Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5.1 - 1347 Sanctuary City Information Page 1 of 6 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 7, 2017 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Information on Sanctuary City Policies Prepared by: John Bakker, City Attorney EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This report responds to the City Council’s request for additional information about Sanctuary City policies. In particular, the report discusses the various components of Sanctuary City policies and discusses the risks and benefits of adopting them. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive report and, if necessary, provide direction to Staff. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. DESCRIPTION: Background At the February 7, 2017 City Council meeting, members of the public requested that the City Council adopt a sanctuary city policy. The City Council requested that Staff return with this report with information about sanctuary city policies and the risks and benefits associated with adopting them. Definition of a Sanctuary City The term “sanctuary city” is not defined by federal or state law, but it generally refers to municipalities that have policies in place that limit assistance in enforcement of federal immigration laws and the expenditure of local resources on cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (“ICE”) enforcement programs. Although such policies or ordinances take many forms, they generally include: 1) limitations on city officials’ ability to share with ICE information pertaining to an individual’s immigration status; 2) limitations on local law enforcement making arrests and holding individuals in custody based on their immigration status; and 3) limiting Page 2 of 6 federal immigration authorities’ access to non-public government spaces without a court order. Supporters of such policies argue that cities have local obligations and that diverting local resources to support the enforcement of federal programs designed to deter or discourage unauthorized immigration would undermine community relations, disrupt municipal services, interfere with local law enforcement, and violate humanitarian principles. Opponents of sanctuary city policies argue that local jurisdictions that refuse to support federal immigration policy are encouraging illegal immigration and undermining federal enforcement efforts, as well as risking access to federal funding for important local programs and services. Components of Sanctuary City Policies Limiting Information-Sharing with Federal Immigration Authorities Some state and local entities restrict government agencies or employees from sharing information with federal immigration authorities in order to prevent federal authorities from using such information to identify and deport undocumented immigrants. Existing law generally empowers the federal government to per mit, but not require, the assistance of local officials in enforcing immigration law. In 1996, the federal government enacted two pieces of legislation that prohibit state or local governments from restricting voluntary communication with the federal government regarding the immigration status of any individual: § 434 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA, 8 U.S.C. § 1644) and § 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA, 8 U.S.C. § 1373). Both pieces of legislation were designed to facilitate communication between state and local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities regarding undocumented immigrants. While neither of these statutes requires l ocal cooperation or information sharing with federal immigration authorities, both prohibit a policy, statute or ordinance that directly prohibits the voluntary sharing of information once it is acquired. Many state and local jurisdictions throughout the United States have adopted laws or polices restricting staff from making inquiries about a person’s immigration status. This is one of the typical components of sanctuary city policies. The federal government has not made a formal legal determination as to whether such state and local laws or policies violate the federal provisions discussed above. Proponents of sanctuary policies have argued that this method does not directly conflict with federal requirements that states and municipalities permit the fre e exchange of information regarding persons’ immigration status. Opponents have argued that the practice results in government agencies or officials lacking information that they could potentially share with federal immigration authorities, effectively curbing communication between local and federal agencies. Limiting Detentions for Federal Immigration Violations Some local jurisdictions have adopted policies that restrict local law enforcement agencies from detaining individuals in custody upon request by ICE. Federal officials rely on local police to help enforce federal immigration laws. Federal law allows ICE to Page 3 of 6 request that a local law enforcement agency detain a noncitizen in order to allow ICE to take custody of them for the purpose of arrest and removal. (See 8 C.F.R. section 287.7.) However, nothing in federal law compels local law enforcement agencies to comply with such requests. A detainer request issued under this section is distinct from a criminal warrant. A detainer request is not issued by a judge and is not based on a finding of probable cause or evidentiary support. It is simply a request by ICE that a state or local law enforcement agency hold individuals after their release date to provide ICE agents extended time to decide whether to take those individuals into federal custody and then deport them. Refusing to provide such notice or cooperation limits, but it does not prevent, the federal government’s ability to enforce federal immigration laws. Sanctuary jurisdictions cannot stop federal immigration officers from conducting deportation raids (also known as immigration enforcement actions) within the jurisdiction. If ICE obtains a warrant for the arrest of an undocumented individual, the agency with jurisdiction could not prevent ICE from taking action. Furthermore, sanctuary policies do not protect criminals or prevent people from being prosecuted for illegal acts. Limiting Federal Immigration Authorities’ Access to Public Areas Some jurisdictions have enacted policies limiting federal immigration authorities’ ability to enter certain government spaces. A city can limit ICE’s ability to enter non -public forums and other city properties where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Some examples of this include interior meeting rooms or offices within City Hall. But, public agencies cannot prevent ICE from entering public places, such as a library or community center, or any other area that is open to the general public. Examples of Other Nearby Jurisdictions with Sanctuary Policies More than 300 cities around the country identify themselves as sanctuary cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. Their policies generally contain the components discussed above. Since the presidential election, various cities in the Bay Area have also adopted resolutions or other policy statements declaring their intention to become or remain places of refuge or sanctuary, including the cities of Richmond, Alameda, Berkeley, and Emeryville. San Francisco’s ordinances, a typical example, are attached. Most of these cities have not explicitly used the phrase “sanctuary city” in their policies. Other municipalities considering sanctuary city policies have adopted resolutions affirming a commitment to diversity, tolerance, and inclusivity. Some examples include the City of Palo Alto and City of Los Altos (see Palo Alto’s resolution attached). Such resolutions do not expressly prohibit cooperation with federal immigration agents and are therefore unlikely to be targeted for sanction by the federal government. Executive Order to Enforce Compliance with Federal Immigration Laws On January 25, 2017, the President issued an Executive Order titled, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” Exec. Order No. 13,768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017) (“Executive Order”). The Executive Order announces that it is the Page 4 of 6 Executive Branch’s policy to withhold federal funds from “sanctuary jurisdictions,” and directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions do not receive federal grants. The executive order defines sanctuary