Item 21 - Assembly Bill 937 (the “VISION Act”)

Home Browse Search

AB 937 Page 9 entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual. As part of its challenge to the Values Act, the United States contended that 8 U.S.C. 1373 directly prohibits the information-sharing restrictions of the Values Act. The 9 th Circuit Court of appeal disagreed and noted that the Values Act expressly permits the sharing of such information, and so does not appear to conflict with Section 1373. This bill does not specifically reference those federal statutes or the sections of the Values Act concerning those statutes. Therefore, to the extent the Values Act continues to have effect beyond the enactment of this bill, perhaps law enforcement agencies would still be allowed to comply with those federal statutes. This bill does not provide an exception allowing state and local agencies (including law enforcement) to comply with those federal statutes if such compliance would otherwise be prohibited by this bill. The prohibitions in this bill on state and local agencies actions that assist in immigration enforcement would seem to include a prohibition on sending any information to immigration authorities if it would assist in immigration enforcement. Without express provisions allowing state and local agencies to comply with those federal statutes, it does seem more likely that a court could find that this bill is in conflict with, and preempted by, federal law. 6) Argument in Support: According to the Initiate Justice, "When California’s jails and prisons voluntarily and unnecessarily transfer immigrant and refugee community members eligible for release from state or local custody to ICE for immigration detention and deportation purposes, they subject these community members to double punishment and perpetual trauma. Community members can be incarcerated by ICE, often for pro longed periods and with no right to bail, and deported --permanently banishing them from the country, from their families, their homes, their livelihoods. “As the state with the largest immigrant community in the country, California has an ethical and moral obligation to step up our leadership and take action to protect the rights of all refugees and immigrants who call California home, including those eligible for release from our local jails and state prisons. If we fail to end the cruel practice of ICE t ransfers, California will continue to actively participate in the separation of immigrant and refugee families, and inflict irreparable harm to those who came here fleeing war and genocide or to simply build a better life for themselves and their children. “Moreover, state and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs has raised constitutional concerns, including arrests and detentions that violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that target immigrants on the basis of race or ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. “Transferring California residents to ICE custody is costly. By ending voluntary ICE transfers, California stands to save state resources that can be invested in mental health, housing, youth development, and access to living wages-- all of which have been proven to reduce crime and stabilize communities. “In conclusion, California should not subject community members to double punishment, and disregard their record of rehabilitation, stable reentry plans, and community support,