CORRESPONDENCE- 50C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

other groups - -no person should feel afraid to interact with their own City officials because of who they are or where they come from. Section 9 already provides that nothing in the City's ordinance ordinance shall be construed or implemented to conflict with any valid and enforceable federal law. The caveat language in Section 4 is unnecessary and harmful. We recommend that the City go back to the language about protecting sensitive information as it was set forth in the resolution, except that we recommend that the City consider adding "status as a crime victim generally" and "biological sex or gender identity" to the list of sensitive information. (2) Section 7(i) (Exemption from Prohibition on Use of City Resources) When the City Council voted to make Santa Ana a sanctuary on December 6, its action stood in stark contrast to the divisive approach President -Elect Donald Trump has taken on immigration. Unfortunately, by including Section 7(f) in the proposed ordinance, the City risks turning its back on some of the most stigmatized members of the immigrant community- -and exactly the community members that the President -Elect is likely to target first. Section 7 ensures that the City of Santa Ana, and the resources and employees paid for by its residents, will not be used to help President Elect Trump carry out his deportation policies. Legal scholars agree that this is within cities' and states' right to decide. In fact, State Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon introduced a bill a couple weeks ago that would do something very similar at the state level. Section 7 is a critical component of the proposed ordinance that has the potential to truly protect immigrants and improve police- community relations and public safety. However, Section 7(f) abandons these protections for a broad group of people: any person with a pending felony charge, any felony conviction (with no limitation as to the nature of the offense, its date or sentence) or any outstanding criminal arrest warrant. Diverting SAPD's resources to work with the Trump Administration on deporting this group of people rather than focusing on the the Police Department's core mission of criminal law enforcement would be a mistake. First, some of the actions prohibited by Section 7 are illegal for a local police agency to take. Section 7(f) therefore appears to invite the SAPD to violate the constitutional rights of a particular group. Second, immigrants who have felony convictions have done their time; oftentimes, they are already on the path to rehabilitation. Referring them for deportation is like subjecting them to a second punishment for their crime, one that may be far more severe than their criminal sentence. And third, 7(f) is drafted so broadly that it reaches even