|
BL2017-739 – “Nashville Together” Family Friendly City Bill
Over the past few days, I have been contacted by some of my
constituents via phone calls and e-mails about Ordinance BL2017-739, the bill portrayed
as “Sanctuary city” or “Sanctuary city like policy.”
I would like to call it “Nashville Together” or “Family
Friendly City Bill.” This ordinance will give immigrant families peace of mind
that their families will not be separated so long as they continue to live their
lives abiding by the law. This ordinance will make Nashville a truly warm and
welcoming city and a safe place for all to live.
Currently, there is an estimated 33,000 undocumented people
living in Nashville. They are feeling unsafe and fearful due to a recent change
in the Federal immigration policy. Some undocumented immigrant parents are
afraid that today could be the last day to see their US born children every time
they leave their home. Some are not taking their children to school or getting them
vaccinated, and many others are too afraid to call the police when they are the
victim of a crime or witness a crime. This situation makes our city less safe.
Many asked why don’t those undocumented people get in line to obtain
legal status? The fact is, there is no line for them to get in. They would get
in the line in a heartbeat and apply for legal status if the immigration system
offered such option. As we know, our immigration system is outdated and broken.
However, only the Congress and the Federal Government can fix it. Until the Federal
Government acts to reform immigration laws, what we can do is to ensure Nashville
is truly a warm and welcoming city for all families.
While I was responding to phone calls and e-mails, I realized
there is quite a bit of misinformation and misconception about Ordinance
BL2017-739 and “sanctuary city” and “sanctuary jurisdictions.” I would like to
offer some clarification by sharing the publications prepared by Immigration
Legal Resource Center, and Tennessee Immigrants & Refugee Rights Coalition, and
the response to CL Vercher's questions by MNPD Chief Anderson.
Does this ordinance violate Federal law or put Federal
funding at risk? No. BL2017-739
will comply with Federal law. The ordinance only limits the city's
participation in voluntary programs and additional collaboration with
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) not required by Federal law.
It is true that the
Trump administration has indicated that they oppose "sanctuary
jurisdictions" and will seek to withhold funding from such
cities/counties. Recently, however, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a
memo to all department grant-making components that defined "sanctuary jurisdictions"
and makes two critical clarifications:
1) According to the DoJ definition, only jurisdictions
that willfully limit mandatory information sharing to ICE (violating 8 U.S.C.
1373) will be considered "sanctuary" jurisdictions. BL2017-739 does
not violate this Federal law and would not make Nashville a
"sanctuary" jurisdiction.
8 USC § 1373(a) is a
Federal statute that prohibits local and state governments and agencies from
enacting laws or policies that limit communication with Immigration &
Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) about
“information regarding the immigration or citizenship status” of individuals.
The statute prohibits such policies, but does not contain any affirmative
requirement for specific action.
2) The AG
conceded that the Federal government cannot threaten or punish cities that
limit their voluntary cooperation with Federal immigration enforcement by
withholding any and all Federal grants. As the General
Assembly is aware, the Federal government cannot commandeer local resources for Federal use and therefore cannot require that local governments expend
resources on Federal immigration enforcement. What the memo does indicate is
that the Federal government may seek to reward cities that help them carry out
deportations by creating future grants for jurisdictions that go above and
beyond what the law requires.
Does this ordinance violate state law? No. The Tennessee General Assembly passed a
law in 2009 that prohibits local government entities and officials from
adopting any ordinance or written policy that "expressly prohibits a local governmental entity, official, or employee from complying with applicable
Federal law pertaining to persons
that reside within the state illegally." BL2017-739 fully complies with Federal
law and therefore does not violate state law.
Can the Federal
government require local police or jails to help with immigration enforcement
or comply with immigration detainers? No. The Tenth Amendment precludes the
Federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their
resources to enforce Federal laws or regulations, like immigration. Immigration
holds and requests for notice of release dates are not mandatory, because
forcing states or localities to assist in immigration enforcement, such as
complying with ICE detainer requests, would violate the separation of powers
between state and Federal governments. Consequently, 8 USC § 1373 does not and
could not require such assistance.
