' LB Council To Consider Implementing These "Sanctuary City" Type Policies, May Also Approve $100k To Help Create Deportation Legal Defense Fund
LBReport.com

News

LB Council To Consider Implementing These "Sanctuary City" Type Policies, May Also Approve $100k To Help Create Deportation Legal Defense Fund


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(March 10, 2018, 6:50 p.m.) -- On March 13, 2018, the Long Beach City Council is scheduled to discuss and could vote to implement a number of policies -- that mirror "sanctuary city" type immigration policies but avoid using that term -- that would [proposed resolution text] "prohibit the requesting, collecting, maintaining, or disclosing of 'sensitive information,' including but not limited to one's citizen or immigration status, absent certain circumstances, and apply this prohibition, and the State-mandated prohibitions related to enforcement of federal immigration law, to all City Manager departments, including but not limited to Police, Fire, Financial Management, Development Services, and Health & Human Services" (details below.)

The Council-requested city staff-drafted policies in large part mirror the parameters of Sac'to enacted SB 54 but expanded to apply to Long Beach government operations beyond law enforcement. They stop short of explicitly declaring Long Beach a "sanctuary city" [a term colloquially understood but with no settled legal definition] and the Council majority's policy position has thus far aligned with views expressed by LB Mayor Robert Garcia on the issue

The agenda item, as requested by a Council majority last year, also addresses the issue of legal assistance for those facing deportation. City staff's agendizing memo says the City could help create a legal defense fund to assist LB residents facing deportation with [city staff agendizing memo text] a "one-time investment" of $100,000 "to secure matching funds from philanthropic and individual sources."

[Scroll down for further.]

City management's agendizing memo, resolution and accompanying proposed rules avoid using the term "sanctuary city," describing the draft policies as "procedures for the requesting, collecting, maintaining, and disclosing of sensitive information and the enforcement of federal immigration law." The draft policies state in pertinent part:

ASSISTANCE WITH ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW.

A City of Long Beach agency, department, officer, employee, or agent shall not assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law except if:

A. Required by state or federal law, or by a valid judicial warrant or subpoena.

B. Required under a contract, memorandum of understanding ("Moun), or other agreement entered into before the effective date of this Regulation, except where otherwise prohibited by law. Existing agreements include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following subject matters: drug enforcement, violent crime, terrorism, joint investigations with the U.S. Secret Service and the U.S. Postal Service, and the like.

C. Conducting enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including sharing confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for task force investigative purposes, provided that such participation is in compliance with state law and:

1. The primary purpose of the joint task force is to enforce nonimmigration-related criminal violations and the Long Beach Police Department's (LBPD) duties are primarily related to violation of state or federal law unrelated to immigration enforcement; and
2. LBPD submits any report(s), required to be submitted annually by LBPD to the Department of Justice per Government Code section 7284.6(c), to the Long Beach City Council for review on an annual basis.

D. Investigating, enforcing, or detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting for a violation of, Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b )(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity; transfers are only permitted where authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination (as defined under Government Code Section 7284.4(h)), or for individuals meeting one or more of the criminal background conditions under Government Code Section 7282.5(a)-(b).

E. Providing immigration authorities access to interview an individual in department custody provided that LBPD has complied with the California TRUTH Act, as authorized by Government Code Section 7284.6(b )(5).

F. Providing information regarding a person's release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information only if the release date or other information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities regarding persons meeting one or more of the criminal background conditions specified under Government Code Section 7282.5(a)-(b).

G. Transferring an individual to immigration authorities pursuant to a judicial warrant, judicial probable cause determination (as defined under Government Code Section 7284.4(h)), or those individuals meeting one or more of the criminal background conditions specified under Government Code Section 7282.5(a)-(b).

City staff's agendizing memo includes a proposed Council resolution and proposed practices (administrative regulations) at this link.
Sponsor

Sponsor

The proposed Council resolution recites in pertinent part:

Section 1. The City of Long Beach is committed to continue fostering trust between City officials and residents and visitors to protect local resources, encourage cooperation between the public and City officials, including but not limited to law enforcement officers and employees, and ensure public safety for all.

Section 2. The City Council of the City of Long Beach hereby supports the now codified California Values Act, signed by the Governor on October 5,2017.

Section 3. The City Council of the City of Long Beach seeks to prohibit the requesting, collecting, maintaining, or disclosing of "sensitive information," including but not limited to one's citizen or immigration status, absent certain circumstances, and apply this prohibition, and the State-mandated prohibitions related to enforcement of federal immigration law, to all City Manager departments, including but not limited to Police, Fire, Financial Management, Development Services, and Health & Human Services. As such, and in recognition of the City's continued commitment to the respectful treatment of all people, the City Manager, or his or her designee, is hereby directed to adopt and implement Administrative Regulations, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference. The exclusive remedy for violation of the City Manager's Administrative Regulations as specified in Exhibit "A" shall be through the City's disciplinary procedures for employees under applicable City regulations and policies, including but not limited to the City Charter and Civil Service Rules and Regulations. No violation will exist if the agency, department, officer, employee, or agent of the City is discharging his or her duties as set forth therein. Given that the City has not completed the meet and confer process with the various employee labor unions, this 28 Administrative Regulation is subject to change.

