Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016-12-29 Info Packet
L L CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION PACKET CITY OF IOWA CITY www.icgov.org December 29, 2016 IPI Council Tentative Meeting Schedule JANUARY 3 WORK SESSION IP2 Work Session Agenda (See revised distributed 12/30) IP3 Memo from Sustainability Coordinator: Climate Action Steering Committee IN Memo from City Attorney: Sanctuary City [See agenda item # 3f(B) for correspondence] IP5 Memo from Council Member Mims: City Clerk Search I136 Memo from City Clerk: Joint Meeting Agenda Items for January 30 MISCELLANEOUS IP7 Pending City Council Work Session Topics I138 Budget Work Session Agenda: January 7 I139 Budget Work Session Agenda: January 10 DRAFT MINUTES IP10 Human Rights Commission: December 20 City Council Tentative Meeting Schedule 1 y Q � � Subject to change LLIMJ CITY IOWA CITY December 29, 2016 Date Time Meeting Location Tuesday, January 3, 2017 5:00 PM Special Formal/Executive Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Saturday, January 7, 2017 8:OOA-5:OOP Budget Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 10, 2017 1:00-7:00 P Budget Work Session (CIP) Emma J. Harvat Hall Tuesday, January 17, 2017 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Monday, January 30, 2017 TBA Joint Entities Meeting Penn Elementary 230 N. Dubuque, NL Tuesday, February 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, February 21, 2017 5:00 PM Iowa City Conference Board Mtg. Emma J. Harvat Hall Work Session 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 7, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, March 21, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 4, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, April 18, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 2, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Tuesday, May 16, 2017 5:00 PM Work Session Emma J. Harvat Hall 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Late Handouts Distributed (Date) CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX WWW. i cgov. o rg Special Formal / Executive Session 5:00 PM — separate agenda posted REVISED City Council Work Session Agenda Tuesday, January 3, 2017 Emma J. Harvat Hall - City Hall Following 5:00 PM Special Formal • Sanctuary City [IP #4 of 12/29 packet] • Discuss composition of Climate Mitigation Plan Steering Committee [IP #3 of 12/29 packet] • City Clerk Recruitment [IP #5 of 12/29 packet] • Discussion of joint agenda items for January 30 [IP #6 of 12/29 packet] • Conversion therapy • Clarification of Agenda Items • Information Packet Discussion [December 8, 15, 22, 29] Special IP2 mj � r RN . It ,7®.•� CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City. Iowa 52240-1826 (319)356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org / Executive Session 5:00 PM — separate agenda posted City C ncil ork Session Agenda Tue da ,January 3, 2017 Emma J. arvat Hall - City Hall Following : 0 PM Special Formal • Discuss composition of Cli ate Mitigation P n Steering Committee [IP #3 of 12/29 packet] • Conversion therapy • Sanctuary City IF #4 f 12/29 packet] • City Clerk Recruitme t [IP #5 of 12/29 packet] • Discussion of joint genda items for January 30 [IP #6 of • Clarification of A nda Items • Information Packet Discussion [December 8, 15, 22, 29] packet] �.® CITY OF IOWA CITY IP3 m'A�� MEMORANDUM Date: December 22, 2016 To: Geoff Fruin, City Manager From: Brenda Nations, Sustainability Coordinator Re: Climate Action Steering Committee Background: The City Council requested that staff move forward quickly in the creation of a community -wide climate action plan. An RFP (request for proposals) has been issued to hire a consultant to assist in working with a steering committee to create the plan, with proposals due January 20t'. Those proposals will be reviewed by a staff committee, including Council Members Cole and Taylor. A recommendation from that committee will be presented to the full Council a future meeting. During this time the steering committee can be selected, although details of the number of meetings, etc. will not be determined until a consultant is hired. Council asked at the Dec. 61' meeting that staff provide recommendations on the selection process for the Climate Action Plan Steering Committee. Recommendation: Committee size and composition It is recommended that the steering committee be 10, but no more than 12 individuals. If the committee is larger, it will be difficult to schedule meetings, find meeting rooms and have in- depth discussions. Staff recommends that the committee include representatives from key stakeholder groups and at -large members. Our recommendation for selection of those individuals is that staff be allowed to recruit representatives from the key stakeholder groups and that Council use the board and commission application process to appoint at -large members. It is also advised that the Council appoint a chair to coordinate the committee's work. The chair would be responsible for assisting in the facilitation of meetings, scheduling, and representing the committee. The chair could be either a stakeholder representative or an at -large member. Stakeholder representatives Staff considered key possible stakeholders within the community and determined that it would be essential to have these organizations or sectors represented in the steering committee: • University of Iowa, particularly