Mar 12, 2017 - Wouldn't it be safer to adopt the policies underlying sanctuary but avoid using that word? 11. Which othe
Sanctuary Now!: Culver City FAQs Culver City Action Network updated March 12, 2017 available at https://goo.gl/eFJv4u
In response to residents demanding “Sanctuary Now!”, the Culver City Council has put a local sanctuary policy on the agenda for the Council’s Monday, March 27, 7pm meeting at City Hall. The idea behind sanctuary is simple: Culver City should do everything in its power to serve and protect all its residents without regard to immigration status, national origin, religion, and race, and it should self-consciously avoid aggravating threats that residents face on those bases. Many of the Trump Administration’s most dangerous policies rely upon enlisting the support of local governments. A sanctuary policy refuses this complicity. Not in our name. Not on our dime. Not in our house. Fleshing out this general idea requires more specifics, and people understandably have many questions. Here are some answers, including ones that address common misconceptions. 1. What specific steps should the Culver City Council take to make us a sanctuary city? 2. I thought immigration was a federal matter. Why is this a local issue? 3. I thought the federal government only targeted “criminal aliens.” Doesn’t immigration enforcement just enhance public safety? 4. The Police Chief already spoke to this issue. Why does the City Council need to act? 5. The School Board already spoke to this issue. Why does the City Council need to act? 6. The City Council already condemned hate crimes. Why does it need to act on sanctuary? 7. How does the proposed SB 54 “California Values Act,” a/k/a “Sanctuary State,” affect the need for a Culver City sanctuary policy? 8. The Trump Administration wants cities to be a “force multiplier.” Aren’t we legally obligated to help it implement mass deportations? 9. The President has threatened to strip federal funding from cities that don’t carry out his policies for him. Do we really have any choice? 10. Wouldn’t it be safer to adopt the policies underlying sanctuary but avoid using that word? 11. Which other cities have already acted to establish sanctuary policies? 12. What are the limitations of sanctuary policies? 13. Do sanctuary policies undermine respect for the rule of law, given the laws we have? 14. What can I do to help Culver City become a sanctuary city?
1. What specific steps should the Culver City Council take to make us a sanctuary city? In a letter to the City Council, Culver City Action Network identified seven actions that should be components of a sanctuary policy. They are ● ● ● ● ● ● ●
Declare Culver City to be a “sanctuary city.” Decline to perform or assist with any immigration enforcement, unless required by law. Protect personal information against use for immigration enforcement. Contribute to the L.A. Justice Fund for legal assistance to residents facing deportation. Reject and refuse to cooperate with any efforts to profile, register, or otherwise restrict the liberty of Muslims or people of Middle Eastern descent. Celebrate and protect the exercise of civil rights and civil liberties, including public demonstrations. Review and modify City ordinances and policing practices to avoid indirectly facilitating immigration enforcement, racial or religious profiling, or political repression against those taken into City custody.
