Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE- 50CDecember 20, 2016 City Council Meeting Correspondence 50C. ORDINANCE - DECLARATION OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS A SANCTUARY FOR ALL ITS RESIDENTS Date of Sender /Representative Agency corresp. In Support of item. q, 12/20/2016 Dr. Sandra Pisano 2. 12/20/2016 Carlos Perea klAgendas12016 AgendaslExhibits 2016 - Current Meeting120164220 Exhibits Correspondence 50C,docx Mitre - Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 3:52 PM To: eComment Subject: ECOMMENT - please vote tonight Letter of Support on Sanctuary City ordinance. From: Magallon, Becky Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 3:36 PM To: Pulido, Miguel (Council and EMT only) <MAPulido @santa - ana.org> Cc: Huizar, Maria <MHuizar @santa - ana.org> Subject: FW: please vote tonight Becky Magallon ) Secretary to the City Manager City Manager's Offices bmagallon@santa- ana.ore 714.647.5200 120 Civic Center Plaza I Santa Ana, CA 92701 This email and any files or attachments transmitted with it may contain privileged or otherwise confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you may have received this communication in error, please advise the sender via reply email and immediately delete the email you received. From: Sandra Pisano [ Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2016 1:05 PM To: Pulido, Miguel Subject: please vote tonight Please vote in favor of the ordinance tonight!!!! Make Santa Ana a sanctuary city!!! Dr. Pisano December 19, 2016 DELIVERED IN- PERSON Santa Ana City 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 RE: Sanctuary Policy Dear Santa Ana City Council and City Staff, We, the Orange County Immigrant Rights Policy Working Group, submit this letter to urge the City of Santa Ana to follow through on its promise to make Santa Ana a true sanctuary city by enacting into ordinance all of the terms contained in the Sanctuary City Resolution passed by the City Council on Tuesday, December 6. Numerous community organizations and members came out in support of the resolution on that day and provided input on how it could be strengthened by adopting language recommended by this Working Group. The recommendations of this Working Group were ultimately adopted by the Council in the final version of the Resolution. We were glad to see that the City intends to move forward with introduction of a Sanctuary Ordinance on Tuesday, December 20. However, the proposed language of that ordinance backtracks from the commitments the City made to its immigrant community on December 6 in several important ways. We are gravely concerned that these differences will dilute the protections for the immigrant community and undermine the very reasons to have a sanctuary ordinance in the first place. Below are our main concerns and the changes we demand that the City Council make to ensure our communities feel respected and safe in the City they call home. (1) Sections 3 -5 (Protection of Sensitive Information) In the proposed ordinance, the City has inexplicably singled out immigration status from other types of sensitive information and created separate sections to address each. In Section 4, the City has proposed a caveat that immigration status information may be shared "as provided by federal law." While the City may have made this change out of a concern about 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, isolating immigration status from other types of sensitive information in this way makes it less likely, not more, that its confidentiality clause will be upheld. There is no reason the City needs to discriminate or treat immigration status differently than other vulnerable statuses. The City's rationale for protecting the sensitive information of immigrants is the same as for other groups - -no person should feel afraid to interact with their own City officials because of who they are or where they come from. Section 9 already provides that nothing in the City's ordinance ordinance shall be construed or implemented to conflict with any valid and enforceable federal law. The caveat language in Section 4 is unnecessary and harmful. We recommend that the City go back to the language about protecting sensitive information as it was set forth in the resolution, except that we recommend that the City consider adding "status as a crime victim generally" and "biological sex or gender identity" to the list of sensitive information. (2) Section 7(i) (Exemption from Prohibition on Use of City Resources) When the City Council voted to make Santa Ana a sanctuary on December 6, its action stood in stark contrast to the divisive approach President -Elect Donald Trump has taken on immigration. Unfortunately, by including Section 7(f) in the proposed ordinance, the City risks turning its back on some of the most stigmatized members of the immigrant community- -and exactly the community members that the President -Elect is likely to target first. Section 7 ensures that the City of Santa Ana, and the resources and employees paid for by its residents, will not be used to help President Elect Trump carry out his deportation policies. Legal scholars agree that this is within cities' and states' right to decide. In fact, State Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon introduced a bill a couple weeks ago that would do something very similar at the state level. Section 7 is a critical component of the proposed ordinance that has the potential to truly protect immigrants and improve police- community relations and public safety. However, Section 7(f) abandons these protections for a broad group of people: any person with a pending felony charge, any felony conviction (with no limitation as to the nature of the offense, its date or sentence) or any outstanding criminal arrest warrant. Diverting SAPD's resources to work with the Trump Administration on deporting this group of people rather than focusing on the the Police Department's core mission of criminal law enforcement would be a mistake. First, some of the actions prohibited by Section 7 are illegal for a local police agency to take. Section 7(f) therefore appears to invite the SAPD to violate the constitutional rights of a particular group. Second, immigrants who have felony convictions have done their time; oftentimes, they are already on the path to rehabilitation. Referring them for deportation is like subjecting them to a second punishment for their crime, one that may be far more severe than their criminal sentence. And third, 7(f) is drafted so broadly that it reaches even people who have not yet been convicted of any crime (and indeed may be innocent of any crime), or whose only crime may be an immigration violation such as illegal re- entry. Regarding the former, the ordinance seems to throw the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" out the window. The exception at Section 7(f) will effectively swallow the rule for the community members that are most at risk under the incoming Administration. President -Elect Trump has indicated that he