Facilities Management • MidAmerican Energy • Chamber of Commerce • Large industry • Home Builders Association • Kirkwood Community College • Architect December 22, 2016 Page 2 At-laroe positions In addition to these key seven stakeholders, applications could be taken for three, but no more than five, additional at -large positions on the steering committee, based on an application process similar to other city boards and commissions. These applicants should be chosen based the expertise and knowledge they would bring to the committee. If Council would like to move ahead with these suggestions, staff will present a resolution formalizing the committee selection process for the January 17th meeting. Assuming that resolution is adopted, we could advertise for the at -large appointments immediately. We believe that the steering committee could be in place by the time a consultant is selected so the work can begin immediately. Cc: Ashley Monroe, Assistant City Manager Doug Boothroy, Neighborhood and Development Services Director City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: December 22, 2016 To: City Council From: Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attome PU Re: Sanctuary City discussion In your information packet of December 1, 2016 the Council received the Mayor's memo regarding the above and accompanying background material. At your meeting on December 6 you agreed to place the matter on your January 3, 2017 work session agenda and asked that staff provide you with any applicable policies or additional background information. "Sanctuary city" legislation/policies/practices vary around the country and a determination of what it means for any particular city requires a review of that city's particular legislation. Generally, however, it refers to various efforts by states and localities to limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities by, for example, not inquiring about an individual's immigration status or not allocating local resources to the enforcement of immigration law. My earlier memo to the Council of February 24, 2011, which was included with the Mayor's memo in your December 1 information packet, provides background on the sanctuary city movement. The following additional information is provided to inform your discussion: 1. In addition to the City's participation in and endorsement of the community ID program, following the Council's discussion of this topic in 2011 the City Manager adopted an administrative regulation requiring that with certain exceptions (e.g. 1-9 forms required for employment, traffic stops) for the purpose of obtaining City services a driver's license shall not be required and any government issued photo identification shall be requested and acceptable (this would include the Johnson County Community ID.). A copy of that policy is attached as Exhibit A. 2. On July 16, 2015 the Iowa City Police Department issued Training Bulletin 15-29 regarding Community ID Cards to its members. A copy is attached as Exhibit B. 3. ICE detainer requests are optional; the Johnson County jail does not hold people at the request of ICE simply because they are suspected of not having proper immigration authorization. The federal regulation addressing detainer requests, 8 CFR Section 287.7 states: (a) Detainers in general. Detainers are issued pursuant to sections 236 and 287 of the Act and this chapter 1. Any authorized immigration officer may at any time issue a Form 1-247, Immigration Detainer -Notice of Action, to any other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency. A detainer serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the Department to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible. (emphasis added) December 22, 2016 Page 2 A local government may be held liable for holding a person in response to a detainer request in violation of the person's constitutional rights. See, e.g. Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50340 (D. Ore. 2014)(holding that federal law does not require a local agency to detain a person in response to ICE's detainer request, and therefore, the jail was liable for imprisoning the plaintiff without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment). The ACLU of Iowa website reports that it has been told by 26 Iowa county jails that they have decided against holding persons at the request of ICE simply because they have been suspected of immigration violations. Johnson County is included on this list and I have confirmed with the County Attorney's office that this is their position. 4. Interim Police Chief Bill Campbell and Captain Troy Kelsay report that the ICPD has assisted or worked cooperatively with federal authorities in connection with other matters (e.g. drug task force) but recall no instance in which the federal authorities requested the assistance of the ICPD in the enforcement of immigration laws. I note that there is a federal program known as the 287(8) program that allows a state or local law enforcement entity to enter into a partnership with ICE under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. The ICE website states that ICE has such agreements with 32 law enforcement agencies in 16 states and identifies those states. According to this source there are no such agreements in Iowa. See https://www.ice.gov/factsheets/287g. The ICPD reports that its operations will not be affected by a policy that limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities if there are appropriate safeguards for instances in which there is a threat to public safety and ICE assistance may be prudent (e.g. violent offender). 