50C - ORD - SANCTUARY CITY - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ordinance Relating to the City's Procedures Concerning Immigration Status December 20, 2016 Page 2 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1644, and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), 8 U.S.C. § 1373. These laws were passed to authorize state and local law enforcement agencies to communicate with federal immigration authorities regarding the status and presence of unauthorized immigrants in their jurisdictions. While neither of these statutes mandates cooperation or sharing of information with federal immigration authorities, both do prohibit any restriction on information sharing between the federal government and state or local government entities or officials. Recently, these provisions have been used to both challenge and support state and local efforts to engage in federal civil immigration law enforcement. Proponents of state and local involvement in federal civil immigration law enforcement have argued that these provisions are an expression of Congress's intent to maximize cooperation among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in enforcing federal immigration laws. Conversely, proponents of less state and local involvement in federal civil immigration law enforcement, including the Obama administration, have argued that these provisions preempt certain state and local efforts to engage in immigration enforcement by drawing limits on the nature of non-federal engagement in immigration enforcement. While many state and local jurisdictions throughout the United States have adopted polices or practices that limit their own jurisdictions' federal civil immigration law enforcement efforts, the federal government has not made a formal legal determination as to whether those state and local laws or policies violate these provisions. And although there is no legal definition, these laws or policies are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary policies", while the jurisdictions themselves are sometimes referred to as "sanctuary cities" or "sanctuary jurisdictions". Through various forms of official communications from U.S. President-elect Donald J. Trump, he has expressed his opposition to "sanctuary policies" and "sanctuary cities". For example, in October 2016, President-elect Trump released his 100 -day action plan to Make America Great Again, which states that he will "cancel all federal funding to Sanctuary Cities". During his campaign, President-elect Trump's rhetoric has incited fear among many individuals throughout the United States, particularly among individuals who identify as being part of a marginalized, minority, and/or unprivileged group. In response to President -Elect Trump's plan, local officials in more than ten major cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Washington, D.C., reaffirmed their commitment to upholding their status as "sanctuary cities", even in the face of uncertainty from the federal government. Furthermore, many cities and towns throughout the United States have adopted or enacted resolutions, ordinances, policies, and practices to demonstrate their commitment to equal, respectful, and dignified treatment of all people, regardless of their immigration status, and as a result may be referred to as a "Sanctuary City", even though there is no legal definition for "Sanctuary City". By adopting Resolution No. 2016-086, the City of Santa Ana similarly demonstrated its commitment to its residents by unequivocally stating that it will provide a sanctuary to all residents who are fearful by assuring them that the City will not expend any funds, nor use its resources, including staff, to administer federal immigration law which is the 50C-2