
Ask AI
Is a comparison of “reasons” as “more human” (vs “less human”), a supremacist type idea…???
-AI Overview-
➡️”Attributing reasons for actions and behaviors as “more human” or “less human” can be a problematic concept with potentially dangerous implications.⬅️
➡️While it is important to analyze and understand the factors driving human actions, framing them in terms of a “more” or “less” human scale raises concerns about how the definition of “human” can be used to justify discrimination and oppression,⬅️
according to the Harvard Gazette.
Here’s why such comparisons are potentially problematic:
Historical Misuse of “Humanity”:
➡️History is filled with examples of dominant groups defining “humanity” in ways that exclude or diminish the standing of others, such as the use of intelligence or other perceived differences to rationalize slavery, colonialism, and the oppression of marginalized communities⬅️, notes Aeon.
The Subjectivity of “Humanity”:
What constitutes “human” or “humanity” is a complex and evolving concept shaped by cultural, historical, and philosophical perspectives. Different societies and philosophical schools of thought hold varying ideas about the essential characteristics of human nature, notes Study.com.
Avoiding Essentialism and Dehumanization:
➡️Attributing “less human” qualities to certain actions or groups risks essentializing and dehumanizing individuals or entire populations. This can pave the way for harmful stereotypes, prejudices, and the denial of human rights and dignity⬅️, says Dame Magazine.
Alternative Approaches:
Instead of judging actions as “more” or “less human,” a more productive approach would involve:
Focusing on Ethics and Morality:
➡️Analyzing actions based on ethical principles and their impact on individuals and society can provide a more constructive framework for evaluating behavior.⬅️
Understanding Underlying Motivations and Factors:
Examining the complex array of biological, psychological, and environmental factors that shape human behavior can offer valuable insights.
➡️In summary, comparing reasons for actions as “more human” or “less human” is a potentially harmful practice with historical roots in supremacist ideologies. It can lead to the dehumanization of individuals and groups⬅️, says History Is A Weapon.
Instead, focusing on ethical considerations and the various factors that influence human behavior can ➡️provide a more appropriate and respectful framework for understanding⬅️ the complexities of human actions.”
___________________________________
“More human” vs “less human” in terms of describing “reasons”, or anything else that involves “people”, for that matter, either approaches the realm of differentiating people as having superior human attributes, vs., having inferior human attributes, or it has already boldly entered that discriminatory realm, in my opinion…
……………………….
“I’m merely pointing out that there are broader, ➡️more human reasons ⬅️ people might feel differently than he does.”
-Kym Kemp-
__________________________
You didn’t say, “human reasons”, you said, “…broader, ➡️”more human”⬅️ reasons…”
What exactly do you mean by, “more human”…???…
…is all that I’m asking…
I don’t really think you meant, “broader, ‘additional’ human reasons”…
Are you really suggesting that there are, actually, “more human” reasons, than LiberaLunacy’s ‘less human’ reasons…???
I hope not…
Whose reasons, in your mind, might the, “more human reasons”, be…???
Leftist’s…???
And whose reasons, in your mind, might be the alternatively, ‘less human reasons’…???
Righty’s…???
LiberaLunacy’s…???
Mine…???
And/or…
…anyone and everyone that doesn’t think or have ‘reasons’ identical to leftist’s…???
Forgive me if I’m a bit shocked by the revelation…
What ever happened to fair and unbiased…???
I entirely disagree with, and completely dismiss and reject the very premise, of any, ‘superior’, “more human reasons”, vs ‘inferior’, “less human reasons” type of comparison, (as it’s clearly a, “some people, like the ones that think or have ‘reasons’ like ‘us’ “), “are more human than others”, (“who don’t think or have ‘reasons’ like ‘us’ “), type of discriminatory comparison…
It would be EXTREMELY divisive…
People, and their reasons, are not more human, or less human, than any other people and their reasons…
People are people…
We are all human…
And we are ALL just EXACTLY as much “human” as everyone else, regardless of whether we are willing to fully accept that or not…
Its a fact…
None are more human, and none are less human…
Full stop.
