By Andrew Holley
As an involved member of the immigrant community, I learned of the recent City Council meeting involving the request to discuss Chico as a sanctuary city. I was not able to attend because I had hearings in San Francisco for the past three days so I only know what I read and heard from local news stories and friends who were there. If those stories are correct, it sounds like there were a few mistakes made by both sides.
First of all, there needs to be a little bit of legal background, something that those petitioning the Chico City Council may have missed. In 1989, san Francisco became one of the first sanctuary cities in the United States. The idea was that San Francisco – through its local law-enforcement and jails – would restrict its cooperation with immigration enforcement (ICE), and limit its ability notify, hold, or handover undocumented immigrants who ICE may want to take into custody. In 2013, San Francisco strengthened its polity and completely stopped working with ICE regarding incarcerated immigrants in its county jail. This policy may have played a part in the 2015 murder of 25-year-old Katherine Steinle, a tourist who was shot in the middle of the day on the Embarcadero, a popular destination. She was murdered by an undocumented immigrant who had recently been in San Francisco County Jail for violent crimes, but was released and not handed over to ICE, who would have surely deported him.
In 2014, California adopted the TRUST Act (AB 4). The TRUST Act adopted the ideas of San Francisco. Proponents of the TRUST Act had been pushing for years for California to adopt a state-wide policy and prohibit county jails to cooperate with ICE for any reason, similar to San Francisco’s strengthened policy. However, Governor Jerry Brown vetoed the proposed legislation because there are some violent and dangerous convicted immigrants that – rightfully so – ought to be removed from the United States. Thus, the 2014 version gives local law enforcement and county jail officials the discretion to notify ICE only if the crime involving the undocumented immigrant meets a certain threshold. For example, the law-enforcement official has discretion to notify ICE if the individual has been convicted of a felony, or a wobbler crime involving violence, drugs, or theft. The TRUST Act takes away from local law enforcement the discretion to notify ICE for insignificant misdemeanors. The TRUST Act has been considered a success and has been adopted by all 58 counties in California.
Moreover, the 2013 Supreme Court decision involving local law enforcement authority in regards to arrests of immigrants prohibits local law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws and stopping, detaining, or arresting people on suspicion or knowledge of being in violation of Immigration Laws. Every police department in the United States is bound by this ruling, and is prohibited from stopping people simply on the suspicion of being undocumented.
Finally, as an immigration attorney whose sole practice focuses on assisting immigrants – undocumented and otherwise – I have found Butte County, and Chico in particular, to already be a safe place for undocumented immigrants, especially relative to the nearby counties. Local law-enforcement agencies have gladly assisted my office many times with U visa certifications, and have proved to me to have an honest and sympathetic disposition towards undocumented immigrants.
Now on to what happened at Chico City Council meeting. If the petitioners who want Chico to become a Sanctuary City wanted this ordinance to pass, the first phone call they should have made should have been to the Butte County sheriff, and the Butte County District Attorney. The reason is these are the two local law enforcement that determine who is charged with crimes, and who will be held in jail under suspicion for crimes, and who will be communicating with ICE regarding undocumented immigrants in their custody. It appears from news reports that neither the District Attorney, Butte County Jail, nor the Chico Police Department were contacted nor sought after by the petitioners for their insight or potential teamwork.
On the other hand, the majority members of the Council not even discussing the matter at hand – especially when there were so many people present and part of a coordinated effort to have the matter discussed – was a bad look for the majority of the city council members. As elected representatives of the community, it would be a much better response to at least discuss the matter, or put it on the agenda for a later date.
In conclusion, I applaud the students and community organizers, for their community involvement and passion for making Chico a symbolically safe place for undocumented immigrants. But the reality is Chico is already a very safe place, and I would not anger those who we need to appeal to by lashing out. I encourage them to do a little bit more research next time and reach out to other community members and public organizations who would have insight and a stake in any such changes regarding local undocumented immigrants. I would also encourage the city Council to entertain the idea of putting this on the agenda once again, with a bit more professionalism.
Editor’s note: Sanctuary proponent Lin Jensen researched on the Web the policies already in place at the Butte County Sheriff’s and Chico Police departments that relate to treatment of undocumented immigrants. However, because the City Council reduced the time allotment for speakers from the audience from three minutes to one, Jensen says he didn’t have time to present that research.
Andrew Holley is a Chico attorney specializing in immigration law.