FULL AGENDA PACKET_2021-05-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

AB 937 liege 10 Trvnrp. The Bidcn administration has admittcd only 2,050 tehtyecs at the halfway point of this fiscal year, according to the humanitarian nonprofit organisation, despite President Biden's promises to reverse Ttvinp-cra utuniglation policies, dnantatically raise tic cap nail refugee settlements and respond to what his officials have called "uunfiweseen and urgent SdLutions," the 1RC report noted. (Rescue,org, `More of the same: Biden to admit fewer refugees Ilan any president in U.S. history," (April 11, 2021), available at hupsl/www.rescuc.org/reporUmore- san�-bidetr admit -fewer -refugees -any -president- us-hiswry'!edme=true.) This hill seeks to_(itrther expand and strengthen twisting state lams that limit.state involvement in innrigration enforcement matters — all appropriate exercise q% state sovereignty. It is a fundamental principle oftcdcralism that state govcannknts—as partners with the federal government in the system of "dual sovereignty" created by the U-S. COnstnuLlOn in order to "reduce the risk of Iwanny and abuse" (Gregory v. dsheroll (1991) 501 U.S. 452, 457-58) — may allocatec their public nrsources as they scc tit_ As a result, states arc allowed to pnionitize the use of such resources on activities they believe serve the gre atcst need and further the trxost pressing interests of the state and its residents. (INN) The Ii deral govennlx nt cannot lance states to firrther its priorities in place of the state's_ To fact, case law snakes it clear that the iederol government can do ncithcr of the following: (1) "con7<rtandecr" local officials by rnakirig them enfin-ce federal laws (Priam_ a US_ (1997) 521 T1.S_ 999); or(2) 16rce participation in a federal progmm b_y threatening to curt o13 federal funds, unless the hinds are directly eamwked for daft progiam. (NFIB v. Sihelius (2012) 132 S. Ct. 2566 [federal government cauvwt cut off all Medicaid fianding for rerusal to parlicipale in Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act].) This bill seeks to lunit this use of state resotuces to assist federal uauarigration authorities and activities, which is dearly an appropriate exercise of the slate's sovereignty. Although the bill seeks to expand and strengthen the Values Act, it duce not du so by amending (or even explicitly repealing) the Values Act_ Tnstead, it creates a new parallel statute that enacts nwre extensive restriction-- on state and local agencies assistuag with federal uiunigration enfcn-cennent ellirrts and provides that these new restrictions apply "noLwithsumding any contrary provisions in [the Values Act]." By ftilutg to amend the Values Act, the bill arguably creates conliLmon about whether and to what extent Lhe Values Act remains in etfecL. To the extent that this bill were to be enacted and Ihereby created a conflict will the Values Act, this bill should control given that it would be take preecdence because a latcr-enacted staaac enacted controls - Over an earlier -enacted one. (Cron. v_ .5ttperiorr Courr (2017) 1 1 Cal.App.51.h 305, 322.) Although this bill clearly would supersede the Values Act in the case Of a direct conflict Will) that law, it is less clear how the two laws would interact in cases where they overlapped, but did not directly conflict. For exaniple, as nx;ntioned in the Assembly Public Safer_y Corurnitrec's analysis of this bill, the Values Act requires the Aaoruey General to develop model policies firr law enfirrcement agencies to limit their assistance with unmig<ation enforcemenr to the fiillest estalt pussnblc (consistent with ILdcral and mate law), including A public schouls, public libraries, health facilities operated by the stale, courthouses, division ol'Labor Standards Lnlorcenaeni facilities, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers Compensation, and shelters_ [finder the Value,, Act, certann agencies were requn-ed to adopt those policies, and the other entities Were encoturaged to adopt them. But none of those policies Would be consistent uitl this bill (arid likely wuukl, if fact, conflict will it). FLlrllenlOrC, fuel public Agencies would not be govemed by the policies, while law enlorcennenu agencies ill the same jurisdiction would be. If this bill were to become law, would local law ent6r'eemeot agencies be [inllo�q �(}yl��tt policies than other local govcnnmcTj au2gcics`? Should those uutowoomlcl