Removal proceedings to deport noncitizens from the U.S. is a
civil – not a criminal – process. As such, local law enforcement officers do
not have authority to arrest or detain noncitizens for civil violations of
immigration law or hold them post-release pursuant to an ICE detainer. There is
no violation of Federal law in declining ICE detainers or refusing to provide
immigration officials with release date information. Many Federal courts have
found local detention pursuant to an ICE detainer to be illegal.
Does this ordinance
undermine public safety? No. The ordinance is designed to
promote public safety. Right now, immigrant
communities do not see a distinction between local law enforcement and Federal immigration enforcement
agents. As a result, immigrant residents hesitate to call the police to report crimes when they are
victims or witnesses. When people don't trust the police, and don't call to
report crimes, our whole
community becomes less safe.
We have a criminal
justice system that is designed to enforce criminal law and promote public
safety. All Tennessee residents,
regardless of immigration status, are subject to punishment for violating criminal law. BL2017-739
aims to prioritize limited taxpayer resources and promote public safety by not diverting critical law
enforcement resources towards civil immigration violations instead of pursuing public safety threats like domestic violence or the
opioid crisis.
Does this ordinance
allow undocumented immigrants access to public benefits that they were
previously ineligible for? No. Public benefits have strict
immigrant eligibility requirements as determined by state and Federal law. BL2017-739
does not prohibit inquiring about immigration status when mandated by state or
Federal law. If BL2017-739 becomes law, immigrants in Nashville seeking access
to public benefits like TennCare will still be required to show proof of
citizenship or immigration status to demonstrate eligibility.
The ordinance will
clarify for public employees and reassure immigrant residents that government agencies will not
otherwise inquire about immigration status when not required by Federal law to
deliver a service.
For example, the Public
Health Department will be able to reassure immigrant families that if they
bring their child in for a
vaccination they will not be required to disclose their immigration status.
Both state and Federal law exempt
immunizations from immigration eligibility requirements because of the importance of ensuring
all children have proper vaccinations. Without an ordinance like BL2017-739 in
place, employees of the health department have reported fewer immigrant
families showing up to vaccinate their
children, making our whole community less safe. Similarly, the police or fire
department will be able to reassure
families that when calling to report a crime or emergency, they will not be asked about their
immigration status.
Most of social safety
net services and public benefits programs have immigrant eligibility requirements as outlined
in state and Federal law. Public employees in Nashville will still be required
to verify immigration
status when determining eligibility for these programs and services.
What's MNPD's policy as it relates to
interactions with immigrants? Immigration status is not a relevant
consideration in most interactions with immigrants. The MNPD has no
reason to inquire or otherwise consider immigration status. However,
during arrest situations, "place of birth" is a field on the report
about which an officer may inquire. This inquiry, about "place of
birth"- NOT immigration status, is simply to aid in verification of a person's
identity as there are many common names. Verification of identification
is most often the significant consideration in determining eligibility for a
citation in lieu of continued custody. This inquiry about "place of
birth" is as relevant for other states and cities as it is for countries.
Is it the same as
with anyone else given a person's skin color can't solely determine birth origin?
Yes. Our policy is to treat all persons, regardless of skin color or
immigrant status, equally.
Do MNPD officers ask
citizenship status questions? Citizenship status is irrelevant to MNPD.
How does this ordinance
impact enforcement of law? Considering that immigration status is
irrelevant to the MNPD in carrying out our duties, there is no foreseeable
impact to most of the MNPD interactions-either enforcement activities or in the
investigation of crimes, or providing services to victims.
How does MNPD
cooperate with ICE? Realizing that ICE is an acronym for a department which
includes Customs enforcement and their role includes investigating or enforcing
the attempted importation of controlled substances and counterfeit goods, and
these offenses are also a violation of state law, the MNPD occasionally
cooperates or assists US Customs and Postal Inspectors with these
offenses. Immigration enforcement remains solely a function of Federal
law enforcement and the MNPD has no authority to investigate or enforce
immigration laws. The MNPD expects to have no role in that activity.
In your professional
opinion and expertise, do you see this ordinance as potentially jeopardizing or
straining relationships with law enforcement and Federal agencies like FBI?
Considering that immigration status is not and has not been a relevant issue
for the MNPD to inquire about, investigate or otherwise a consideration in our
activities, I would expect no change in ongoing relationships with local or
federal partnerships.
As always, I welcome your input. Please feel free to call me or e-mail me with any suggestions or questions. |