jurisdictions, as those that do not comply with provisions of federal law that have policies that prohibit sharing information with ICE. In addition, it directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “make public a list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor” detainer requests. Furthermore, it directs the Attorney General to take enforcement action against any local entity that “hinders the enforcement of Federal law.” Existing and Proposed Policies Applicable to the City Current and Pending State Sanctuary Laws Two state laws-the TRUST Act and TRUTH Act - already limit certain aspects of local law enforcement cooperation with ICE. The TRUST Act, which was signed into law in October 2013, specifically prohibits local law enforcement from detaining a noncitizen pursuant to an immigration hold after the time the person is eligible for release from criminal custody under state or local law. In September of 2016, the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds (“TRUTH”) Act was signed into law. Building on the TRUST Act, the TRUTH Act imposes obligations on law enforcement agencies if they notify ICE of an inmate’s upcoming date and time of release and arrange for ICE to interview the detainee. The law enforcement agency must provide the detainee with a written consent form explaining, among other things, the purpose of the interview, that the interview is voluntary, and that the individual may decline to be interviewed. The Act requires the law enforcement agency to notify the detainee of the agency’s intent to comply with ICE requests. The Act also requires that the records related to ICE access be considered public records. Furthermore, beginning on January 1, 2018, the TRUTH Act will require the local governing body of any county, city, or city and county in which a local law enforcement agency has provided ICE access to an individual during the previous year to hold at least one public community forum during the following year in order to provide information to the public about ICE’s access to individuals and to receive and consider public comment. In December 2016, Senator De Leon introduced SB 54, which would establish as state policy many of the components of sanctuary city policies. If passed, this law would prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from using resources to invest igate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes. The bill would require state agencies to review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that information collected from individu als is limited to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose, including federal immigration. Current Alameda County Policies and Practices The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office - with which the City contracts for police services - has adopted General Order No. 1.24, (attached) which provides deputies with guidelines on their duties and responsibilities associated with immigration law, Page 5 of 6 enforcement, arrests, detentions/detainers, and Requests for Notification. T he policy requires the Sheriff’s Office to equally enforce laws and serve the public without consideration of immigration status and states that the Sheriff’s Office does not accept or honor immigration detainer requests from ICE. The policy provides that the immigration status of a person, and the lack of immigration documentation, alone, has no bearing on the manner in which the Sheriff’s Office staff execute s their duties. The policy also notes the difference between an arrest warrant signed by a Judge (which the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office does honor), and an immigration detainer signed by an ICE agent. Finally, the Sheriff’s Office policy provides that under no circumstances will a person be detained or arrested by Sheriff’s Office personnel based solely on his or her immigration status, whether known or unknown. The policy indicates that the Sheriff will not honor ICE detainer requests, but that it will share information about persons in custody with ICE upon ICE’s request in the same manner that it shares information with other law enforcement agencies, including timely notification of release. The Sheriff’s Office will, on a case by case basis, provide such information to ICE without a request from ICE if it believes that the individual poses a significant public safety concern. As of the time the order was issued in 2014, ICE had made about 1,000 detainer requests to Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail. Risks of Becoming a Sanctuary City Potential Financial Impacts If the President or Congress ultimately carries through on the Executive Order to limit the amount of federal funds allocated to jurisdictions that support “sanctuary” policies, the City could be at risk of losing federal funds. The City was awarded just over $83,602 in federal grant funds in the funding year 2016-17. It is possible that federal policies may restrict sanctuary cities from indirectly receiving funds that pass-through other agencies, such as transportation planning agencies. However, the Executive Order’s threat to withhold “all federal grant money” from sanctuary cities may be unconstitutional. Under the U.S. Constitution’s Taxing and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8), the Court has repeatedly held that there are limits on the federal government’s ability to impose funding conditions on recipient state and local entities. First, Congress must provide clear and advanced notice to the recipients of the federal grants. Second, the conditions imposed on the grants must be reasonably related to the purpose of the grant. (See National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) 132 S. Ct. 2566.) The Executive Order’s direction to withhold all federal grant funds from agencies that have adopted sanctuary policies is not tied to any purposes in grants. It seem s likely that the federal government will be unable to withhold grant funding unless the grant serves a purpose that is reasonably related to the purposes set forth in the Executive Order - to enforce federal immigration laws. Page 6 of 6 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. San Francisco Ordinance 2. Palo Alto Diversity Resolution 3. Alameda County Sheriff's Office General Order 4. Executive Order - Sanctuary Cities San Franc isc o Administrative Code CHAPTER 1 2 H: IM M IGRATION STATUS Sec. 12H.1.Ci ty and County of Refuge. Sec. 12H.2.Use of Ci ty Funds Prohibited. Sec. 12H.3.Cl erk of Board to Transmi t Copi es of thi s Chapter; Informi ng Ci ty Empl oyees. Sec. 12H.4.Enforcement. Sec. 12H.5.Ci ty Undertaki ng Li mited to Promotion of General Welfare. Sec. 12H.6.Severabili ty. SEC. 1 2 H.1 . CITY AND COUNTY OF REFUGE. It is hereby affirmed that the City and County of San Franc isc o is a City and County of Refuge. (Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89) SEC. 1 2 H.2 . USE OF CITY FUNDS PROHIB ITED. No department, agency, commission, officer, or employee of the City and County of San Francisco shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforce ment of Federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding release sta tus of individuals or any other such personal information as defined in Chapter 12I in the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is required by Federal or State statute, regulation, or court decision. The prohibition set forth in this Chapter 12H shall include, but sha ll not be limited to: (a) Assisting or coopera ting, in one's offic ial c apacity, with any investigation, detention, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, conducted by the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law and relating to allege d violations of the civil provisions of the Federal immigration law, exc ept as permitte d under Administrative Code Section 12I.3. (b) Assisting or coopera ting, in one's offic ial c apacity, with any investigation, surveillance, or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation relate d to an alleged violation of City and County, State, or Federal criminal laws. (c) Requesting information about, or disse minating information, in one's official capacity, regarding the release status of any individual or any other such personal information as defined in Chapter 12I, exce pt as permitted under Administrative Code Section 12I.3, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City and County of San Francisco upon immigration status, except as required by Federal or