(It means I respectfully disagree…)
Several of my friends spent years in prison for growing pot. They were all separated from their families. Just out of curiosity, Who do you think has the moral authority to decide what laws we follow and which ones we don’t?
Because with immigration obviously folks get to pick and choose which laws count!! Come on, it’s just a misdemeanor anyway! Like what’s the big deal?? No different than the misdemeanor offense of driving drunk! No biggeeeeeeee!!! Only babies crying over the consequences of immigration policy matter. Got it?
The difference is that driving drunk puts others directly at risk in the moment—it’s a crime of immediate danger. Overstaying a visa or crossing a border without documentation is not the same kind of threat. That doesn’t mean immigration laws shouldn’t exist, but it does mean we should be thoughtful about how they’re enforced and who gets caught up in the system.
And yes—babies crying over the consequences do matter. So do mothers, fathers, workers, students, and neighbors. Not because laws shouldn’t be followed, but because justice should also involve context, proportionality, and humanity.
Mocking the pain of others—and mocking those who feel compassion for that pain—doesn’t make the push for swift deportation more just. It just makes the mocker less humane and less clear-sighted about the real-life consequences of the policies they defend. And, lack of compassion is not a great place to stand, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
Oh, quit it. “Not because laws shouldn’t be followed, but because justice should also involve context, proportionality, and humanity.” Really? From a person who literally told me that an unjust law deserves to be ignored and equated illegal pot growing with pre civil war slavery?
The context is that Biden’s Administration “On Feb. 20, 2024, a user on X posted (archived) and many others shared the claim, “7.2 million illegals entered the U.S. under Biden administration, an amount greater than population of 36 states.” What is even worse, his Administration automated it, California and Humboldt Co and the City of Eureka endorsed it.
Using unskilled immigrant labor is the go-to for holding down labor costs. The wages for unskilled labor in California has been stagnant for decades while housing, taxes, etc have skyrocketed. “For over fifty years, public sector and private sector compensation rates were very similar, rising from roughly $17,000 in 1929 to about $45,000 in the early 1980s (both values are measured using 2008 dollars). But after the early 1980s, compensation rates began to diverge, with public sector pay rising much faster than that in the private sector over the last forty years.” Why the difference? Government does not hire illegal workers. For all the complaining, government employees from teachers to janitors are protected from a lot of the competition that illegal immigration gives. Private workers are not.
I have yet to see any “compassion” from you when people complain about the selective enforcement of laws. In fact mockery, as this comment surely must be, of people supporting enforcing laws is rampant on this site.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/million-migrants-border-biden/
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-in-one-chart/
https://www.hoover.org/research/california-state-government-workers-earn-143000-twice-much-private-sector-workers
https://www.ppic.org/publication/undocumented-immigrants-in-california/
Oh man—you really leaned into the guilt-trip with “mocking = less humane = bad person.” Black belt rhetorical move, no doubt: skip the actual argument, shift the terrain from law and reason to emotion and moral superiority.
Respect—if that was the goal, you nailed it. Ref’s in the ring. 💪 Girl, you rule.
I will try to clarify. I wasn’t mocking suffering—I was mocking the idea that emotional impact alone should determine whether or not we enforce a law. Much different thing.
The fact that a crime doesn’t pose “immediate danger” doesn’t mean it’s harmless or unworthy of enforcement. You’ve decided to create an arbitrary moral line that excuses one law while condemning others. By what virtue are you qualified to decide that? Because by my understanding that logic doesn’t hold. We don’t wait for someone to get hurt before enforcing laws, A lack of “immediate danger” doesn’t mean a law is optional. That’s not how legal systems—or societies—function. It’s wild you want to defend that hill.