Section 4. Nothing in this Resolution, or in any exhibit attached hereto, shall be construed or implemented to conflict with any prohibition, duty or obligation imposed by court order; City of Long Beach policies, laws, or regulations; state law, including but not limited to the California Public Records Act; or federal law. This Resolution does not prohibit or restrict any City employee from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities information regarding citizenship or lawful or unlawful immigration status of any individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information (lawful or unlawful) of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging such information with any other federal entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.

Sponsor


In its agendizing memo, city staff writes in pertinent part:

Local Policy on Immigrant Protections

The California Values Act [SB 54] places limitations on state and local law enforcement agencies with respect to communications and coordination with federal immigration authorities including, but not limited to, prohibiting state and local law enforcement from inquiring into an individual's immigration status, entering into agreements authorized by federal law to delegate immigration powers to local agencies, designating local law enforcement officers as immigration officers, and arresting or participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants. However, the California Values Act does authorize a state or local law enforcement agency, in its discretion, to exercise exceptions to the general prohibition against using agency funds or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, provided such exceptions do not violate any local law or policy applicable to that agency. A significant exception provided for in the California Values Act, for certain specified actions by law enforcement, is found in Section 7282.5 (a)-(b) of the Government Code relating to persons with criminal histories involving serious and violent crimes.

The proposed Resolution entitled the "Long Beach Values Act of 2018," including the attached Administrative Regulation (AR), would establish a local policy with procedures specifying limits for requesting, collecting, maintaining, and disclosing sensitive information, and assisting with enforcement of federal immigration law. The policy provides protections for sensitive information beyond citizenship and immigration status, by also including one's: Status as a victim of domestic abuse or sexual assault

  • Status as a victim or witness to a crime generally
  • Status as a recipient of public assistance
  • Religious affiliation
  • Sexual orientation
  • Biological sex or gender identity
  • Place of birth
  • Race
  • Ethnicity
  • Disability
  • As an AR, this policy would apply to all City departments and offices directly responsible to the City Manager including, but not limited to, Police, Fire, Development Services, and Health and Human Services. It is also requested in the AR, as well as outlined in the Resolution, that elective offices and other independent offices and departments of the City comply with the procedures of this policy, or similar procedures, in the interest of administrative uniformity. The policy maintains the California Values Act exceptions, in furtherance of the public health, safety, and welfare. Above all, the policy seeks to ensure compliance with local, state, and federal laws and regulations to, among other things, maintain eligibility for federal grant funding programs.

    Regarding legal assistance, city staff says it "has identified a recommended program model for the creation of a local legal defense fund, via a public-private partnership, to provide legal representation services for immigrant-residents facing deportation" that "would require a one-time investment of City funding that would be used as a catalyst to secure matching funds from philanthropic and individual sources" with an initial estimated City "investment" of $100,000 "to incentivize additional community investment." To support this program, staff says the Council "could consider appropriating funding during the FY 19 Budget process" which would "delay initiation of the local fund until early winter of 2019, following adoption of the budget." Or the Council could "consider reallocating departmental savings identified in the FY 18 budget."

    Sponsor

    Sponsor

    Background

    The Council item stems from a September 19, 2017 Council vote (7-1, Mungo voting "no," Supernaw exiting prior to the item) directing city staff to draft a resolution titled the "Long Beach Values Act of 2017" that affirms "the City's commitment to" SB 54 and SB 31. (The Council did that in a "consent calendar item approved without further discussion on Oct. 3, 2017.)

    But the Council's Sept. 19 motion also directed city staff to prepare a local policy that expands SB 54 with "policy considerations" that include protecting and advocating for local Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAMer) students; preventing future deportations of Long Beach residents; examining partnerships with Los Angeles County for a local legal defense fund; protecting the confidentiality of local immigrant residents and their information, and ensuring no City resources are used to create registries based on religious affiliation, immigration status or any other protected class such as gender, sexual orientation, race, etc.; and affirming an aggressive approach to advocating at the federal and state level for pro-immigrant polices."

    Details on that Council-requested, city staff-drafted proposed local policy -- which are included in this link -- are now coming to the March 13 Council meeting for discussion, public testimony (pro and con) and Council voted action(s)..