State sta tute or regulation, City and County public assistance criteria, or court decision. (d) Including on any application, questionna ire, or interview form used in relation to benefits, se rvices, or opportunities provided by the City and County of San Francisco any question regarding immigration status other than those required by Federal or State statute, regulation, or court decision. Any such questions existing or being used by the City and County at the time this Chapter is adopted shall be deleted within sixty days of the adoption of this Chapter. (Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89; amended by Ord. 228-09, File No. 091032, App. 10-28-2009; Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016) SEC. 1 2 H.2 -1. [REPEALED.] (Added by Ord. 282-92, App. 9/4/92; amended by Ord. 238-93, App. 8/4/93; Ord. 228-09, File No. 091032, App. 10-28-2009; repealed by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016) SEC. 1 2 H.3 . CLERK OF B OARD TO TRANSM IT COPIES OF THIS CHAPTER; INFORM ING CITY EM PLOYEES. The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall send copies of this Chapter, inc luding any future ame ndments the reto that may be made, to every de partment, agency and commission of the City and County of San Francisco, to California's United States Senators, and to the California Congressional dele gation, the Commissioner of the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law, the Unite d States Attorney General, and the Secretary of State and the P resident of the United States. Each appointing offic er of the City and County of San Francisco shall inform all employees under her or his jurisdiction of the prohibitions in this ordinance, the duty of all of her or his employee s to comply with the prohibitions in this ordinance, and that employees who fail to comply with the prohibitions of the ordinance shall be subject to appropriate disciplinary action. Each City and County employee shall be given a written directive with instructions for implementing the provisions of this Chapter. (Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89; Ord. 228-09, File No. 091032, App. 10-28-2009) SEC. 1 2 H.4 . ENFORCEM ENT. The Human Rights Commission shall review the compliance of the City and County departments, agencies, commissions and employees with the mandates of this ordinance in particular instances in which there is question of noncompliance or when a complaint alleging noncompliance has be en lodged. (Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89) SEC. 1 2 H.5 . CITY UNDERTAKING LIM ITED TO PROM OTION OF GENERAL WELFARE. In undertaking the adoption and enforcement of this Chapter, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. This Cha pter is not intended to create any new rights for breach of which the City is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. This section shall not be construed to limit or proscribe any other existing rights or remedies posse ssed by such person. (Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89) SEC. 1 2 H.6 . SEVERAB ILITY. If any part of this ordinance, or the application thereof, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby, and this ordinance shall otherwise continue in full force a nd effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordina nce, and each of them, are severa ble. (Added by Ord. 375-89, App. 10/24/89) CHAPTER 12I: CIVIL IM M IGRATION DETAINERS Sec. 12I.1.Findi ngs. Sec. 12I.2.Defi ni tions. Sec. 12I.3.Restr icti ons on Law Enforcement Officials. Sec. 12I.4.Purpose of this Chapter. Sec. 12I.5.Semiannual Repor t. Sec. 12I.6.Severabili ty. Sec. 12I.7.Undertaking for the General Wel fare. SEC. 1 2 I.1 . FINDINGS. The City a nd County of Sa n Francisco (the "City") is home to persons of diverse racial, ethnic, and national backgrounds, inc luding a large immigrant population. The City respec ts, upholds, and values equal protec tion and equal treatment for all of our residents, regardless of immigration sta tus. Fostering a relationship of trust, respect, and ope n communic ation between City employees and City residents is essential to the City's core mission of ensuring public health, safety, and welfare, and se rving the needs of everyone in the community, including immigrants. The purpose of this Chapter 12I, as well as of Administrative Code Chapte r 12H, is to foster re spect and trust betwee n law enforcement and reside nts, to protect limited local resources, to encourage cooperation between residents and City officials, inc luding especially law enforcement and public health officers and employees, and to ensure community security, and due process for all. The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") is responsible for enforcing the civil immigration laws. ICE's programs, including Secure Communities and its re placement, the P riority Enforcement P rogram ("P EP "), seek to enlist local law enforcement's voluntary cooperation and assistance in its enforc ement efforts. In its description of P EP , ICE explains that all requests under P EP are for voluntary a ction and that any request is not an authorization to detain persons a t the expense of the federa l government. The federal gove rnment should not shift the financial burden of federal civil immigration enforcement, including personnel time and costs relating to notifica tion and detention, onto local law enforcement by requesting that local law enforc ement agencies continue detaining persons base d on non-mandatory civil immigration detainers or cooperating a nd assisting with requests to notify ICE that a person will be released from local custody. It is not a wise and effective use of valuable City resources at a time when vita l services are being cut. ICE's Secure Communities program (also known as "S-Comm") shifted the burden of fede ral civil immigration enforcement onto local law enforcement. S-Comm c ame into opera tion after the state sent fingerprints that state and local law enforcement agencies had transmitted to the California Department of Justice ("Cal DOJ") to positively identify the arrestees and to check their criminal history. The FBI would forward the fingerprints to the Department of Home land Security ("DHS") to be checked against immigration and other databa ses. To give itse lf time to take a detainee into immigration c ustody, ICE would send an Immigration Detainer - Notice of Action (DHS Form I-247) to the local law enforcement official requesting tha t the local la w enforcement official hold the individual for up to 48 hours after that individual would othe rwise be released ("civil immigration detainers"). Civil Immigration detainers may be issued without evidentiary support or probable cause by border patrol agents, aircra ft pilots, specia l agents, deportation officers, immigration inspectors, and immigration adjudication officers. Given that civil immigration detainers are issued by immigration officers without judicial oversight, and the re gula tion authorizing civil immigration detainers provides no minimum standard of proof for their issuance, there are serious questions as to their constitutionality. Unlike criminal warrants, which must be supported by probable cause and issued by a neutral magistrate, there are no such requirements for the issuance of a civil immigration detainer. Several federal courts have ruled that because civil immigration de tainers and other ICE "Notice of Ac tion" documents are issued without probable cause of criminal c onduct, they do not meet the Fourth Amendment requirements for state or local law e nforcement officials to arrest and hold an individual in custody. (M ira n d a -Oliva res v. Cla ck a ma s Co ., No. 3:12-cv-02317-ST *17 (D.Or. April 11, 2014) (finding tha t detention pursuant to an immigration detainer is a seizure that must comport with the Fourth Amendment). See a lso Morales v. Ch a dbourn e, 996 F. Supp. 2d 19, 29 (D.R.I 2014); Villa rs v. Ku b ia to wsk i, No. 12-cv-4586 *10-12 (N.D. Ill. filed May 5, 2014).) On Dece mber 4, 2012, the Attorney General of California, Ka mala Harris, clarified the responsibilities of loca l law enforceme nt agencies under S-Comm. The Attorney General clarified that S-Comm did not require state or local law enforcement officials to determine an individual's immigration status or to enforce federa l immigration laws. The Attorney General also clarified that civil immigration detainers are voluntary requests to local law enforcement agencies that do not mandate compliance. California loc