Unfortunately, painting my sarcastic endorsement of your own rationale as mocking , cold or cruel was a judo move that fell flat, because once u suggest that only crimes posing immediate danger deserve enforcement your form got all loosey goosey. Plenty of misdemeanor crimes have lasting consequences. People go to jail for them. Families get separated.They carry serious and extensive consequences!
Illegal entry may not involve swerving a car into traffic, but it does have ripple effects: overstretched public services, like k-12 schools universities and health centers, human trafficking risks, labor exploitation, legal backlogs. These aren’t theoretical—they’re real, and they affect communities across the country. C’mon ICE found a handful of unaccompanied minors at the pot farm in Santa Barbara where there were also 200+ other illegals working. I don’t care which side you’re on, that’s not cool.
So why is the left okay with turning a blind eye to a subservient labor class—and the child exploitation that comes with it? And why is ICE vilified for doing their job?
People should be treated humanely yes. Maybe that means we DONT toss aside laws and hysterically and hyperbolically frame all enforcement as cold-hearted, fascist /racist , or cruel.
I’ve known a few folks imprisoned for marijuana growing myself. I’ve stood beside a family member as a mother was taken to jail and her tiny daughter was released into his care. That little girl crawled into my arms, and I did my best to comfort her in the moment—though there was no real comfort to be found. The damage done by that incarceration, like many others during the war on marijuana, rippled out beyond the individual into the lives of children, partners, workers, entire communities.
So your question—“Who has the moral authority to decide what laws we follow and which ones we don’t?”—is a fair one, and I suspect it isn’t rhetorical. After all, many of us lived through a time when we believed certain laws were unjust and harmful. And we saw firsthand that just because something is illegal doesn’t make it immoral—or just.
But laws, by nature, do cause pain. They draw lines. They define whose behavior will be sanctioned. I wouldn’t argue against incarcerating a violent offender just because their child would be sad—but I would argue that not every lawbreaking situation deserves the same level of punishment or the same moral weight. Some laws, like those that once locked up people for cannabis, or those that deport long-settled neighbors and workers, feel disconnected from justice.
The deeper question, I think, is: how do we treat those who break laws we believe to be unjust? Do we see them as disposable, or do we acknowledge the complexity—the humanity—behind each situation? That’s not the same as saying “no one should face consequences.” It’s asking whether the punishment fits the harm.
To me, empathy doesn’t excuse everything—but it does demand we look closely before we judge. And if we didn’t support the war on marijuana because it hurt good people doing no real harm, maybe we should pause before cheering for laws that rip apart families seeking survival from brutal areas under the banner of immigration enforcement too.
To me, such, so called empathy, doesn’t SOLVE ANYTHING…
And it’s not exactly empathy, anyways, that steers the focus of the conversation AWAY FROM why laws SHOULD be enforced and instead, diverts it TOWARDS why laws SHOULD NOT be enforced…
I mean, let’s be realistic, when it came to your “empathy” concerning whether or not laws must be enforced, or not, that were used to convict Trump on 34 felony counts, in order to “deport” him from the realm of presidentially electable candidacy, you were 100% all for that, weren’t you…???
Do you see Trump as “DISPOSABLE”…
LET’S BE STRAIGHTFORWARD, shall we???
“Do we see them as disposable, or do we acknowledge the complexity—the humanity—behind each situation?”
-Kym Kemp-
_________________________________
Like acknowledging “the complexity” “behind” Trump’s “situation”…???
Did you use those same minimalistic law enforcement judgement criteria with Trump…???
(Where was the true harm in what he has done…???)
Not a chance… No effing way…
Do you want him unceremoniously removed, from where you don’t think HE “belongs”, post haste…???
I think we all know the answer to that question…
You judge Trump with an oft sharpened pitchfork and a fine tooth comb, on the one hand, while simultaneously judging felonious illegal immigrants with a soft kid glove covering the other…
Is that a double standard…???
Is that hypocrisy…???
Is that an equal application of justice…???