    Sponsor

    Long Beach City Hall's confrontational stance toward the Trump administration's immigration policies began on Feb. 7, 2017 -- the first Council meeting day after President Trump was sworn into office. An item co-agendized by Councilmembers Lena Gonzalez, Jeannine Pearce, Roberto Uranga and Vice Mayor Rex Richardson (titled "Support for State Legislation protecting Long Beach's diverse communities") sought Council support for SB 54 (the "CA Values Act" colloquially known as the "statewide sanctuary" bill) and SB 31 (the "CA Religious Freedom Act") [both of which were enacted in 2017.] The four agendizing Councilmembers wrote in part, "Given the caustic directives being issued by our nation's newly elected President, it is important the City of Long Beach is clear on where we stand. Long Beach is a safe and welcoming City. We will protect the safety and well-being of all Californians by ensuring State and local resources are not used to support deportations, separate families, and ultimately hurt California's economy..."

    The Feb. 7, 2017 Council item carried on a 7-0 vote (Andrews and Mungo absent, with Mungo vanishing on the vote and re-appearing a few minutes later.

    Some in LB want the City Council to go further on March 13. On its website, www.sanctuarylb.com states:

    ...Under the current staff proposal of the Long Beach Values Act, immigrants are granted protections in that Long Beach agencies are prohibited from sharing immigrants’ personal information with ICE, notifying ICE of release dates, and transfers to ICE. As proposed, these protections would not be given to people with certain past convictions. These exceptions include people whose offenses were decades-old, and people who have long ago served their time and changed their lives. Assisting in their deportation based on the same offense is double-punishment, and undermines the Constitutional guarantee of Due Process...

    We denounce this demonizing mischaracterization of immigrants who have a past conviction in the name of public safety...It's time for Long Beach to be on the right side of history by passing a strong policy that fills the gaps in SB 54 and gets our local government fully out of the deportation business.

    We call on the Long Beach City Council to pass a "clean" Long Beach Values Act with no "carve-outs" for past convictions and a fully-funded Deportation Defense Fund. No amount of political intimidation will deter us or silence our unwavering commitment to defend our values that make us proud to call Long Beach home.

    President Trump and U.S. Attorney General Sessions have denounced SB 54 and "sanctuary city" policies, and last week the U.S. Justice Dept. filed suit seeking to invalidate SB 54. On March 7, 2018, U.S. Attorney General Sessions told a Sacramento meeting of the CA Peace Officers' Association [remarks as prepared for delivery]

    ...Immigration law is the province of the federal government. This Administration and this Justice Department are determined to make it work effectively for the people. I understand that we have a wide variety of political opinions out there on immigration. But the law is in the books and its purpose is clear.

    There is no nullification. There is no secession. Federal law is "the supreme law of the land." I would invite any doubters to Gettysburg, and to the graves of John C. Calhoun and Abraham Lincoln.

    A refusal to apprehend and deport those, especially the criminal element, effectively rejects all immigration law and creates an open borders system. Open borders is a radical, irrational idea that cannot be accepted...

    But, California, we have a problem. A series of actions and events has occurred that directly and adversely impact the work of our federal officers. For example, the mayor of Oakland has been actively seeking to help illegal aliens avoid apprehension by ICE. Her actions support those who flout our laws and boldly validate the illegality. There's no other way to interpret her remarks.

    To make matters worse, the elected Lieutenant Governor of this state praised her for doing so. Bragging about and encouraging the obstruction of our law enforcement and the law is an embarrassment to this proud and important state...So here's my message to Mayor Schaaf: How dare you. How dare you needlessly endanger the lives of law enforcement just to promote your radical open borders agenda.

    But in California, we have an even bigger problem than just one mayor. The problems continue...

    In recent years, California has enacted a number of laws designed to intentionally obstruct the work of our sworn immigration enforcement officers -- to intentionally use every power it has to undermine duly-established immigration law in America...[T]hese laws are harmful to Californians, and they're especially harmful to law enforcement.

    That's why the Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit yesterday against the state of California to invalidate these unjust laws and to immediately freeze their effect. Federal agents must be able to do the job that Congress has directed them to do.

    Contrary to what you might hear from the lawless open borders radicals, we are not asking California, Oakland, or anyone else to enforce immigration laws. Although we would welcome the positive assistance the majority of jurisdictions in America provide, ICE agents do incredible work every day. They will not be deterred.

    We are simply asking California and other sanctuary jurisdictions to stop actively obstructing federal law enforcement. Stop treating immigration agents differently from everybody else for the purpose of eviscerating border controls and advancing an open borders philosophy shared by only the most radical extremists. Stop protecting lawbreakers and giving all officers more dangerous work to do so that a few politicians can score political points on the backs of officer safety...

    California is using every power it has -- and some it doesn't -- to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I'm going to use every power I have to stop them...

    Developing.


    blog comments powered by Disqus

    Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


    Follow LBReport.com with:

    Twitter

    Facebook

    RSS

    Return To Front Page

    Contact us: mail@LBReport.com



    Adoptable pet of the week:





    Carter Wood Floors
    Hardwood Floor Specialists
    Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


    Copyright © 2017 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here