For more details on each of these actions, read the full letter here. It also contains numerous attachments for further reference. Another useful resource is the ACLU’s 9 “model” state and local law enforcement policies and rules. Back to the top
2. I thought immigration was a federal matter. Why is this a local issue? Culver City is the proud home to many immigrants, both citizens and noncitizens, as well many mixed status families where, for instance, children born here are citizens while their parents may not be. How Culver City treats its immigrant residents is essential to maintaining the fabric of our community as a place that is welcoming, diverse, and vibrant. This goes beyond merely avoiding discrimination in City services. Instead, the City must prevent itself from being used as a tool by the federal government in the service of federal immigration policies that we cannot control and have no obligation to implement ourselves. In particular, the federal government has neither the capacity nor the willingness to deport millions of documented and undocumented immigrants itself. Instead, it relies upon local law enforcement to be the funnel that either delivers immigrants into federal custody or that marks people as targets for deportation. In recent years, a large proportion of deportations have begun when immigrants--and sometimes citizens misidentified as immigrants--are detained by police and held in local jails. It doesn’t matter whether charges are ultimately dropped or a person is convicted. Once in custody, even for a minor offense like leaving your driver’s license at home and driving your car around the corner, immigration authorities (ICE) are automatically alerted when fingerprints are submitted to the FBI for a background check. At that point, an immigrant is vulnerable to being detained and deported, either in the jail itself or immediately upon release. Culver City does not maintain its own jail but instead transfers arrestees to the custody of the LA Sheriff’s Department, which cooperates with ICE in several ways. Therefore, anyone arrested by Culver City is at risk of being taken into ICE custody via the county jails, even without any direct cooperation between Culver City and ICE. Therefore, Culver City should avoid inadvertently triggering deportations with arrests for minor offenses and should scrupulously avoid racial profiling that can lead to such arrests. It was for reasons like these that LA recently decriminalized street vending to avoid triggering the disproportionate punishment of deportation. There are many other examples. For instance, local police might initially stop someone for one reason (like driving without a license) but then arrest them when a background check reveals an immigration issue (even if there is no criminal warrant), or when they coordinate with ICE such that police make the initial stop but ICE takes people into custody on immigration grounds. The Trump Administration is moving aggressively to expand these sorts of arrangements in order to achieve its goals of mass deportations and fear. Back to the top
3. I thought the federal government only targeted “criminal aliens.” Doesn’t immigration enforcement just enhance public safety? The much-used term “criminal alien” is a misleading effort to demonize all immigrants. According the Trump Administration’s recent Executive Orders, almost every undocumented immigrant is a “criminal alien” who is a ”priority” for deportation. Not only does the new policy target anyone convicted of any misdemeanor, and not only does it include anyone arrested regardless of conviction, it even applies to anyone whom an ICE officer believes has violated any law or created a danger to others, even if no arrest has been made. Think about it. Have you ever broken the law, even if you were never stopped, arrested, or convicted? By these standards, we are all criminals. Moreover, many misdemeanor arrests can trigger the deportation of even Lawful Permanent Residents (“green card” holders). For more information, read this letter sent to the City Council by UCLA Professor Kelly Lytle Hernandez after a recent meeting. Back to the top
4. The Police Chief already spoke to this issue. Why does the City Council need to act? Soon after the November election, Police Chief Bixby made an encouraging but vague statement to the community in which he indicated that current Culver City Police policy is that “the sole issue of one’s immigration status is NOT a matter for Culver City Police action.” As Chief Bixby explained at the February 13, 2017 Council meeting, this means that the CCPD does not ask about immigration status and does not makes stops or arrests based “solely” on immigration status. These are important protections and components of a sanctuary policy, for which the CCPD should be applauded. However, they are not sufficient and do not substitute for City Council action for the following reasons: ● Without City Council action, nothing prevents the CCPD from changing these policies under future pressure from the Trump Administration, pressure that has already been promised. ● It is the City Council, not the Police Department, whose job it is to speak for the people of Culver City. Our elected officials need to step up, speak in their own voices, and back up the Police Department on this point. ● Sanctuary policy is not only about policing. Policies against information sharing and other forms of cooperation with immigration enforcement, where not legally required, need to be established for all of Culver City government. ● The Police Chief’s statement does not address all the ways CCPD might assist immigration enforcement, such as those described above. Also, CCPD could share information other than immigration status (such as home addresses or information about family members) in order to help ICE identify and locate individuals it seeks to deport. Even if CCPD currently does none of these things, there should be a binding policy assuring that this will continue. ● As also described above, CCPD practices often may have the unintended consequence of triggering deportation. A careful review is necessary to make sure that vastly disproportionate harms do not flow from what may seem like fairly mild actions. Back to the top