(Are those rhetorical questions…???)
Please justfy the glaring disconnect…
(Yes, repeatedly entering, exiting, and then re-entering the country illegally is, in fact, felonious activity, which you havey acknowledged…)
You are merely advocating for selective enforcement of laws you personally deem unjust, for those you “love”, like illegal immigrants while simultaneously demanding the proverbial enforcement notion of the removal of a pound of flesh, when it comes to law enforcemen for those people you personally loathe, like Trump…
As in, “The enemy of one’s enemy MUST SURELY be one’s friend”…
And/or, “In one’s fervent persecution of one’s enemy, one MUST SURELY defend one’s enemy’s enemy.”
Maybe you REALLY don’t give a whit about the plight of illegal immigrants…???
Maybe your true motivation is just to paint a picture that is as ugly and revolting as you possibly can of Trump’s “baby”, (Immigration enforcement), which is part of the winning agenda of your enemy, Trump, in order to make Trump look bad, and to embolden and/or recruit anti Trump followers with a degree of separation, so as to be not so obviously bashing Trump directly…???
Just recently, you smoothly and deftly segued the Democrat motivated Eureka City Council Avelo decision article, into being about Trump’s, (in your opinion), much more immoral and numerous transgressions, in a political whataboutism maneuver, however subtlly…
But why…???
The question is…
Was it to minimize the perceived impropriety of the ECC, or was it just to deflect and redirect the percieved impropriety onto Trump instead, as a preferred narrative guidance…???
Do you loath Trump because you love the defense of illegal immigrants, or, do you love the defense of illegal immigrants because you loath Trump…???
I don’t remember you so vociferously defending illegal immigrants, or at all, really, in RHBB article’s comment sections during the Biden and/or Obama Administrations…
But maybe I’m wrong…
Why no “corresponding” administration specific illegal immigration deportation objections back then…???
Was deportation of illegal immigrants a non issue in your mind, during the presidential administration of a politician and his party that you, instead, loved…???
Would you argue against incarcerating Trump….
I highly doubt it…
In fact, the smart gambler would give very heavy odds against it…
I’d even go as far as to say that it would be a sure bet that you would NEVER argue against incarcerting President Trump…
I would bet that you won’t enthusiastically close and lock that door…
What might ultimately become of the key in your hand after that I don’t think anyone could properly predict…
Let’s just say that I think it would become a job for The Lock Doctor…
This is straight communism, you people don’t want the airline in town for doing the right thing for America!,then we real Americans think you should move to Mexico if that’s who you support! You definitely do not be live in a free country! So leave, maybe we can find you a free flight out of town you worthless scum bags.
So send them back on a military C130 instead of a comfortable airline. Either way they are going back.
Exactly they are going back in avello plane or military,the concil has a resonability to use tax money wisely.they can’t just use the most expensive one on the tax payers money for personal bias against a company its not their money shouldn’t even be their choice.Now they can get first class with alcohol at a cost of 3 to 4 thousand extra a year hopefully that’s not per member.
Looks like the unhinged Arcata City Council is stuck on hate and could care less about the needs of our community. They’re completely off the rails.
Democrats are absolutely clueless , protecting illegal criminals over their own fellow citizens. Pushing everyones wages down to poverty level by flooding the country with low skilled slave laborers.
Protecting illegals over citizens this council makes me sick ,bend to a minority and take from the people that pay for the entire system.perfect example why dems lost election and will lose again they are still not listening the the people.The majority sees through the lies hate and deception.How can a political party be so clueless and continue with the hate and division we are all American citizens and need to stand together to protect our rights the political party in ca feels your rights as a American citizen somehow is lower then a illegal immigrant.,and in the long run they will lose on that every time.
Y’all do realize United is contracted to provide deportation flights, too … right? So are other carriers. Gonna boycott them, too? Have fun traveling by bus!
