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

Home Browse Search

AB 937 Page 17 As a practical matter, this provision would allow a person who is harmed by a public official violating the bill’s prohibitions (by, for example, being taken into federal custody as a result of their release date being provided to federal immigration officials) to bring an ac tion against the public employee (and/or their employer) who provided the information. The plaintiff could recover damages (such as lost income and medical expenses, for example), as well as injunctive relief (i.e. a court order for an agency to comply with the law) and equitable relief (any relief where normal remedies, such as damages, are inadequate). In addition to damages, the plaintiff would also be entitled to recover their “reasonable attorney’s fees” for bringing the action against the employee and/or agency. ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : Co-sponsor Asian Americans Advancing Justice California writes that they support the bill because it is consistent with California’s recent rethinking of tough on crime public safety policies because those policies hurt communities and did not make them any safer: California’s punitive carceral system unjustly and disproportionately harms Black, Latinx, Indigenous, and Asian and Pacific Islander American communities. In recent years . . . the legislature and California voters have demonstrated a strong commitment to reforming our criminal justice system and ending mass incarceration. However, the state’s role in funneling California residents to the custody of ICE undercuts our progress towards a more equitable society, and unfairly targets immigrants and refugees. Indeed, despite these reforms, 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 purpose s, they subject these community members to double punishment and perpetual trauma. . . . The VISION Act would ensure California's tax dollars will not be used to subject immigrants to double punishment, separate immigrant families, and violate constitutional rights. Another co-sponsor, Asian Prisoner Support Committee, emphasized the moral imperative for California to stop all participation and assistance in federal immigration enforcement activities: 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. C alifornia is home to an estimated 11 million immigrants— about a quarter of the immigrant population nationwide. Almost one in three Californians is an immigrant; and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent. . . . If we fail to end the cruel practice of ICE transfers, 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. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The California Police Chiefs Association writes that it opposes the bill because it will prohibit law enforcement agencies from working on task forces with “our federal law enforcement partners.” These multi-jurisdictional task forces – many formed in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks – are incredibly important in undermining major international criminal cartels on ongoing terrorist threats. Oftentimes, although not solely done for immigration pur poses, civil