5. In our request to the police department to provide us with any relevant policies that may relate to this discussion they have alerted us to the federal consular notification requirement upon the arrest or detention of foreign nationals (persons who are not U.S. citizens without regard to whether they are legally in the United States). This requirement arises under the Vienna Convention for Consular Relations, a treaty signed by the United States which applies equally to foreign authorities when they arrest or detain U.S. citizens abroad. All foreign nationals must be offered the opportunity to communicate with their consular officer (a person from that country whose responsibility it is to assist its citizens who are in the U.S., e.g. consular in embassy) and for some countries there is a mandatory requirement that the consular officer be notified by law enforcement. I have attached as Exhibit C a portion of an October 2016 training on this subject provided by the police department showing the basic notification requirements and the mandatory countries. 6. As noted in my 2011 memo, in the Immigration Reform Act of 1996 Congress prohibited state and local governments from prohibiting or in any way restricting its agencies, employees and officers from voluntarily exchanging information regarding immigration status with ICE. (codified at 8 U.S.C. Section 1873)(characterized as the "Don't tell" policy in my earlier memo). Last week the City Manager, Equity Director and I participated in a GARE (Government Alliance on Race and Equity) telephone conference with other GARE cities throughout the U.S. at which attorneys for the ACLU presented on "Strategies for attacks on Sanctuary cities/deportation threats'). The ACLU reported that "the vast majority" of Sanctuary cities have been careful not to run afoul of this provision, although it is possible that the new administration could take a more expansive view of this law. I note that the recently proposed California Values Act, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D, includes a provision found at Section 885.10 that is obviously December 22, 2016 Page 3 directed to this federal provision: "Nothing in this chapter prohibits any state or local agency from sending to or receiving from, any local, state or federal agency, information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status." I note that when the City receives federal grants (FTA/Federal Transportation Admin., airport, CDBG/HOME, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG), economic development etc.) there is typically a certification required that the City is complying with all applicable federal laws. The Office of Justice Programs has determined, and the ICPD has been advised as a subrecipient of JAG grants, that 8 U.S.0 Section 1373 is an "applicable federal law" under the Byrne/JAG authorizing legislation and all Byrne/JAG grant applicants must certify compliance with all applicable federal laws , including Section 1373, as part of the application process. I have attached a copy of the Guidance from the Office of Justice Programs and a FAQ sheet from the Washington Defender Association, an immigrant legal resource center, as Exhibit E. I am aware of no other federal grant authority that has advised the City specifically about this federal law. More importantly, however, Section 1373 is narrow in its prohibition. Even the Department of Justice, in its Guidance on Section 1373 states: "Section 1373 does not impose on states and localities the affirmative obligation to collect information from private individuals regarding their immigration status, nor does it require that states and localities take specific action upon obtaining such information." If you choose to adopt certain sanctuary policies I advise that you include a similar provision so as not to run afoul of Section 1373. 7. During the GARE telephone meeting noted above, there was discussion on the "sanctuary city" label, including the "false sense of security" that the label may provide undocumented persons. There was discussion about the Secure Communities Program (n/k/a Priority Enforcement Program) which results in fingerprints taken upon arrest being sent to ICE. Because detainer requests are optional and the Johnson County jail does not honor those requests, a fingerprint "hit" at ICE that results in a detainer request will not result in the holding of the person for 48 hours beyond their release date. Of course, we do not know how the new administration will choose to respond to those hits and what resources they will devote to the effort. There was discussion at the meeting about the pros and cons of the "sanctuary" label with the primary pro being that it is an expression of certain values that people understand and the primary cons being the "false sense of security", the "radioactivity" of the label and the distinction between "sanctuary" policies and civil disobedience. I have attached as Exhibit F an article from the New Yorker written since the election that illuminates some of the complexities of the sanctuary city designation. My takeaway from the GARE discussion is that each governmental body that is considering adopting these policies will need to determine the appropriate label for its particular city. It seems clear that if the new administration and Congress take action against "sanctuary" cities it will apply to cities with certain policies and not just those with the designation. 