They don’t realize that. They think Darwin is a character from the Muppets on PBS. As Sun Tsu proclaimed, after a person or group shoots themselves in the foot for the tenth time. a smart tactician would be wise to give them a wide birth to avoid the ricochet. PS, they will never, ever, travel by bus, that’s for the little people without Tesla and Prius means.
blackmailed people DO NOT make the world a better place to live
Sad, but predictable. Good thing the city council has no jurisdiction. The comments by certain council members are weak and pathetic, and hilariously predictable: I’m sad for eureka. Good luck my friends. Enjoy the bike lanes 😂
Well, good for the Eureka City Council, pretty weird group. Too bad they aren’t more focused on fixing stuff that really effect their constituents.
Too bad they aren’t also more focused on spending the citizens money wisely…
United Airlines also transports criminal illegal aliens. Why not attack United as well. This is the most braindead decision I’ve seen yet made by a mob of unhinged haters.
“it doesn’t matter if they’re citizens or not, they’re just gonna take ‘em away – it’s like a vacuum cleaner, whoosh!”
doing business with Avelo supports a “hatred machine,” “racist, cruel and vile” policies, and Eureka should stop patronizing “fascist airlines.”
the country is “violently crashing, ramming hatred and power into democratic obstacles, ramming propaganda down the throats of an already apathetic citizenry whose thrill comes from watching others be destroyed.”
I’m kind of surprised y’all reprinted these hysterics as journalism. It just further contributes to the misinformation and reactionary vitriol. The balanced part of this issue is entirely absent. Instead we get flat out lies like Councilmember Renee Contreras-DeLouche saying that “people with “valid green cards are being removed,” SOURCE? Because telling only part of the story gets us all in a mess. All this hoopla and crazy talk of fascism over a handful of plane tickets sheesh people. But let’s ask important questions since we’re all here.Why might people with valid green cards be removed???
brief ai overview
While green card holders are generally protected from deportation, they can face removal proceedings if they commit certain crimes, engage in fraud, or abandon their residency. ICE’s enforcement actions have also become more broad, sometimes impacting individuals with valid documentation during raids or at courthouses.
Here’s a more detailed explanation:
Reasons for Potential Deportation of Green Card Holders:
Criminal Convictions:
Certain crimes, especially those considered “aggravated felonies,” “crimes of moral turpitude,” or drug-related offenses, can lead to deportation.
Immigration Fraud:
If a green card was obtained through fraudulent means (e.g., a fake marriage, false documents), ICE can initiate removal proceedings.
Abandonment of Residency:
Long periods of time spent outside the U.S. without maintaining ties to the country (e.g., not filing taxes, claiming non-resident status) can lead to the perception that residency has been abandoned.
Violations of Immigration Laws:
Failing to notify USCIS of a change of address or engaging in unauthorized work can also lead to removal proceedings.
ICE Enforcement Actions and Green Card Holders:
Workplace and Community Raids:
ICE conducts large-scale enforcement operations targeting specific areas or workplaces, sometimes resulting in the detention of individuals with valid green cards for status verification.
Courthouse Arrests:
ICE has been known to arrest individuals at courthouses, including those attending criminal court, especially if they have a criminal record.
Just to clarify—this article is a report, not a piece of investigative or analytical journalism. Reporting means documenting what happened at a public meeting, including what was said by elected officials and members of the public. That’s what we’ve done here.
Journalism, in the broader sense, can absolutely involve deeper research—interviewing experts, verifying claims, and presenting multiple perspectives. That’s a different type of work and might be done in a follow-up piece if we ever had the money to invest in that kind of work. But this article isn’t meant to weigh the merits of what was said—it’s a factual record of what took place during the July 8 Eureka City Council meeting.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the speakers or councilmembers, documenting their words and decisions helps the public stay informed about their government and what people are saying at the meeting.
