Laserfiche WebLink
AB 937 <br />Page I <br />Date of Hearing: April 20, 2021 <br />ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY <br />Marl, Stone, Chair <br />Ala 937 (Carrillo) —As Ameended March 22. 2021 <br />As Proposed to be Amended <br />SUBJECT: IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT <br />KLY ISSUE: SHOULD SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LAW THAT LIMIT THE <br />AHILI I OF Sl A I F; AN I) LOCAI, LAW F;NFORCF;MF;N I 10 COOPFRA I F, AND SHAKE <br />IN[-ORMATION WITH FFDI{RAI IMMIGRATION AUTHORIIIIiS III(STRI;:NGIHI[NFD <br />AND EXPANDED SO THAT THEY, AMONG OTHER THiNGS, ALSO APPLY TO ALL <br />SIAII{ ANT) LOCAL GOVF;ItNMFNT AC;FNCII:S AS WI-11, AS I III[ C.AHI'ORN[A <br />DEPARIMLNT Oh CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION? <br />S) NOPSIS <br />This bill, the Voiding lnequality and Seeking Inchrsimi f)7. Our• Immigrant Neighbors (VI,S1ON) <br />Acl, w,ouhf prohibit (al! state cold local agencies (includink* law e)lforcenteitt agencies and the <br />California Dcparlment o/ Corromons and Rchahilucuion) from doing any of rho following: <br />1) Arresairrg ur assisting with the arrest, confinement, detention. lratts/er. interrugatiort. or <br />depot tatirnr (?tan individual for an immigration enfor(ementpu ipose in any manner'- <br />?) TWng itnrnigrcttion status as It factor to deny or to recontnlcnd denial of probation or <br />pa7 tlCtpatn717 m anB dil'er.SiOn. rehabilitation. mental health prop am. 07 171aCe)nent m a <br />credit-earrting prograil1 rrr class, or to determine ctistnd7nl -hi ssijuWho n level, to deny <br />metttdaturvsupetvisioit, ur to lengthett (he portion u/supervision seined in cusvodv. <br />These prohibitions would app/1" cwCordnxg to the bill, 710l1i17thct0nd77rgony Contraij' prnviSli 1IS <br />in C.eisling htw specifically including,, those itt the California Vahaes Act which allow, for slate <br />and local Icrw criforcernew agencies to cooperate wnh federal immigration aulhor•ilies under <br />certain specifhed and limited circumstances. <br />The analysis reviews the long hktory of A,E employing methods that range from inhumane to <br />illegal, at least as earls as the Obama administration, wo senhlg during the Trump <br />administration. and contirnting tlxrnugIt today. The analysis explctirzs whp, evert though the <br />VahwA(t. current California law that linlits law ett i)rc ement ill volvoment in immigration <br />enforcement activilies, wu_s adopted in reaction to the Trump administration's pur•zicularly care/ <br />policies. even greater restrictio7rs on the use of public r<sorrr•c 4:4 to assist 101. (rs proposed by <br />the bill, arc accessary. The octal) Sig also addresses the/act taut the bill does not amend or <br />repeal the Falues Act, bill instead is a parallel statute, crealing less than ideal (hirr); about how <br />the Ill laws would interact. It &SC asses why the bill almost certainly does not violate the slate <br />cointitntion's reemactntent clause. but could possibly be subject to a conflict preemption <br />challenge, Finally, the analysis discusses the fact that the bill imposes civil hability oil <br />(overnnxent enxplavees and agencies' for violating the bill's probibilions, all excepliorr to the <br />general rule ofgovernmentulirrznxuu7ity_ <br />lit order to address the passible. but remote_ concern that some aspects of the hill could raise <br />ro)jPihlljl%Q1UCjIIilon concerns, the antherproprrscs to2t1�c2&,o clan-tty ng amem/me51AIR'112M the <br />