The Votes Are In!
2024 Readers' Choice is back, bigger and better than ever!
View Winners → Council Reforms Immigration Policy in ‘Gesture of Good Faith’
News Mar 29, 2017
by
share with
Despite updating their immigration policies, both the city and police department will ultimately remain at the whims of the federal administration. – Photo by Terry Miller / Beacon Media News
Police unable to distance itself from ICE entirely
By Gus Herrera
On Monday, the Pasadena City Council took formal action regarding immigration enforcement.
Although it was a “gesture of good faith” (in the words of Mayor Terry Tornek), without comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level, the city will still find itself at the whims of the White House.
“We don’t have purview of what federal agencies do in our city … I don’t want to mislead the people that were solving this problem, the demon is not in the City of Pasadena, it lies somewhere else,” said Council Member Andy Wilson.
“The solution here is comprehensive immigration reform … council will continue to call for it, but until that happens … we don’t get to control what federal immigration policy is,” said Mayor Tornek.
Council approved an amendment to their current immigration policy, Resolution 9319, and also directed staff to periodically report any contact, interaction with, or known activity of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) in Pasadena to the public safety committee.
Additionally, both the city and the Pasadena Police Department (PPD) implemented changes to their immigration policies that will protect personal information and distance the department from ICE, respectively. These changes were applied in response to continued public outcry for reform, most recently exhibited at a march on city hall and subsequent testimony during the Feb. 27 council meeting.
Even if Pasadena were to declare itself a “Sanctuary City,” the act would be little more than a symbolic gesture, as sanctuary-status bears very little (if any) legal authority.
– Photo by Terry Miller / Beacon Media News
According to staff’s report, Resolution 9319, approved on Oct. 28 2013, outlines council’s support for a “humane and comprehensive immigration reform proposal,” based on the following principles:
– Providing an “attainable and affordable pathway to citizenship.”
– Establishing family unity as a “cornerstone of the immigration system.”
– Providing due process and labor protections.
– Allowing access to key essential services (i.e. healthcare).
– Local government “should not be mandated to enforce federal immigration laws.”
On Monday, council amended Resolution 9319 to include support for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which protects children brought into the country at a very young age who are pursuing education.
The PPD updated its own immigration policy (in effect since 1989) by drafting Policy 428, which intends to “continue disengagement of the PPD from deportation activity to the greatest extent permitted by law … ”
Policy 428 will not completely disengage PPD from ICE – in matters pertaining to national security, combating terrorism, human/drug trafficking, and money laundering, PPD will continue to collaborate with ICE, as necessary. Furthermore, Policy 428 treads lightly, citing that “federal law does not allow any government entity to prohibit contact by individuals with ICE.”
In order to address community concerns regarding the accrual and dissemination of personal information related to immigration status, Pasadena implemented a citywide policy titled, “Standards of Conduct Regarding Confidentiality.” These standards will apply to all city employees and will “explicitly limit collection or dissemination of information regarding a person’s status.”
“The solution here is comprehensive immigration reform … council will continue to call for it, but, until that happens … we don’t get to control what federal immigration policy is,” said Mayor Tornek. – Photo by Terry Miller / Beacon Media News
Despite these policy changes, none of the actions taken “declare[d] the City of Pasadena to be a ‘Sanctuary City.’”
Although the idea of a sanctuary city is something highly sought after (as is evident from hours of public testimony), there exists no “legal definition or uniform approach as to what constitutes a ‘Sanctuary City.’” In other words, even if Pasadena were to declare itself a place of sanctuary, the declaration would be more of a symbolic gesture, bearing very little (if any) legal authority.
Currently, state legislature is working to pass Senate Bill 54 (SB54), which would declare California a “Sanctuary State,” an act that would prohibit state law enforcement agencies from participating in various activities related to immigration enforcement. But, even if SB54 does pass, it effectively sets the state on a collision course with the Trump administration, who, along with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has already threatened to withhold funding from jurisdictions who do not comply with federal immigration enforcement.
As a result, some entities, including the City of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, have already filed suit against the federal administration.
According to staff’s report, the amount of federal funding potentially withheld from Pasadena is “currently undetermined,” but, regardless of these federal threats, President Trump’s proposed budget, if approved, would “significantly reduce [the] level of funding” anyways.
In conclusion, Mayor Tornek assured the public that much work is still left to be done and the city will do all it can to take a stance against the federal administration’s policies and threats: “Pasadena won’t be blackmailed, but we must abide by the law … we haven’t heard the last of the evolution of this policy … my guess is it will require further tweaking in order to make the public feel as comfortable as we can make them.”