And there were no reasoned counter arguments heard? Not one? I guess that’s on the council then, as the vote (against legal counsel) was unanimous…but my hinky meter says otherwise, and I still question that such rubbish was offered up word for word as the gospel truth. The media can easily become part and parcel to the unraveling of common sense. And the world goes into hysterics….
You are welcome to go watch the access Humboldt video of the meeting.
Because it happens at a meeting does that mean it needs to be committed to print, without disclaimers?
It’s beginning to look like the media is partly responsible for allowing a false fascism/nazi narrative to continue, to the detriment of our country.
I’m well aware that I can watch the archived meeting but an independent citizen taking it upon themselves to watch the access Humboldt video is much different than committing that nonsense to print.
If someone says something that sounds “like nonsense” to one reader, another may see it as a vital expression of concern. That’s why we report what is actually said—so that the public can hear those perspectives for themselves and make up their own minds. We also provide links to meeting videos so anyone can verify tone, context, and content firsthand.
Calls to suppress certain views because they strike some as extreme—or because they use terms others disagree with—edge dangerously close to censorship. Responsible journalism does not mean sanitizing public discourse or filtering reality to fit anyone’s comfort zone.
If you believe a speaker made a factual error, it’s fair to point it out. But suggesting that the media has a duty to exclude or disclaim duly recorded public testimony because you find it “rubbish” is not a defense of truth—it’s a demand for narrative control.
That’s the thing; you are controlling the narrative by reinforcing and repeating the bogus Nazi / fascism narrative. There is a very level-headed, historically grounded argument against casually equating U.S. immigration enforcement with Nazism or fascism. It’s not about defending harsh or unjust policies, but about maintaining conceptual accuracy, respecting historical specificity, and preserving the power of language.
To reinforce a false narrative is reckless.
You say the media shouldn’t “reinforce” narratives or tell people how to feel—yet in the same breath, you’re demanding we sanitize or disclaim public comments that don’t align with your narrative. That’s the very definition of wanting to control the story.
Let’s be clear: quoting someone at a public meeting—even when they use language you find extreme—is not an endorsement. It’s reporting. What you’re asking for is selective coverage—where speech from one side gets printed unfiltered, while speech from the other side must come with warnings, disclaimers, or edits to make it more palatable to you.
That’s not balance. That’s hypocrisy.
You’re welcome to challenge the substance of what was said, and if you believe someone made a factual error, point it out. Or state your own opinion here in response. But calling it “reckless” to quote them verbatim isn’t a principled objection—it’s a partisan demand.
Badgering us about it won’t change our stance on documenting public meetings or our refusal to alter the words of any quoted person.
Amen
Whoa whoa whoa. I haven’t made demands or asked you to remove or censor anything! Nor have “badgered ” you. 😆 (Badgering = pestering someone repeatedly in an aggressive or annoying way.)
I simply pointed out that maybe unverified claims — especially ones that inflame public fear — deserve context and clarification, even in a straight “report.” (Or maybe that’s a part of responsible journalism I’m imagining was a thing…. )
I reiterate: I was just surprised this passed the editorial clarity muster.
Statements like “people with valid green cards are being removed” was presented without any context, in reality, removal with valid green card typically only happens under specific legal circumstances (like serious crimes or fraud).
Publishing claims like that (even as unhinged quotes) without clarification not only “documents a public meeting, ” but also amplifies a dangerous and misleading and fear-driven narrative.
The Eureka city council and mayor can always be counted on to do the wrong thing.
So they voted on removing the most affordable airline service for empty virtue signaling? Pick any company and do some digging and you will eventually find something to disagree with. I am sure United has some skeleton’s in their closet as well.
Wow! $2500 a year that’s gotta burn! Lol! Pathetic grandstanding by all involved. Waste of taxpayer time with a symbolic and empty victory I guess….I guess this is supposed to save some illegal immigrants somehow? Or is it just about feeling good and righteous? The mob mentality….
It’s about time. The readers who disagree should change the channel. There really is factual news, unlike that presented on stations beginning with F, O, and New.