al la w enforcement agencies may determine on their own whether to c omply with non-mandatory civil immigration detaine rs. In a June 25, 2014, bulletin, the Attorney General warned that a federal court outside of California had held a county liable for damages where it voluntarily complied with an ICE request to detain an individual, and the individual was otherwise eligible for release and that loca l law enforcement agencies may a lso be held liable for such conduct. Over 350 jurisdictions, including Washington, D.C., Cook County, Illinois, and many of California's 58 counties, have already acknowledged the discretionary nature of civil immigration detainers and are declining to hold people in their jails for the additional 48 hours as requested by ICE. Local la w enforcement agencies' responsibilities, duties, and powe rs are regulated by state law. However, complying with non-mandatory civil immigration detaine rs frequently raises due process concerns. According to Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the City is not re imbursed by the federa l government for the costs associated with civil immigration detainers alone. The full cost of responding to a civil immigration de tainer can include , but is not limited to, extended detention time, the administrative costs of tracking and responding to de tainers, and the le gal liability for erroneously holding an individual who is not subject to a civil immigration detainer. Compliance with civil immigration detainers a nd involvement in civil immigration enforcement diverts limited loc al resources from programs that are beneficial to the City. The City seeks to protect public safety, which is founded on trust and cooperation of community residents and local law enforcement. However, civil immigration detainers and notifications regarding re lease undermine community trust of law enforceme nt by instilling fear in immigrant communities of c oming forward to report crimes and cooperate with local law enforce ment agencies. A 2013 study by the University of Illinois, entitled "Insecure Communities: Latino P erceptions of P olice Involvement in Immigration Enforcement," found that at least 40% of Latinos surveyed are less likely to provide information to police beca use they fear exposing themselves, family, or friends to a risk of de portation. Indeed, civil immigration deta iners have resulted in the tra nsfer of victims of crime, including domestic violence victims, to ICE. The City has e nacted numerous laws and policies to strengthen communities and to build trust between communities and local law enforcement. Local cooperation and assistance with civil immigra tion enforc ement undermines community polic ing strategies. In 2014, DHS ended the Secure Communities program and replaced it with P EP . P EP and S-Comm share many similarities. Just as with S-Comm, P EP uses state and federal databases to check an individual's fingerprints against immigration and other databases. P EP employs a number of ta ctics to facilitate transfers of individuals from loc al ja ils to immigration custody. First, P EP uses a new form (known as DHS Form I-247N), which requests notification from local jails about an individual's release date prior to his or her release from local custody. As with civil immigration deta iners, these notification requests a re issued by immigration office rs without judicial oversight, thus raising questions about local law enforcement's liability for constitutional violations if any person is overdetaine d when immigration agents are unable to be present at the time of the person's relea se from local c ustody. Second, unde r P EP , ICE will continue to issue civil immigration detainer requests where local law enforcement officials are willing to respond to the requests, and in instances of "spec ial circumstance s," a term that has yet to be defined by DHS. Despite federal courts finding civil immigration detainers do not mee t Fourth Amendme nt requirements, local jurisdictions are often unable to confirm whether or not a dete ntion request is supported by probable cause or ha s be en reviewed by a neutral magistrate. The increase in information-sharing between local law enforcement and immigration officials raises serious conce rns about priva cy rights. Across the country, including in the California Centra l Valley, there has been an increase of ICE agents stationed in jails, who often have unrestricted access to jail databases, booking logs, and other documents that contain personal information of all jail inmates. The City has a n interest in e nsuring that c onfidential information collected in the course of carrying out its municipal functions, including but not limited to public health programs and criminal inve stigations, is not used for unintended purpose s that could hamper collection of information vital to those functions. To carry out public health programs, the City must be able to relia bly collect confidential information from all residents. To solve crimes and protect the public, local law enforce ment depends on the cooperation of all City residents. Information gathering and cooperation may be jeopardize d if release of personal information results in a person being taken into immigration custody. In late 2015, P edro Figueroa, an immigrant father of an 8-year-old U.S. citizen, sought the San Francisco P olice Department's help in locating his stolen vehicle. When Mr. Figueroa went to the police station to retrieve his car, which police had located, he was de tained for some time by police officers before being relea sed, and an ICE agent was waiting to take him into immigration custody immediately as he left the police station. It was later reported that both the P olice Department a nd the Sa n Francisco Sheriff's Department had contact with ICE officials while Mr. Figueroa wa s at the police station. He spent over two months in an immigration detention facility and remains in deportation proceedings. Mr. Figueroa's case has raised major concerns about local law enforc ement's relationship with immigration authorities, and has weakened the immigrant community's confidenc e in policing practices. Community cooperation with local law enforcement is critical to investiga ting a nd prosecuting crimes. Without the cooperation of crime victims - like Mr. Figueroa - and witnesses, loc al law enforcement's ability to investigate and prosecute crime , particularly in communities with la rge immigrant populations, will be seriously compromised. (Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016) (Former Sec . 12I.1 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) SEC. 1 2 I.2 . DEFINITIONS. "Administrative warrant" means a document issued by the fe deral agency charge d with the enforcement of the Federal immigration law that is used as a non-criminal, civil warra nt for immigration purposes. "Eligible for rele ase from c ustody" means that the individual may be released from custody beca use one of the following conditions has occurred: (a) All criminal charges a gainst the individua l have been droppe d or dismissed. (b) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her. (c) The individual has served all the time required for his or her sentence. (d) The individual has posted a bond, or has been released on his or her own recognizance. (e) The individual has been referred to pre-trial diversion services. (f) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law. "Civil immigration detaine r" me ans a non-ma ndatory request issued by an authorized federal immigration officer under Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Fe deral Regulations, to a local law enforcement official to maintain custody of an individual for a period not to exceed 48 hours and advise the authorized fe deral immigration officer prior to the release of that individual. "Convicted" means the state of having been proved guilty in a judicial proceeding, unless the convictions have been expunged or vacated pursuant to applicable law. The date that an individual is Convicted starts from the date of release. "Firearm" me ans a device, designed to be used a s a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel, a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion as defined in P enal Code Se ction 16520. "Law enforcement official" me ans any City De partment or officer or employee of a City Department, authorized to enforce criminal statutes, regulations, or local ordinances; operate jails or maintain custody of individuals in