5. The School Board already spoke to this issue. Why does the City Council need to act? Soon after the November election, the Culver City School Board passed a strong resolution declaring “Culver City Unified School District Campuses as Safe Zones and Resource Centers for Students and Families.” This commendable resolution applied sanctuary principles to the schools, including commitments not to inquire into immigration status, share personal information with ICE, or permit ICE access to school sites without a judicial warrant. This resolution, however, only applies to the School District. The City Council should follow suit and take similar action with regard to all other units of Culver City government. Indeed, City Council action is necessary to keep our school children safe. Students cannot learn effectively at school if they feel vulnerable outside the school, if their parents have been deported, or if their parents fear being intercepted by ICE at dropoff or pickup. Shockingly, ICE recently arrested an immigrant in front of his children immediately after dropping one off for school in Los Angeles. Back to the top
6. The City Council already condemned hate crimes. Why does it need to act on sanctuary? Before the November election, the City Council passed a resolution “Condemning Violence And Hate Speech, Expressing Solidarity With Muslims And All Those Targeted For Their Ethnicity, Race, Religion Or Sexual Orientation.” This resolution, while commendable, does little on its own to advance sanctuary policy. It appears to be directed at “violence and hate speech” by private individuals, not the actions of the federal government. However, the resolution does state that City Council “commits to pursuing a policy agenda that affirms civil and human rights, and ensures that those targeted on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or immigration status can turn to government without fear of recrimination.” Adopting a sanctuary policy would be a perfect way to translate that commitment into more tangible action. Back to the top
7. How does the proposed SB 54 “California Values Act,” a/k/a “Sanctuary State,” affect the need for a Culver City sanctuary policy? SB 54 would adopt statewide two of the components of the sanctuary policy we seek in Culver City: strong limitations on police assistance with immigration enforcement and strong limitations on information sharing for immigration enforcement purposes. In these respects, SB 54 provides an excellent model for Culver City. Given that the City Council recently, and commendably, endorsed SB 54, it should have no difficulty directly adopting these same policies in Culver City. Even with SB 54 pending, it remains important for the City Council to act for several reasons: ● The Culver City sanctuary policy proposed above is broader than SB 54, which focuses solely on immigration enforcement. In particular, the proposed Culver City policy would address potential Trump Administration actions to implement a Muslim registry, to pressure cities to adopt stop-and-frisk racial profiling policies, and to suppress political dissent. ● The Culver City proposal also is broader with respect to immigration issues. First, it would support the local LA Justice Fund to ensure due process for immigrants facing deportation by providing legal representation. Second, it addresses local policing practices that indirectly trigger deportation even though they do not involve direct cooperation with ICE. ● SB 54 has not yet passed either house of the state Legislature; it will require a two-thirds supermajority to pass. We do not know whether or when it will pass, be signed by the Governor, and become law. In the meantime, Culver City should act on its own to begin providing maximum protection immediately. ● Passing a local sanctuary policy consistent with SB 54 will help build momentum for SB 54 to pass the state Legislature. Back to the top
8. The Trump Administration wants cities to be a “force multiplier.” Aren’t we legally obligated to help it implement mass deportations? Carrying out mass deportations on the scale promised by the Trump Administration would require hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal spending and tens of thousands of new federal immigration officers. Instead, the Administration wants to avoid responsibility for these costs by shifting them onto state and local governments who, it hopes, will act as a “force multiplier” to expand limited federal capacity. This is why the “sanctuary city” movement is so threatening to the Administration, and it is one part of why it is so important. With limited exceptions, nothing requires local governments to let themselves be used in this way. Of course, if a judge signs a criminal warrant allowing a federal officer to search a location or seize information or property, Culver City officials must comply. That is not the issue. Sanctuary status would not stop CCPD from complying with criminal warrants. Instead, in the typical situation where ICE has no warrant and is asking for voluntary assistance, Culver City should refuse. There is a federal law that prohibits local governments from refusing a federal request to share information about individuals’ immigration status if the city has such information. Consistent with that law, our proposed policy focuses on not collecting immigration status information in the first place, and on not sharing other personal information that could assist immigration enforcement. A number of issues such as these are addressed in a legal memo that we shared with the City Council. Back to the top
