CORRESPONDENCE- 50C - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

people who have not yet been convicted of any crime (and indeed may be innocent of any crime), or whose only crime may be an immigration violation such as illegal re- entry. Regarding the former, the ordinance seems to throw the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" out the window. The exception at Section 7(f) will effectively swallow the rule for the community members that are most at risk under the incoming Administration. President -Elect Trump has indicated that he intends to move swiftly to deport any immigrants with criminal records (a term he apparently defines extremely broadly), raising renewed concerns about due process and disruption to families. It is worth emphasizing the reality of the immigration system. Under current law, individuals have no right to government- appointed counsel, can be subject to indefinite and mandatory detention, and can face deportation with no opportunity to request relief or return to the United States. Section 7(f) will also put Santa Ana behind other cities that have declared themselves sanctuaries, and soon even the State. The California Values Act introduced by Senator de Leon contains no carve -out for immigrants with pending felony charges or felony convictions. Even California's TRUST Act, enacted several years ago, is more protective than Santa Ana's proposed ordinance. Instead of malting Santa Ana a leader, Section 7(f) will send Santa Ana in a different direction, malting its own immigrant residents less safe than in other places. (3) Section 7 Generally The proposed ordinance also departs from the Sanctuary City Resolution by specifying that the prohibition on the use of City resources to enforce immigration law applies only to civil violations of immigration law. While it is helpful to distinguish administrative warrants and civil immigration detainers issued by ICE from traditional criminal warrants and detainers in Section 7(b), since the former do not provide local officers with authority to arrest, in no other place in Section 7 is it necessary to limit prohibited immigration enforcement to that which is "civil" in nature. In fact, qualifying immigration law to mean only "civil" immigration law denies the protections of Section 7 to a group of people who need them. While the act of being present in the United States without status is not a federal crime, it is possible that could change under a new Congress. In addition, other immigration- related actions can be punished criminally under certain law. One example is the act of re- entering the country after a removal order - -even if the prior removal order lacked due process. We urge the City Council to return to the formulation of this language that it had in the Sanctuary City Resolution. We also recommend that the list of prohibited activities include a new item that clarifies that City resources will not be used to "assist with or participate in any