jails; and operate juvenile detention facilities or maintain custody of individua ls in juvenile detention facilitie s. "Notification request" means a non-mandatory request issued by an authorize d federal immigra tion officer to a loc al law enforcement official asking for notification to the authorize d immigration officer of an individual's release from local custody prior to the rele ase of an individual from local custody. Notification requests may also include informal requests for relea se information by the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law. "P ersonal information" means any confidential, identifying information about an individual, including, but not limited to, home or work contact information, and family or emergency contact information. "Serious Felony" means a ll serious felonies liste d under P enal Code Section 1192.7(c) that also are defined as violent felonies under P enal Code Section 667.5(c); rape as defined in P enal Code Sections 261, and 262; exploding a destructive devic e with intent to injure as defined in P enal Code Section 18740; assault on a person with caustic chemicals or flammable substances as defined in P enal Code Section 244; shooting from a ve hicle at a pe rson outside the vehic le or with great bodily injury a s de fined in P e nal Code Sections 26100(c) and (d). "Violent Felony" means any c rime listed in P enal Code Section 667.5(c); human trafficking as defined in P enal Code Section 236.1; felony assa ult with a deadly weapon as defined in P enal Code Section 245; any crime involving use of a firearm, assault weapon, machine gun, or .50 BMG rifle, while committing or attempting to commit a felony that is charged as a sentencing enhancement as listed in P enal Code Sections 12022.4 and 12022.5. (Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016) (Former Sec . 12I.2 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 278-96, App. 7/3/96; Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repe aled by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) SEC. 1 2 I.3 . RESTRICTIONS ON LAW ENFORCEM ENT OFFICIALS. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a law enforceme nt official shall not detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration detainer afte r that individual becomes eligible for release from custody. (b) Law enforcement offic ials may continue to detain an individual in response to a civil immigration detainer for up to 48 hours after that individual becomes eligible for release if the continued de tention is c onsistent with state and federal law, and the individual meets both of the following criteria: (1) The individual has been Convicted of a Violent Felony in the seven years immediately prior to the date of the civil immigration detainer; and (2) A magistrate has determined that there is probable ca use to believe the individual is guilty of a Violent Felony and has ordered the individual to answer to the same pursuant to P enal Code Section 872. In determining whether to continue to deta in an individual based solely on a civil immigration detainer as permitted in this subsection (b), law enforceme nt officials shall consider evidence of the individua l's rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual poses a public safety risk. Evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating factors to consider includes, but is not limited to: the individual's ties to the community, whether the individual has been a victim of any crime, the individual's contribution to the community, and the individual's participation in social service or rehabilitation programs. This subsection (b) shall expire by operation of law on October 1, 2016, or upon a resolution passed by the Board of Supervisors that finds for purposes of this Chapter, the federal government ha s enacted comprehensive immigration reform that diminishe s the need for this subsection (b), whichever comes first. (c) Except as provided in subsection (d), a law enforceme nt official shall not respond to a federal immigration officer's notification request. (d) Law Enforcement officials may respond to a federal immigration officer's notification request if the individua l meets both of the following criteria : (1) The individual either: (A) has been Convicte d of a Violent Felony in the seve n years imme diately prior to the date of the notification request; or (B) ha s be en Convicted of a Serious Felony in the five years immediate ly prior to the date of the notification request; or (C) ha s be en Convicted of three felonies identified in P enal Code sections 1192.7(c) or 667.5(c), or Government Code sections 7282.5(a)(2) or 7282.5(a)(3), other than domestic violence, arising out of three separate incide nts in the five years immediately prior to the date of the notification re quest; and (2) A magistrate has determined that there is probable ca use to believe the individual is guilty of a felony identified in P ena l Code sections 1192.7(c) or 667.5(c), or Government Code sections 7282.5(a)(2) or 7282.5(a)(3), other than domestic violence, and ha s ordered the individual to answer to the same pursuant to P enal Code Section 872. In determining whether to respond to a notification request as permitted by this subsection (d), law enforcement officials shall consider evidenc e of the individual's rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual poses a public safety risk. Evidence of rehabilitation or other mitigating factors to consider includes, but is not limited to, the individua l's ties to the community, whether the individual has been a victim of any crime, the individual's contribution to the community, and the individual's participation in socia l service or re habilitation programs. (e) Law enforcement offic ials shall not arrest or detain an individual, or provide any individual's personal information to a federal immigration office r, on the basis of an administrative warrant, prior deportation order, or other civil immigration document based solely on alleged viola tions of the civil provisions of immigration laws. (f) Law enforcement officia ls shall make good faith efforts to seek federal reimbursement for all costs incurred in continuing to detain an individual, after that individual become s eligible for re lease, in response each civil immigration detainer. (Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016) (Former Sec . 12I.3 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) SEC. 1 2 I.4 . PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. The intent of this Chapter 12I is to address requests for non-mandatory civil immigration de tainers, voluntary notification of release of individuals, transmission of personal information, and civil immigration doc uments based solely on alleged violations of the civil provisions of immigration laws. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to apply to matters other than those relating to federal civil immigration detainers, notification of release of individuals, transmission of personal information, or civil immigration documents, based solely on alleged violations of the civil provisions of immigration la ws. In all other respects, local law enforcement agencies may continue to collaborate with fe deral authoritie s to protect public safety. This collaboration includes, but is not limited to, participation in joint criminal investigations that a re permitted unde r local policy or applicable city or state law. (Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016) (Former Sec . 12I.4 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) SEC. 1 2 I.5 . SEM IANNUAL REPORT. By no later than July 1, 2014, the Sheriff and Juvenile P robation Officer shall eac h provide to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor a written report stating the number of de tentions that were solely based on civil immigration detainers during the first six months following the effective date of this Chapter, and detailing the rationale behind each of those civil immigration deta iners. There after, the Sheriff and Juvenile P robation Officer shall e ach submit a written report to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor, by January 1st and July 1st of each year, a ddressing the following issues for the time period cove red by the report: (a) a de scription of all communications received from the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration law, including but not limited to the number of civil immigration de tainers, notification requests, or other types of communications. (b) a de scription of any communications the Department made to the Federal agency charged with enforcement of the Federal immigration la w, including but not limited to any Department's responses to inquires as described in subsection 12I.5 and the Department's determination of the applicability of subsections 12I.3(b), 12I.3(d) and 12I.3(e). (Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013; amended by Ord. 96-16 , File No. 160022, App. 6/17/2016, Eff. 7/17/2016) (Former Sec . 