Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 17-045 <br />services. To bolster these efforts, the City is presently working with a Bay Area technology <br />company to better identify which segments of the population are making use of various City <br />services. The City also actively partners with and contributes financially to 211 Alameda <br />County, which connects local residents with important local community services in a multitude <br />of languages. <br />General Overview of “Sanctuary Cities” <br />The term “sanctuary city” is not defined by federal or State law, but it is often used to refer to <br />municipalities that have policies in place that limit assistance for local enforcement of federal <br />immigration laws, and the expenditure of local resources on cooperation with U.S. Immigration <br />and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) enforcement programs. Although such policies or <br />ordinances take many forms, they generally include limitations on local law enforcement <br />making arrests based on immigration violations, limitations on local law enforcement gathering <br />information about immigration status, compliance with ICE detainers, and sharing certain <br />information with ICE, including an individual’s custody status or release date from local <br />custody (Piers, Badlani, Lederer, Legal Issues Regarding Local Policies Limiting Local <br />Enforcement of Immigration Laws and Potential Federal Responses, Memo to Tom Cochran, <br />The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and Darrell W. Stephens, Major Cities Chiefs Association, <br />January 13, 2017). <br />Supporters of such policies argue that cities have local obligations, and that diverting local <br />resources to support the enforcement of federal programs designed to deter or discourage <br />unauthorized immigration would undermine community relations, disrupt municipal services, <br />interfere with local law enforcement, and violate humanitarian principles. Opponents of such <br />policies argue that local jurisdictions that refuse to support federal immigration policy are <br />encouraging illegal immigration and undermining federal enforcement efforts, as well as <br />risking access to federal funding for important local programs and services. <br />Federal Context <br />The federal government has the exclusive authority to enforce the civil provisions of federal <br />immigration law relating to issues such as admission, exclusion, and deportation. Existing law <br />generally allows the federal government to permit, but not require, the assistance of local <br />officials in such efforts. In 1996, the federal government enacted two pieces of legislation that <br />prohibit state or local governments from restricting voluntary communication with the federal <br />government regarding the immigration status of any individual: § 434 of the Personal <br />Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, 8 U.S.C. § 1644) <br />and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, <br />8 U.S.C. § 1373). Both pieces of legislation were designed to facilitate communication <br />between state and local law enforcement agencies with federal immigration authorities <br />regarding undocumented immigrants. While neither of these statutes requires local <br />cooperation or information sharing with federal immigration authorities, both prohibit a policy, <br />statute or ordinance that directly prohibits the voluntary sharing of information once it is <br />acquired. <br />The above federal statutes have been used to both challenge and support state and local <br />involvement in federal immigration law enforcement. Proponents of state and local <br />Page 2 City of San Leandro Printed on 2/16/2017