8. As noted in my earlier memo staff currently inquires into the immigration status of individuals applying for certain programs. For example, only a few categories of non- citizens are eligible for Section 8 housing choice vouchers and public housing. 42 U.S.C. §1436a. Also, only "qualified aliens" may receive CDBG assistance directly, such as down payment assistance or the single -family new construction program. 8 U.S.C. §§16121 and 1641. Another example of staff having to inquire into the immigration status is for the flood buyouts. Because one must be a U.S. citizen or national of the United States to receive pre-flood value in the buyout, a person in the U.S. legally with a student visa would only receive post-flood value (before rehabilitation). 44 CFR 80.13(a)(6). December 22, 2016 Page 4 In the event Council is interested in pursuing policies/legislation that restricts City participation/cooperation in the enforcement of federal immigration law staff asks that you provide the following guidance so that we may craft such policies/legislation: 1. Do you wish to adopt any policies limiting the City's cooperation with federal immigration authorities (e.g. not inquiring about an individual's immigration status and/or not allocating local resources to the enforcement of immigration law)? -public safety/violent offender exception -Section 1373 provision 2. What title, if any, do you wish to give to such policies? 3. Do you wish to include in the policies a reference to/warning about the Priority Enforcement Program (f/k/a Secure Communities Program)? Please contact me if you have questions. Cc: Geoff Fruin, City Manager Bill Campbell, Interim Police Chief Stefanie Bowers, Equity Director Ex 1a i F iT q Administrative Regulations City of Iowa City Title: Acceptable Identification for City Services A.R. Number: Effective Date: Page: 1 of 2 Supersedes: A.R. Dated: 1. Purpose The City of Iowa City is committed to providing a welcoming community that ensures City services are available to all eligible individuals. To this end, this policy addresses the type of identification requested and necessary for obtaining City services. II. Policy Where presentation of an Iowa driver's license is customarily accepted as adequate evidence of identity for the purpose of obtaining City services in Iowa City, a government issued photo identification shall be requested and acceptable. This paragraph does not apply to the exceptions noted in Section Ill. III. Procedures A. Exceptions This policy does not apply to I-9 forms, the driver of a motor vehicle involved in a traffic stop, or unless otherwise required by state or federal law. B. Acceptable Identification Where this policy is applicable, photo identification issued by any government authority, domestic or otherwise, is acceptable. This includes documents issued by a person's nation of origin, including a driver's license, passport, or consulate -issued document. C. Implementation Where this policy is applicable, requests by City staff for identification shall be for "a government issued photo ID", without specifically requesting an Iowa driver's license.. Presentation of a photo identity document shall not subject the person presenting the document to a higher level of scrutiny or different treatment than if the person had provided an Iowa driver's license. IV. Responsibility Department Heads are responsible for the implementation of this policy. Administrative Regulations City of Iowa City Title: Acceptable Identification for City Services A.R. Number: Effective Date: Page: 2 of 2 Supersedes: A.R. Dated: V. Regulation Update The City Manager is responsible for updates to this policy. Approved -, Ci Manager CXl�l�3�l IOWA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING BULLETIN 15-29 DATE: July 16`h, 2015 TO: All Sworn FROM: Sergeant Droll SUBJECT: Community ID Cards Starting tomorrow, July 17'", Johnson County will start issuing Community ID cards Attached is a flier that outlines how they are obtained and what they are used for. Basically, various businesses and government agencies in Johnson County have agreed to accept the cards as proof of identification which will enable the card holder to receive services they otherwise would not be eligible to receive. For law enforcement purposes, these cards may be used by a person wanting to report a crime to you. However, if you are presented with one of the cards by a suspect and therefore need to confirm the person's identity for a charge/arrest, you are encouraged to use alternative methods such as CCH information to best confirm their identity. JECC will not have a database on these cards to assist you in determining if they have been altered or are completely fictitious. Use your ID in local businesses and institutions! Special thanks to the first 25 businesses who stepped forward to recognize and promote the ID! All residents living in Johnson County can apply for the Community ID. • Coralville • Hills • Iowa City • Lone Tree • North Liberty • Oxford • Shueyville • Solon • Swisher • Tiffin • University Heights Your Guide to the New Johnson County Community ID onnson County dv� ACCESSIBLE. SECURE. INCLUSIVE. Find out bozvyou can identyourself as a proud member of our diverse community! What is the