intends to move swiftly to deport any immigrants with criminal records (a term he apparently defines extremely broadly), raising renewed concerns about due process and disruption to families. It is worth emphasizing the reality of the immigration system. Under current law, individuals have no right to government- appointed counsel, can be subject to indefinite and mandatory detention, and can face deportation with no opportunity to request relief or return to the United States. Section 7(f) will also put Santa Ana behind other cities that have declared themselves sanctuaries, and soon even the State. The California Values Act introduced by Senator de Leon contains no carve -out for immigrants with pending felony charges or felony convictions. Even California's TRUST Act, enacted several years ago, is more protective than Santa Ana's proposed ordinance. Instead of malting Santa Ana a leader, Section 7(f) will send Santa Ana in a different direction, malting its own immigrant residents less safe than in other places. (3) Section 7 Generally The proposed ordinance also departs from the Sanctuary City Resolution by specifying that the prohibition on the use of City resources to enforce immigration law applies only to civil violations of immigration law. While it is helpful to distinguish administrative warrants and civil immigration detainers issued by ICE from traditional criminal warrants and detainers in Section 7(b), since the former do not provide local officers with authority to arrest, in no other place in Section 7 is it necessary to limit prohibited immigration enforcement to that which is "civil" in nature. In fact, qualifying immigration law to mean only "civil" immigration law denies the protections of Section 7 to a group of people who need them. While the act of being present in the United States without status is not a federal crime, it is possible that could change under a new Congress. In addition, other immigration- related actions can be punished criminally under certain law. One example is the act of re- entering the country after a removal order - -even if the prior removal order lacked due process. We urge the City Council to return to the formulation of this language that it had in the Sanctuary City Resolution. We also recommend that the list of prohibited activities include a new item that clarifies that City resources will not be used to "assist with or participate in any immigration enforcement operation or joint operation or patrol that involves —in whole or in part —the enforcement of federal immigration laws." (4) Training and Oversight (Commission /Taskforce) The task force shall be formed immediately after passage of the "sanctuary" ordinance and be established in conjunction with city staff and the community. The scope of such task force should be seen with clear intent that the task force will be independent, have investigatory power, adequate funding, recommends policy and its research findings should be considered in determining appropriate disciplinary action in immigration enforcement and policing issues in the city of Santa Ana. (5) U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) Immigration Detention Contract Santa Ana has one of the largest immigrant populations in Southern California, and we are proud of the steps the City has taken to protect its immigrant community. We hope to see more cities and counties that contract with ICE to detain immigrants, including Orange County, follow in the footsteps of this City by providing sanctuary for immigrants and phasing out its contracts with ICE. However, to be a true sanctuary city, the City must terminate its contract with ICE and stop imprisoning immigrants at the Santa Ana City Jail. We are glad to see that the City decreased the maximum number of immigration detention beds in its jail from 200 to 128 at the December 6 Council meeting, but on December 20, we urge the city to specify a timeline to end the ICE jail contract. The City also must take into consideration the damage it has done to our conumimity by contracting with ICE since 2006; therefore, to ensure the least harm is done when the City terminates its contract with ICE, the City should also devote funds to the creation of community -based alternatives to detention and for legal services. Thank you for reading and thank you for your support in malting our City a welcoming one for all its residents. Sincerely, Members of OC Immigrant Rights Policy Working Group Resilience Orange County Community Initiatives for Visiting Immigrants in Confinement (CIVIC) Orange County Immigrant Youth United (OCIYU) National Day Laborer Organizing Network Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE) Oak View Comunidad Santa Ana Building Healthy Communities Latino Health Access National Lawyers Guild Orange County Supporting Organizations National Immigration Law Center The LGBT Center OC Familia Trans Queer Liberation Movement Casa Esperanza Friends of Miami -Dade Detainees Adjunct Justice Stay Connected OC New Voice Immigration Assistance Services Alianza Americas Salvadorian American National Network Serve The People Community Health Center Immigrant Youth Coalition California ,Immigrant Youth Justice Alliance Orange County Congregation Community Organization Supporting Lawyers and Elected Officials Jennifer Lee Koh, Professor of Law and Director, Immigration Clinic, Western State College of Law Sameer Ashar, Co- Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, UC Irvine School of Law Annie Lai, Co- Director, Immigrant Rights Clinic, UC Irvine School of Law Jennifer M. Chac6n, Professor of Law, U.C. Irvine School of Law Jane K. Stoever, Clinical Professor of Law and Director, Initiative to End Family Violence and Domestic Violence Clinic, U.C. Irvine School of Law* Julie Marzoulc, Assistant Clinical Professor, Family Protection Clinic - Immigration, Chapman University Fowler School of Law* Marisa S. Cianeiarulo, Professor of Law, Chapman University Fowler School of Law* Sabrina Rivera, Staff Attorney, Immigration. Clinic, Western State College of Law Karma A. Gutierrez, Staff Attorney- Immigration Unit, Public Law Center* Carolina C. Gomez, Law Office of Carolina C. Gomez, Santa Ana Yvette Gutierrez, Alvarez & Gutierrez, LLP, Santa Ana Roberto Alvarez, Alvarez & Gutierrez, LLP, Santa Ana Eric Dominguez, Attorney at David Hirson & Partners, LLP, Irvine Patricia Eulloqui, Law Office of Patricia Eulloqui, Santa Ana Defense Lawyer Corporation, Newport Beach Suliana Lutin, Lutin Law Group, Fullerton Cesar Cuahtemoc Hernandez, Lawyer, University of Denver College of Law* Walter Muneton, Trustee, Garden Grove Unified School District* Khan Nair, Law Office of Kiran Nair, Orange Victor Valladares, Delegate, Democrat Central Committee Assembly Districit 72* Diana Spix, Staff Attorney- Immigration Unit, Public Law Center* Justine M. Schneeweis, Staff Attorney - Immigration Unit, Public Law Center* *The opinions expressed in this letter are supported by the individual /lawyer and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the school /organization.