City Council to discuss resolution supporting undocumented residents

Here is the text of a Staff Report for Agenda Item 7D at Wednesday night’s City Council Meeting, beginning at 6PM, February 22, in the Community Meeting Room.

Supplemental Report Discussion, Consideration, and Possible Action Regarding a Request by Mayor Hundley to Discuss Approving a Resolution to Affirm the City of Sonoma’s Commitment to Diversity and to Safeguarding the Civil Rights, Safety, and Dignity of all of our Residents.

Assertions made during national campaigning and the issuance of the Presidential Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States has created concern, particularly around the subjects of immigration and diversity. As a result, there has been some discussion regarding Sonoma declaring itself a “Sanctuary City.” Cities and towns throughout the United States have adopted or enacted resolutions, policies, and practices to state their commitment to equal, respectful, and dignified treatment of all people, as well as some cities have decided to designate themselves as a Sanctuary City. Based on the complexity of these issues, staff has compiled some information from other cities for some background to assist the Council in this conversation.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to promote public health and safety, some cities have adopted policies to encourage undocumented individuals to access city services and report crime. The rationale is that the entire community is safer as a result. Such cities sometimes call themselves “sanctuary cities.” The policies adopted by such cities often include:

– Not requiring proof of legal immigration status to access city services,
– Not questioning crime victims and witnesses about their immigration status, and
– Limiting the city’s cooperation with federal authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration law.

The term “sanctuary city” is not defined by federal law, but it is often used to refer to those local entities which place lawful limits on their assistance to federal immigration authorities seeking to apprehend and remove unauthorized immigrants. There are both supporters and opponents to such policies. Supporters argue against city funds being diverted to support federal programs and opponents argue that by not supporting federal immigration policy cities are encouraging illegal immigration.

Recent Federal Actions:
On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order on immigration directed at cutting off access to federal funding to “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

First, the order directed that “jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or Secretary [of Homeland Security].” Section 1373 provides: (a) In general Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. 105 (b) Additional authority of government entities Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual: (1) Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service. (2) Maintaining such information. (3) Exchanging such information with any other Federal, State, or local government entity. (c) Obligation to respond to inquiries The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.

Second, the order gave the Secretary of Homeland Security “the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction.”

Third, the order directed the Office of Management and Budget “to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction.” It is unclear how the Secretary will determine what constitutes a “sanctuary jurisdiction.” The order specifically includes jurisdictions that violate Section 1373, but also may include jurisdictions that do not to comply with voluntary federal immigration detainer requests (also called “holds”). A detainer request asks a jurisdiction to hold an incarcerated individual for 48 hours beyond the time that individual would otherwise have been released to give federal immigration authorities time to investigate and take custody of the individual for violation of federal immigration laws. The inclusion of jurisdictions that do not comply with detainer requests would create uncertainty for local agencies in California. Federal law does not require compliance with detainers; in other words, local law enforcement agencies are not legally required to comply. But, under state law, local law enforcement agencies are not free to comply in every situation. The state has legislated rules that limit compliance to situations involving serious or violent crimes. And, as explained below, the state legislature is currently proposing changes to tighten these rules.

Sonoma Police Department Policy:
The City of Sonoma contracts with the Sonoma County Sheriff’s Department to provide law enforcement services to our community. The Sonoma Police Department has a policy on “Immigration Violations” that is expressly predicated upon a commitment of equal enforcement of the law and equal service to the public — regardless of immigration status. The Sonoma Police Department respects the rights of all people and embraces the diversity of our community. Specifically, the policy calls out the following items.

– In compliance with California’s TRUST Act, the Sonoma Police Department does not and will not engage in federal immigration enforcement activities.
– The Police Department shall not arrest or detain any person solely for violations pertaining to immigration status.
– The Police Department shall not undertake any interrogation of any person for the sole purpose of ascertaining his/her immigration status. 106
– The Police Department shall not independently conduct sweeps or other concentrated efforts for the purpose of locating and/or detaining persons who are solely suspected of being illegally present in the United States.
– To protect our community against serious or violent criminals/predators, the Police Department will work collaboratively with ICE in the apprehension of serious or violent criminals. However, as a condition of this collaboration, we shall require ICE refrain from arresting or taking custody of any person based solely on immigration status, including low-level or minor traffic violations.
– The Police Department shall, to the best of its abilities, assist persons seeking to obtain a U-Visa or T-Visa, which extends temporary immigration benefits to victims or witnesses for certain qualifying crimes, including Human Trafficking.

The Sonoma Police Department is committed to its mission which states, “In partnership with our community, we commit to provide professional, firm, fair, and compassionate law enforcement services with integrity and respect.” The policy further states that to that end, the Police Departments look forward to working with all segments of our community, regardless of immigration status, to provide a safe and healthy community for all to enjoy.

Sonoma’s Federal Grants and Finances:

The specific policy implications and ramifications of the Sanctuary City designation are not clear at this time. If President Trump and Congress were able to limit the amount of federal funding to cities that the Secretary of Homeland Security designates as Sanctuary Cities, whether outright or by supporting such policies, the City of Sonoma could risk its federal funds in a few areas.

– Chase Bridge Project $2,000,000  Future CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) Funding
– FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) funding in the case of a major disaster
– Fire – FY 2016-17 GEMT Reimbursement estimated approximately $65,000
– Fire – IGT reimbursements from Medi-Cal $148,865. It is unknown if the IGT funds have enough Federal connection to be vulnerable or not. The process for the IGT program for this year has just been started and is anticipated at least another $150,000 +/-.
– Fire – Assistance to Firefighter’s Grant Application to FEMA/DHS for new SCBA (selfcontained breathing apparatus) that totals $510,992
– Police – Homeland Security Grant Program. Funds are given to the State to be disbursed to the counties/cities for projects intended to enhance interagency communication (radio systems) and disaster preparedness.
– Police – California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). The majority of these funds are given to the State by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Police Department has received these grants every couple of years. 107 City of Sonoma City Council Agenda Item Summary City Council Agenda