Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 17-045 <br />involvement have argued that these provisions were intended to maximize cooperation among <br />federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in enforcing federal immigration laws. <br />Opponents of local involvement in federal immigration policy have argued that these <br />provisions weaken community policing efforts because immigrants feel unsafe cooperating <br />with local law enforcement. <br />While many state and local jurisdictions throughout the United States have adopted laws or <br />polices that limit their own jurisdictions' federal civil immigration law enforcement efforts, the <br />federal government has not made a formal legal determination as to whether those state and <br />local laws or policies violate these provisions. Some jurisdictions with “sanctuary” policies do <br />restrict staff from making inquiries about a person’s immigration status in certain <br />circumstances. Though some have suggested that this method does not directly conflict with <br />federal requirements that states and municipalities permit the free exchange of information <br />regarding persons’ immigration status, the practice results in specified agencies or officers <br />lacking information that they could potentially share with federal immigration authorities. <br />When conducting its work, ICE generally relies upon cooperation or notification from local law <br />enforcement to the extent practicable and allowed by state and local laws and practices. <br />Refusing to provide such notice or cooperation limits, but does not prevent, the federal <br />government’s ability to enforce federal immigration laws. <br />Overview of Emerging Federal Efforts <br />President Trump expressed publicly his opposition to “sanctuary policies,” “sanctuary <br />jurisdictions” and “sanctuary cities.” Consistent with various speeches and position papers <br />released prior to the November 2016 election, the President issued an executive order on <br />January 25, 2017: “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”, a copy of <br />which is attached to this report. <br />The language specific to sanctuary cities within the executive order is contained in Sections 8 <br />and 9, while Section 10 refers to “Previous Immigration Actions and Policies” and reinstitutes <br />the Secure Communities program. <br />Key provisions from Section 9 are as follows: <br />·“Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to <br />the fullest extent of the law that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall <br />comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.” <br />·“…jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary <br />jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for <br />law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary” <br />·“The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent <br />consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction.” <br />·“The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that <br />violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents <br />or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.” <br />·“…the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent <br />and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed <br />by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers <br />with respect to such aliens.” <br />·“The Director of the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] is directed to obtain and <br />provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is <br />Page 3 City of San Leandro Printed on 2/16/2017