Johnson County Community IN It is a local -government issued photo identification available to residents of Johnson County. The ID was established to ensure that all members of our diverse community are welcomed and can participate fully in the economic and social life of our county. How can it be used? The Johnson County Community ID can be used in a wide variety of day-to-day interactions, such as to: • Open a bank account in participating banks • Confirm your identify when using credit cards • Get a library card • Interact with schools, city and county agencies, and law enforcement officials. • Participate in discount programs offered by selected community businesses and institutions The Johnson County Community ID cannot be used to: get a driver's license, board an airplane, pur- chase alcohol or tobacco, enter establishments with age restrictions, prove employment eligibility, or vote. How do I apply? The ID will be issued by the Auditor's office to any resident living within Johnson county who can provide: 1. Proof of Identity Present ONE (1) of the following documents: • U.S. or foreign passport • U.S. driver's license • U.S. state non -driver's identification cud • U.S. Permanent Resident Card (green card) • Birth certificate (only for kids 16 and under) • Consular identification card -OR- Present TWO Q of the following documents: • National identification card (must have photo, name, address, date of birth, expiration date) • Foreign driver's license (current -not expired) • Voter registration card (with original birth certificate) • U.S. or foreign military identification cud (must be presented with original birth certificate) • Visa (current) • U.S. Individual Taxpayer Identification Number - ITIN (Must be accompanied by a photo ID) • ID card issued by an Iowa educational institution, (elementary, middle, secondary, or post -secondary) • Certified copy of U.S. or foreign birth certificate • Social security card 2. Proof of Residency • *Utility bill • *Insurance bill (home, renter, health, life, auto) • *Bank statement • *Employment stub • *Mortgage payment receipt • *Original documents from a health or social services organization attesting to at least 15 days Johnson County residency • *Jury summons or court order by state, federal court • Federal or state income tax or refund statement • Proof of a minor enrolled in public or private school in Johnson County • Voter registration cud • Current Rental Agreement • Current mobile home lot payment receipt • Local property tax statement for present year How much will it cost? Adults will receive an ID that is valid for four years, and will cost $8. Children are eligible to receive an ID that is valid for two years, that will cost $4. Payment in Cash or Check only. If a card -holder moves to another Johnson County address, a replacement card with the accurate address will cost $2, within 30 days of the move. What are the security features of the card? The card will be issued by county officials who are trained to recognize legitimate forms of identification. It will contain an embossed county seal and other security features to prevent fraud. The cud will be mailed to the cardholder's address after a resident completes the application and presents the required proof of identity and residency. Johnson County is committed to safeguarding cardholders' private information. The county will only keep minimal information about cardholders on file (e.g., name, address, date of birth, issuance date). The information will not be shared with businesses, individuals, or other goverment agencies. * "Proof of Residency' documents with a star must be current, i.e. dated within the past 30 days. _ PLS ]Legal Update CX/4l311 Iowa Police Law C Analysis & Application October 2016 Arrest & Detention of Foreign Nationals/Consular Notification This lesson has been designed to satisfy the CALEA standard on training on the arrest and detention of foreign nationals/consular notification. Acknowledgement This lesson is based upon the "Consular Notification and Access" guide (Fourth Edition, August 2016) produced by the United States Department of State (the "Guide"). For the sake of brevity, this lesson does not contain all Information in the Guide. The full Guide and numerous other resources are available from the Department of State here: A brief reference card summarizing basic consular notification procedures is available here: b–gsJ/travel state nor/content/dam/travel/CNAtraininMommICNA°/ 2OPockct%2CCard BW RIf Section 1 Background This section addresses background information on the treatment of foreign nationals. DInteroadonal & Constitutional Law. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides that all treaties made under the authority of the United States are a part of "the supreme law of the land." The Vienna Convention for Consular Relations (VCCR) is a treaty signed by the United States that imposes certain responsibilities on any law enforcement officer in the United States who arrests or detains a foreign national (aka alien). These responsibilities apply to officers at all levels of government, including federal, state, and local law enforcement officers. DDefioitlona Arrest or Detention: Unless indicated otherwise by the contend, the term "detention" will be used in this lesson to cover say situation where a foreign national has been arrested or significantly detained, thereby activating the notification requirements of the VCCR. For the purposes of consular notification only, a "detention" does not include brief traffic stops or similar events in which a foreign national is questioned and then allowed to resume his or her activities. These encounters do not place a foreign national in a situation in which hatshe cannot communicate with or receive assistance from his or her own government Foreign National: For the purposes of consular notification and the instructions in this lesson, a "foreign national" is any person who is not aU.S. citizen. Crhere are rare situations in which a person is neither a U.S. citizen nor a foreign national—i.e., is "stateless." In such a case, consular notification requirements do not apply.) Consular Officer: For the purposes of this manual, a "consular officer" is an official of a foreign government accredited by the U.S. Department of State and authorized to provide assistance on behalf of that government to that government's citizens in another country, regardless of whether a consular officer is assigned to a consular section of an embassy in Washington, D.C., or to a consular office maintained by the foreign government at a location in the United States outside of Washington, D.C. For other purposes, the officer assigned to an embassy is a "diplomatic officer." Honorary consuls, diplomatic officers, and consular officers should be treated similarly. A consular officer should not be confused with "counsel," which refers to an attomey-at-law authorized to provide legal advice and counsel. A foreign consular officer is not authorized to practice law in the United States. DBasic Requirements. The following is a brief summary of requirements in the VCCR pertaining to foreign nationals: Pace 1 of 14 Copyngbt® 2016 Police Legal Seicn=6Inc. P.O. Box 52, Washington, ]A 52353 - When foreign nationals from most countries are arrested or detained, they mar. upon request, have their consular officers notified without delay of their arrest or detention, and may have their communications to their consular officers forwarded without delay. In addition, foreign nationals must be advised of this information without delay. - For foreign nationals of some countries, consular officers <I1='musWU% be notified of the arrest or detention of a foreign national even if the foreign national does not request or want notification. - Consular officers are entitled to communicate with and have access to their nationals in detention, and to provide consular assistance to them, including arranging for legal representation. - When a law enforcement officer or other government official becomes aware of the death, serious injury, or serious illness of a foreign national, consular officers must be notified. - When a guardianship or trusteeship is being considered with respect to a foreign national who is a minor or an incompetent adult, consular officers must be notified. - When a foreign ship wrecks or a foreign aircraft crashes in U.S. territory, consular officers must be notified. These are mutual obligations that also apply to foreign authorities when they arrest or detain U.S. citizens abroad. In general, you should treat a foreign national as you would want a U.S. citizen to be treated in a similar situation in a foreign country. This means prompt and courteous compliance with the above requirements. Section 2 Procedures This section addresses basic procedures regarding the treatment of foreign nationals. ➢Preliminary Information. a. The United States Department of State recommends that law enforcement agencies routinely ask every person arrested or detained whether he or she Is a U.S. citizen. - This responsibility, and the steps outlined on the following screens, will generally fall on the arresting officer(s) or the person(s) assuming responsibility for the foreign national's detention, unless a relevant implementing statute, regulation, or instruction provides for a different procedure or if the person's foreign nationality is not known and cannot be determined at the time of arrest. - For example, a jurisdiction might provide for the arresting officer to give the detainee consular information and for a different officer to notify the consulate. If the person's foreign nationality is not known at the time of arrest, but becomes known later, it will be necessary to complete consular notification procedures at that time; this may mean that the responsibility for the procedures would have to be assumed by someone other than the arresting officer (e.g. a corrections officer, judicial official, etc.). - Please check with your training coordinator regarding the procedures in yourjurisdiction. b. There is no reason, for purposes of consular notification, to inquire Into a person's legal statue in the United States. For purposes of consular notification, you should make no distinctions based on whether the foreign national is in the United States "legally" or "Illegagy:" e. You must follow consular notification procedures with respect to detained foreign nationals in addition to providing Miranda or other warnings when required. Below are steps officers should follow when a foreign national is arrested or detained. 1. Determine the foreign national's country of nationality. In the absence of other information, assume this Is the country on whose passport or other travel document the foreign national is traveling. 