12I.5 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 304-92, App. 9/29/92; Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) SEC. 1 2 I.6 . SEVERAB ILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phra se, or word of this Chapter 12I or it1 application, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of c ompetent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affe ct the validity of the remaining portions of this Chapter 12I. The Board of Supe rvisors hereby declares that it would have passed this Chapter 12I and each and every section, subsection, sentenc e, clause, phrase, a nd word not dec lared invalid or unc onstitutional without regard to whether any other portion of this Chapter 12I would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. (Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013) (Former Sec . 12I.6 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) CODIFICATION NOTE 1. So in Ord. 204-13. SEC. 1 2 I.7 . UNDERTAKING FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE. In enacting and implementing this Chapter 12I the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. It is not assuming, nor is it imposing on its officers and employees, an obligation for breach of which it is liable in money damages to a ny pe rson who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. (Added by Ord. 204-13, File No. 130764, App. 10/8/2013, Eff. 11/7/2013) (Former Sec . 12I.7 added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) SEC. 1 2 I.8 . (Added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 409-97, App. 10/31/97; Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) SEC. 1 2 I.1 0 . (Added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) SEC. 1 2 I.1 1 . (Added by Ord. 391-90, App. 12/6/90; amended by Ord. 38-01, File No. 010010, App. 3/16/2001; repealed by Ord. 171-03, File No. 030422, App. 7/3/2003) City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO December 12, 2016 Page 1 of 1 (ID # 7565) DATE: December 12, 2016 TO: City Council Members FROM: Council Member Holman, Council Member Kniss, Council Member Wolbach, Council Member Burt SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES MEMO REAFFIRMING PALO ALTO'S COMMITMENT TO A DIVERSE, SUPPORTIVE, INCLUSIVE AND PROTECTIVE COMMUNITY We recommend Council adopt the attached Resolution affirming Palo Alto’s commitment to a diverse, supportive, inclusive and protective community. NOT YET APPROVED 161201 tlh 0140172 1 Resolution No. ________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Reaffirm Palo Alto’s Commitment to a Diverse, Supportive, Inclusive, and Protective Community R E C I T A L S A. Palo Altans value a community characterized by diversity, multiculturalism, and unity, embodied in our national motto, E Pluribus Unum (from many, one); and B. Palo Alto’s community spirit is one of protection and support, with many Palo Altans active as volunteers in preparing for and responding to emerg encies both natural and man-made, and ensuring the physical and emotional needs of all are considered and met wherever possible; and C. Each person is naturally and legally entitled to live a life unmolested by harassment, discrimination, persecution, or assault, whether perpetrated by individuals, groups, businesses, or government; and D. There exists significant and growing concern in our community based upon recent national and regional incidents of hate crimes, discrimination, sexual harassment, and assault, and fear of a trend toward more of these crimes in the future; and E. There also exists considerable concern in our community of risks to marginalized communities of persecution, deportation, denial of constitutional and human rights, and relaxation of national laws protecting people from discrimination, harassment, and assault; and F. Many Palo Altans, including a large number of students, have recently marched peacefully, rallied, and otherwise communicated their rejection of bigotry and affirmed their commitment to a diverse, supportive, inclusive, and protective community; and G. Palo Altans value all members of our community of all religions, ancestries, and ethnicities as well as people of any disability, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity . NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto takes this opportunity to reinforce our commitment to a diverse, supportive, inclusive, and protective community and RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1. Resolution. NOT YET APPROVED 161201 tlh 0140172 2 The City of Palo Alto rejects bigotry in all its forms, including but not limited to Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, racism, nativism, misogyny, and homophobia; and The City of Palo Alto does not tolerate discrimination, hate crimes, harassment, or assault; and The City of Palo Alto will oppose any attempts to undermine the safety, security, and rights of members of our community; and The City of Palo Alto recognizes, values, and will proactively work to ensure the rights and privileges of everyone in Palo Alto, regardless of religion, ancestry, country of birth, immigration status, disability, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity; and The City of Palo Alto will promote actual safety, a sense of security, and equal protection of constitutional and human rights, leading by example th rough equitable treatment of all by City officials and departments. SECTION 2. CEQA. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution does not meet the definition of a project under Public Resources Code Section 21065, thus, no environmental assessment under the California Environmental Quality Act is required. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately on its passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: __________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: __________________________ _____________________________ City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE GENERAL ORDER NUMBER: 1.24 RELATED ORDERS: ISSUE DATE: January 1, 2014 REVISION DATE: July 6, 2015 CHAPTER: Law Enforcement Role, Responsibilities, and Relationships SUBJECT: ICE Enforcement, Arrests, Detention, Removal, and Request for Notifications I. PURPOSE: The purpose of this order is to provide deputies with guidelines on their duties and responsibilities associated with immigration law, enforcement, arrests, detentions/detainers, and Requests for Notification. II. POLICY: The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office will equally enforce laws and serve the public without consideration of immigration status. The ACSO does not accept and/or honor immigration detainers from ICE. The immigration status of a person, and the lack of immigration documentation, alone, shall have no bearing on the manner in which staff executes their duties. Please note there is a difference between an arrest warrant signed by a Judge (which ACSO does honor), and an immigration detainer signed by an ICE agent. Under no circumstances shall a person be detained or arrested by Sheriff’s Office members based solely on his or her immigration status whether known or unknown. III. DEFINITIONS A. IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) has primary responsibility to investigate and enforce federal immigration laws. Alameda County Sheriff’s Office personnel may assist ICE in the enforcement of federal immigration laws upon its specific request and in those situations where ICE initiated investigations have led to the discovery of criminal violations of California law. Assistance to ICE will also be provided in response to officer safety issues or emergency requests for immediate assistance. B. Citizen contacts, detentions, and arrests shall be based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause in a manner prescribed by law. A deputy shall not initiate law enforcement action based solely on observations related to a subject’s immigration status. This General Order does not prohibit investigative inquiries