By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Malibu’s illegal migrant beachhead: The rich believe they are different than you & I
This $50 million mansion on Malibu Beach could be where the next illegal immigrants get there first look at the United States.

As beach landings go, it was no Normandy.

It even wasn’t on the same level as the British landing at Kip’s Bay on Sept. 15, 1776 that led to King George’s forces capturing New York City.

That said, 25 illegal migrants wading ashore last Wednesday at 7:30 a.m. below the humble abode of Gloria Allred and down a ways from Barbara Streisand’s beachfront hangout didn’t really get the play it deserved.

It wasn’t the first time illegal migrants made it ashore apparently heading to sea from Baja California and going northward in the Pacific Ocean to reach the land Mexico christened Alta California in 1826, four years after that country won their independence from Spain.

Last May, a dozen or so illegal migrants apparently waded ashore a bit farther to the south in the slightly more impoverished millionaire enclave of Laguna Beach.

 In both cases, the migrants quickly dispersed.

They were long gone before authorities arrived.

What made the Malibu landing special enough to garner the undivided attention of Internet wags, mainstream media, and the usual suspects of political hacks for 1.5 seconds was two-fold.

It was more than 100 miles north of the border with Mexico.

And they landed in a self-proclaimed sanctuary city.

It was portrayed in many quarters as somehow the self-righteous monied citizens of Malibu being hypocrites.

It was an assumption many leaped to because they thought obviously the rich folks who want liberal immigration policies and declare themselves residents of a sanctuary city were somehow aghast that illegal migrants stepped into their city.

But there was not one peep of  outrage from rich celebrities that believe it is their duty to share their opinions and push their “correct views” on everyone else because they scored big paydays in the movies, music, the world of commerce, investing, or the old-fashioned way of inheriting wealth.

True, someone did call the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

That, however, was not a violation of a sanctuary city creed.

Being a sanctuary city means police in the jurisdiction aren’t supposed to cooperate with the Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) when it comes to detaining illegal immigrants.

Calling the sheriff is OK because it technically keeps your hands clean.

And to be clear, there was never a chance illegal immigrants were going to stick around Malibu for long as they would stand out like a sore thumb.

Sanctuary cities such as Martha’s Vineyard never declared themselves such because they seriously entertained thoughts of actually opening their communities to illegal migrants.

They simply wouldn’t rat on them if they happened to show up in their town.

And let’s be clear, unless illegal migrants were bused there or ended up drifting in a boat there, they’d never end up in places like Martha’s Vineyard or Malibu.

There are exceptions, of course, given there are many cases of the rich employing undocumented individuals to serve as nannies, gardeners, or cooks so they can pay them below minimum wage and violate labor laws on a wholesale basis.

The real moral sin of Malibu is something that there are plenty of practitioners of on lower steps of the socio-economic ladder.

Granted, they are not as high profile or vocal about it but the hypocrisy that many of us see in Malibu is often in our own backyard.

We want something done about the homeless, but the solution needs to be far from our neighborhood.

We support the idea of affordable housing but not next door to us.

To be fair, Malibu is a much bigger and much more of a hypocrite when it comes to both the homeless and affordable housing.

The words of a duly elected Malibu councilman by the name of Bruce Silverstein heard on the April 26, 2022 broadcast of Morning Edition on National Public Radio underscore the mentality of the community.

Silverstein said “Malibu should remain exclusive.”

Therefore, that justifies the city’s vote to set up shelter beds outside of town and then transport the homeless there.

Silverstein did not stop there.

He doubled down saying, “The (200) people living unhoused in Malibu are not really, quote, ‘Malibu’s homeless,’ unquote. They didn’t lose their home in Malibu.”

An interesting point until you realize it runs afoul with basic freedom of movement that the high court has upheld.

It’s the same “right” Malibu wants conferred onto non-citizens that are illegal immigrants.

You can’t simply run vagrants — or those perceived to be vagrants — out of town because they are, or appear to be, vagrants.

Silverstein’s logic also means the city should be given a pass from state affordable housing laws.

Any wild guesses about how many city workers, firefighters, or school teachers in Malibu actually can afford to live there?

This is not a Malibu-only position that somehow state laws shouldn’t apply to them.

Earlier this year, Steph and Ayesha Curry went on record in a letter to the city of Atherton objecting to “affordable housing” proposed on 1.5 acres behind them where a single family home would be torn down to build 16 living units.

The Currys were concerned about their privacy and safety. Other neighbors decried the crime and congestion the townhouses would bring.

In case you are wondering, these were not “subsidized” townhouses. They were at-market where people not pocketing an NBA or CEO paycheck but those who are financially positioned enough to buy pro basketball ticket packages or hold shares of a tech company could afford to live.

The definition of affordable housing is fluid and relative.

But the bottom line in Malibu and other places like Atherton is the belief that despite clearly being government entities that exist only through the power bestowed by the state to incorporate they have the right to be “exclusive.”

Illegal immigrants aren’t going to hang around Malibu et al if they haven’t been processed by the Border Patrol so they can play the asylum card to get a number in line and then be bused somewhere while waiting a year or so for the government to hear their case.

That’s because they would likely be detained and deported even if Malibu authorities don’t “cooperate” directly with ICE enforcement

The reason is simple.

The 25 illegal immigrants that landed and fled have no legal standing due to how they entered the United States bypassing the straw game that declaring one is seeking asylum has now become.

The homeless — and those pesky people that work protecting the rich, cleaning homes, and buy the products and spend money on entertainment that has made it possible for many to afford to reside in Malibu and have the audacity to believe there should be housing options they can afford there as well — have legal rights.

That is where the real hypocrisy comes in.

It’s not that Malibu has officially proclaimed itself a sanctuary city and hasn’t chartered buses to fetch and bring back to their “exclusive” city  illegal migrants processed at the border.

Being a sanctuary city, to remind you once again, means you’re simply not cooperating with ICE.

It doesn’t mean you’re going to shelter and feed them.

The hypocrisy is the fact they are oozing with situational ethics with everything.

And that is whether they get to carve out exceptions to build super mansions on pristine terrain, lecture us about our wasteful carbon footprints while flying around in their private jets, or pursuing political stances where others have to deal with the consequences and not them.

Yes, the rich do believe they are different than you and I.


This column is the opinion of editor, Dennis Wyatt, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of The Bulletin or 209 Multimedia. He can be reached at