9. The President has threatened to strip federal funding from cities that don’t carry out his policies for him. Do we really have any choice? The President is trying to bully state and local governments and schools with outsized threats to cut off all federal funding to those who don’t use their resources to enable mass deportations. The truth is that the Administration has limited authority to cut off a very narrow slice of funding. The much broader and more damaging cuts would not only require new legislation from Congress, but even that might be unconstitutional. Even the one bill introduced in Congress that has received significant attention -- HR 83, the “ Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act” -- would apply a broad federal funding cutoff only to cities that violate current law regarding sharing of immigration status information. The proposed Culver City policy would not violate that law and therefore would not trigger the funding cutoff even if HR 83 eventually passes. For further background, see the legal memo that we shared with the City Council. Back to the top
10. Wouldn’t it be safer to adopt the policies underlying sanctuary but avoid using that word? Some leaders have sought to have it both ways by adopting the substance of sanctuary policies while avoiding the word “sanctuary” in an effort to avoid backlash from the Trump Administration. This is counterproductive. Merely avoiding the word offers little protection because the Administration most likely would target cities based on what they actually do, not the labels they use. Instead, it enhances vulnerability by abandoning solidarity rather than building power. “Sanctuary” links together the moral call being answered by cities, counties, states, school districts, universities, and religious congregations across the country. The more we make this part of a movement, the more difficult it will be to act against us. Back to the top
11. Which other cities have already acted to establish sanctuary policies? The list is long and growing steadily. Local examples include Baldwin Park, Pasadena, and Santa Ana. Other sanctuary cities are San Francisco, Seattle, and in Boston, where Mayor Martin Walsh declared “I will use City Hall itself to shelter and protect them [immigrants] from persecution.” Back to the top
12. What are the limitations of sanctuary policies? Sanctuary policies can make an important difference, but they are not a silver bullet. Even without local cooperation, federal immigration authorities have the power to act on their own, although they often abuse that power in order to get around its limitations. Nonetheless, sanctuary policies can substantially slow down and shrink the size of the deportation machine. They also send a clear message about our values both to our community and to Washington, and they ensure that even if we cannot stop every abuse, at least we can avoid being complicit in them. Back to the top
13. Do sanctuary policies undermine respect for the rule of law, given the laws we have? No. Most laws are not enforced every time they are broken, let alone with draconian consequences. For instance, we do not live in a society in which every person who ever breaks the speed limit or drives without a license is caught every time. Achieving that level of enforcement would require a police state, and a very expensive one. The fact that enforcement is partial does not mean the law does not matter. Moreover, respect for law does not require disproportionate punishment. Giving someone a ticket rather than a jail sentence for speeding does not show disrespect for law. Forcible expulsion from one’s home, separation from one’s family, and deportation to a country one may not have lived in for decades is a very severe punishment. As noted above, sanctuary policies do not affect the federal government’s ability to enforce existing immigration law using its own resources, they simply decline to use local government to make that easier. If communities believe that the federal government is attempting to enforce federal immigration law with excessive harshness, it is perfectly sensible to refuse to exacerbate that injustice. Of course, some people believe that our immigration laws are fundamentally unjust and that there are times when civil disobedience is appropriate, but sanctuary policies themselves are agnostic on those questions. Back to the top
14. What can I do to help Culver City become a sanctuary city? ● Attend the Culver City Council meeting on March 27, 2017, 7pm at City Hall. ● Print a “Sanctuary Now” sign and place it in the window of your car, your home, etc. ● Email the Culver City Action Network [
[email protected]] to get on our mailing list for future announcements. ● Talk to your family, friends, and neighbors about sanctuary. ● More action suggestions coming soon! ● Check out our Culver City Action Network facebook page for updates. Back to the top