in instances where the immigration status of involved parties to a criminal act needs to be thoroughly investigated. Inquiries will be based on a “need to know” to complete California criminal code violations. These inquiries include, but are not limited to, investigations into human trafficking, smuggling, harboring, and terrorism. C. Form I-247N (Request for Notification): Request for Voluntary Notification of Release of Suspected Priority Alien. The Form I-247N requests the receiving local law enforcement agency notify ICE of the pending release from custody of a suspected priority removable individual at least 48-hours prior to release, if possible. The Form I-247N does not request or authorize the General Order 1.24 Page 2 of 3 LEA to hold an individual beyond the point at which he or she would otherwise be released. Additionally, on the Form I-247N, ICE must identify the enforcement priority under which the individual falls. IV. ORDER A. When Alameda County Sheriff’s Office personnel encounter perceived immigration law violations, members shall be guided by the options set forth in this Order, which is in compliance with state law and Alameda County policies. B. IMMIGRATION VIOLATION COMPLAINTS: If members of the public contact any member of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office to report suspected immigration violations, such persons should be directed to ICE. C. IMMIGRATION STATUS 1. A deputy’s suspicion about any person’s immigration status shall not be used as the sole basis to initiate contact, detain, or arrest that person unless such status is reasonably relevant to the investigation of a crime, such as, but not limited to, trafficking, smuggling, harboring, and terrorism. 2. Sweeps intended solely to locate and detain undocumented immigrants shall not be conducted. Staff will not participate in ICE organized sweeps to locate and detain undocumented residents. This does not preclude staff from assisting ICE during critical incidents or emergency requests for assistance. Each level of assistance will be evaluated by the on scene supervisor to ensure the ACSO’s level of participation remains consistent with this order while protecting human life and property. D. ESTABLISHING IDENTITY 1. Deputies should make all attempts to identify any person they detain, arrest, or who come into the custody of the Sheriff’s Office. 2. Any person who would be cited and released, but who is unable to present satisfactory evidence of his or her identity, will be detained for the purpose of establishing his or her identity, consistent with the treatment of all individuals. E. ICE IMMIGRATION DETAINERS AND REQUESTS FOR NOTIFICATION 1. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office regularly receives immigration detainers (Form I- 247D formerly known as the Form 247) from ICE. A detainer serves to advise that ICE seeks custody of an individual in the custody of the Sheriff’s Office. The Alameda County Sheriff’s Office does not honor these detainers. 2. Please note, however, that if ICE asks for information about an individual that we would otherwise share with other law enforcement agencies or is publicly available information (including a Request for Notification, Form I-247N, through the 2015 Priority Enforcement Program), the Sheriff’s Office shall share this information with ICE. The Request for Notification does not seek any extended detention of the individual, but is General Order 1.24 Page 3 of 3 merely asking that they receive timely notification of the release of priority aliens for which there is an enforcement interest, as indicated by the issuance of the Request for Notification. To be clear, the Sheriff’s Office shall not extend the detention of an inmate so that ICE may detain the individual; rather, the Sheriff’s Office shall only provide ICE with timely notification of release. Upon receipt of a Request for Notification, if Sheriff’s Office staff has any questions and/or concerns, the on-duty Watch Commander/Sergeant should be contacted before acting upon such a request. 3. Further, the Sheriff’s Office may also inform ICE about the release of aliens, even if ICE has not made a formal Request for Notification, where the Sheriff’s Office believes the individual(s) pose significant public safety concerns. Such determinations shall be made on a case by case basis. Again, the Sheriff’s Office shall not extend the detention of an inmate so that ICE may detain the individual; rather, the Sheriff’s Office shall only provide ICE with timely notification of release. 4. TRUST ACT. The Trust Act (AB 4, 2013) provides that a person may not be held in custody solely on the basis of a request for notification and/or detainer if he or she is otherwise eligible to be released from custody. “Eligible for release from custody” means that the individual may be released from custody because one of the following conditions has occurred: a. All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed; or b. The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges; or c. The individual has served all the time required for their sentence; or d. The individual has posted a bond; or e. The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law. F. WARRANT SIGNED BY A JUDGE 1. A detainer will be acted upon ONLY for inmates with pending criminal cases that would normally be held for further criminal proceedings and if the ICE immigration detainer is accompanied with an arrest warrant signed by a judge. An ICE detainer alone shall not be honored. 2. Criminally charged ICE detainees in the custody of the Sheriff’s Office will receive all the rights and privileges consistent with a county or contract inmate. 3. Note that valid warrants of arrest, regardless of crime, shall be treated equally and will not be confused with a request for notification and/or immigration detainer. This General Order does not affect the proper handling of arrests and detentions associated with arrest warrants. Attachments: 1. Sample Request For Voluntary Notification Of Release Of Suspected Priority Alien – Form I247N DHS Form I-247N DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) REQUEST FOR VOLUNTARY NOTIFICATION OF RELEASE OF SUSPECTED PRIORITY ALIEN Subject ID: Event #: File No: Date: TO: (Name and Title of Institution - OR Any Subsequent Law Enforcement Agency) FROM: (DHS Office Address) Name of Subject: ______________________________________________________________________________ Date of Birth: _____________________ Suspected Citizenship: ___________________ Sex: ___________ 1. DHS SUSPECTS THAT THE SUBJECT IS A REMOVABLE ALIEN AND THAT THE SUBJECT IS AN IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT PRIORITY BECAUSE HE/SHE (mark at least one option below, or skip to section 2): The White House Office of the Press Secretary For Immediate Release January 25, 2017 Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States EXECUTIVE ORDER - - - - - - - ENHANCING PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE INTERIOR OF THE UNITED STATES By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), and in order to ensure the public safety of the American people in communities across the United States as well as to ensure that our Nation's immigration laws are faithfully executed, I hereby declare the policy of the executive branch to be, and order, as follows: Section 1. Purpose. Interior enforcement of our Nation's immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States. Many aliens who illegally enter the United States and those who overstay or otherwise violate the terms of their visas present a significant threat to national security and public safety. This is particularly so for aliens who engage in criminal conduct in the United States. Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic. Tens of thousands of removable aliens have been released into communities across the country, solely because their home countries refuse to accept their repatriation. Many of these aliens are criminals who have served time in our Federal, State, and local jails. The presence of such individuals in the United States, and the practices of foreign nations that refuse the repatriation of their nationals, are contrary to the national interest. Although Federal immigration law provides a framework for Federal-State partnerships in enforcing our immigration laws to ensure the removal of aliens who have no right to be in the United States, the Federal Government has failed to discharge this basic sovereign responsibility. We cannot faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States if we exempt classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement. The purpose of this order is to direct executive departments and agencies (agencies) to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States. Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to: (a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code; (b) Make use of all available systems and resources to ensure the efficient and faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States; (c) Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law; (d) Ensure that aliens ordered removed from the United States are promptly removed; and (e) Support victims, and the families of victims, of crimes committed by removable aliens. Sec. 3. Definitions. The terms of this order, where applicable, shall have the meaning provided by section 1101 of title 8, United States Code. Sec. 4. Enforcement of the Immigration Laws in the Interior of the United States. In furtherance of the policy described in section 2 of this order, I hereby direct agencies to employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all removable aliens. Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who: (a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense; (b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved; (c) Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense; (d) Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency; (e) Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits; (f) Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or (g) In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. Sec. 6. Civil Fines and Penalties. As soon as practicable, and by no later than one year after the date of this order, the Secretary shall issue guidance and promulgate regulations, where required by law, to ensure the assessment and collection of all fines and penalties that the Secretary is authorized under the law to assess and collect from aliens unlawfully present in the United States and from those who facilitate their presence in the United States. Sec. 7. Additional Enforcement and Removal Officers. The Secretary, through the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, shall, to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, take all appropriate action to hire 10,000 additional immigration officers, who shall complete relevant training and be authorized to perform the law enforcement functions described in section 287 of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357). Sec. 8. Federal-State Agreements. It is the policy of the executive branch to empower State and local law enforcement agencies across the country to perform the functions of an immigration officer in the interior of the United States to the maximum extent permitted by law. (a) In furtherance of this policy, the Secretary shall immediately take appropriate action to engage with the Governors of the States, as well as local officials, for the purpose of preparing to enter into agreements under section 287(g) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1357(g)). (b) To the extent permitted by law and with the consent of State or local officials, as appropriate, the Secretary shall take appropriate action, through agreements under section 287(g) of the INA, or otherwise, to authorize State and local law enforcement officials, as the Secretary determines are qualified and appropriate, to perform the functions of immigration officers in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States under the direction and the supervision of the Secretary. Such authorization shall be in addition to, rather than in place of, Federal performance of these duties. (c) To the extent permitted by law, the Secretary may structure each agreement under section 287(g) of the INA in a manner that provides the most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws for that jurisdiction. Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373. (a) In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law. (b) To better inform the public regarding the public safety threats associated with sanctuary jurisdictions, the Secretary shall utilize the Declined Detainer Outcome Report or its equivalent and, on a weekly basis, make public a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens. (c) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction. Sec. 10. Review of Previous Immigration Actions and Policies. (a) The Secretary shall immediately take all appropriate action to terminate the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) described in the memorandum issued by the Secretary on November 20, 2014, and to reinstitute the immigration program known as "Secure Communities" referenced in that memorandum. (b) The Secretary shall review agency regulations, policies, and procedures for consistency with this order and, if required, publish for notice and comment proposed regulations rescinding or revising any regulations inconsistent with this order and shall consider whether to withdraw or modify any inconsistent policies and procedures, as appropriate and consistent with the law. (c) To protect our communities and better facilitate the identification, detention, and removal of criminal aliens within constitutional and statutory parameters, the Secretary shall consolidate and revise any applicable forms to more effectively communicate with recipient law enforcement agencies. Sec. 11. Department of Justice Prosecutions of Immigration Violators. The Attorney General and the Secretary shall work together to develop and implement a program that ensures that adequate resources are devoted to the prosecution of criminal immigration offenses in the United States, and to develop cooperative strategies to reduce violent crime and the reach of transnational criminal organizations into the United States. Sec. 12. Recalcitrant Countries. The Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of State shall cooperate to effectively implement the sanctions provided by section 243(d) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1253(d)), as appropriate. The Secretary of State shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law, ensure that diplomatic efforts and negotiations with foreign states include as a condition precedent the acceptance by those foreign states of their nationals who are subject to removal from the United States. Sec. 13. Office for Victims of Crimes Committed by Removable Aliens. The Secretary shall direct the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to take all appropriate and lawful action to establish within U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement an office to provide proactive, timely, adequate, and professional services to victims of crimes committed by removable aliens and the family members of such victims. This office shall provide quarterly reports studying the effects of the victimization by criminal aliens present in the United States. Sec. 14. Privacy Act. Agencies shall, to the extent consistent with applicable law, ensure that their privacy policies exclude persons who are not United States citizens or lawful permanent residents from the protections of the Privacy Act regarding personally identifiable information. Sec. 15. Reporting. Except as otherwise provided in this order, the Secretary and the Attorney General shall each submit to the President a report on the progress of the directives contained in this order within 90 days of the date of this order and again within 180 days of the date of this order. Sec. 16. Transparency. To promote the transparency and situational awareness of criminal aliens in the United States, the Secretary and the Attorney General are hereby directed to collect relevant data and provide quarterly reports on the following: (a) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated under the supervision of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; (b) the immigration status of all aliens incarcerated as Federal pretrial detainees under the supervision of the United States Marshals Service; and (c) the immigration status of all convicted aliens incarcerated in State prisons and local detention centers throughout the United States. Sec. 17. Personnel Actions. The Office of Personnel Management shall take appropriate and lawful action to facilitate hiring personnel to implement this order. Sec. 18. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP THE WHITE HOUSE, January 25, 2017.