2. If the foreign national's country is not on the list of "mandatory notification" countries and Jurisdictions (see the following and the Guide for the list of mandatory notification countries); - Inform the foreign national, without delay, that he or she may have his or her consular officers notified of the arrest or detention and may communicate with them. The U.S. State Dcpartmem recommends the following statement. "As a non -U.S. citizen who is being arrested or detained, you may request that we notify your country's consular officers here in the United States of your situation. You may also communicate with your consular officers. A consular officer may be able to help you obtain legal representation, and may contact your family and visit you in detention, among other things. If you want us to notify your consular officers, you can request this notification now, or at any time in the future. Do you want us to notify your consular officers at this time?" The Guide contains this statement in many languages. Page 2 of 14 Copyright® 2016 Police Legal Stimccs, Inc. P.O. Box 52, Washmgmn, IA 52353 ➢Mandatory Notification Countries. In cases involving foreign nationals of certain countries, you must notify consular officers if one of their nationals is arrested or detained, regardless of whether the national requests or wants consular notification. The 57 "mandatory notification" countries are listed below. They may be referred to in this lesson as "mandatory notification" countries, "list" countries, or "special rule" countries. Ibis information is also available in the Guide. Albania Ghana Saint Kitts and Nevis Algeria Grenada Saint Lucia Antigua and Barbuda Guyana Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Armenia Hungary Seychelles Azerbaijan Jamaica Sierra Lorne Bahamas Kazakhstan Singapore Barbados Kiribati Slovakia Belarus Kuwait Tajikistan Belize Kyrgyzstan Tanzania Brunei Malaysia Tonga Bulgaria Malta 'Trinidad and Tobago China (including Macao and Hong Kong)' Mauritius Tunisia Costa Rica Moldova Turkmenistan Cyprus Mongolia Tuvalu Czech Republic Nigeria Ukraine Dominica Philippines United Kingdom' Fiji Poland Uzbekistan Gambia Romania Zambia Georgia Russia Zimbabwe 1. Includes Hong Kong and Macao. Does not include Republic of China (Taiwan). 2. Mandatory only for non -permanent residents in the United States (i.e., those not holding a "green card"); for green card holders, notification is upon request. 3. UK includes Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Bermuda, Montserrat, and the Turks and Caicos islands. Residents' passports bear the name of their territory and may also bear the name "United Kingdom." Whether or not the passport bears the name "United Kingdom," consular services for these persons are provided by UK consulates. Page 4 of 14 Copyright 0 2016 Police Legal Sciwcrs, I= P.O. Box 52, Washington, IA 52353 Bill Text - SB -54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 1 of 4 LEGISLATIVE INFORMATION SB -54 Law enforcement: sharing data. (2017-2018) SHARE THIS: M 0 Date Published: 12/06/2016 08:55 PM CORRECTED DECEMBER 06, 2016 SENATE BILL CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2017-2018 REGULAR SESSION Introduced by Senator De Le6n (Principal coauthor: Senator Pan) (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Levine) December 05, 2016 No. 54 An act to repeal Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code, and to add Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 885) to Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, relating to law enforcement. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST SB 54, as introduced, De Le6n. Law enforcement: sharing data. Existing law provides that when there is reason to believe that a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance provisions may not be a citizen of the United States, the arresting agency shall notify the appropriate agency of the United States having charge of deportation matters. This bill would repeal those provisions. Existing law provides that whenever an individual who is a victim of or witness to a hate crime, or who otherwise can give evidence in a hate crime investigation, is not charged with or convicted of committing any crime under state law, a peace officer may not detain the individual exclusively for any actual or suspected immigration violation or report or turn the Individual over to federal immigration authorities. This bill would, among other things, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security departments from using resources to investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, or to investigate, enforce, or assist in the Investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of Individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national or ethnic origin, as specified. The bill would require state agencies to review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that Information collected from individuals Is limited to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose, as specified. The bill would require public schools, hospitals, and courthouses to establish and make public policies that limit immigration enforcement on their premises and would require the Attorney General, In consultation with appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies for use by those entitles for those purposes. The bill would state findings and declarations of the Legislature relating to these provisions. http:llleginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faceslbilINavClient.xhtml?bill id=201720180SB54 12/9/2016 Bill Text - SB -54 Law enforcement: sharing data Page 2 of 4 By Imposing additional duties on public schools, this bill would impose a state -mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, If the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above. Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 11369 of the Health and Safety Code is repealed. 11369.WheR theFe 5 Feasen te be! eye that any peFsen affested FeF a YielBt SR of Seetien 11350, 11351, 11361.5, 11352, 11353, 11355, 11357, 11359, 11360, 11361, 11363, 11366, 11368 8F 11550o Fnay met be a e tizen of the United States, the aFfesting ageney shall not fy the appFePF ate ageREy of the LJR ted States hay ng ehaFge of SEC. 2. Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 885) is added to Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, to read: CHAPTER S. Cooperation With Federal Immigration Authorities 885. This chapter shall be known, and may be cited, as the California Values Act. 888.2. The Legislature finds and declares the following: (a) Immigrants are valuable and essential members of the California community. Almost one in three Californians is foreign born and one in two children in California has at least one immigrant parent. (b) A relationship of trust between California's Immigrant community and state and local law enforcement agencies is central to the public safety of the people of California. (c) This trust is threatened when local law enforcement agencies are entangled with federal immigration enforcement, with the result that immigrant community members fear approaching police when they are victims of, and witnesses to, crimes. (d) This act seeks to protect the safety and constitutional rights of the people of California, and to direct the state's limited resources to matters of greatest concern to state and local governments. 888A. For purposes of this chapter, the following terms have the following meanings: (a) "Civil immigration warrant" means any warrant for a violation of federal civil Immigration law, and Includes civil immigration warrants entered In the National Crime Information Center database. (b) "Federal immigration authority" means any officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement or any division thereof, or any other officer, employee, or person otherwise paid by or acting as an agent of the United States Department of Homeland Security who Is charged with immigration enforcement. (c) "Hold request," "notification request," and "local law enforcement agency" have the same meaning as provided in Section 7283 of the Government Code. (d) "Immigration enforcement" includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also Includes any and all efforts to Investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person's presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States, including, but not limited to, violations of Section 1253, 1324c, 1325, or 1326 of Title 8 of the United States Code. (e) "Judicial warrant" means a warrant based on probable cause and Issued by a federal judge or a federal magistrate judge that authorizes federal immigration authorities to take Into custody the person who is the subject of the warrant. (f) "School police and security departments" includes police and security departments of the California State University, California Community Colleges, schools, and school districts. http:llleginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faceslbilINavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54 12/9/2016 Bill Text - SB -54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 3 of 4 (g) "State agency" has the same meaning as provided in Section 11000 of the Government Code. 885.6. (a) State and local law enforcement agencies and school police and security departments shall not do any of the following: (1) Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, detain, detect, report, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including, but not limited to, any of the following: (A) Responding to hold, notification, and transfer requests from federal immigration authorities. (B) Responding to requests for nonpublicly available personal Information about an individual, including, but not limited to, information about the person's release date, home address, or work address for immigration enforcement purposes. (C) Making arrests based on civil immigration warrants. (D) Giving federal immigration authorities access to interview individuals in agency or department custody for immigration enforcement purposes. (E) Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal. (2) Use agency or department moneys, facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national or ethnic origin. (3) Make agency or department databases available to anyone or any entity for the purpose of immigration enforcement or investigation or enforcement of any federal program requiring registration of individuals on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, immigration status, or national or ethnic origin. Any agreements in existence on the date that this chapter becomes operative that make any agency or department database available in conflict with the terms of this paragraph are terminated on that date. (4) Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies except to the extent those peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency. (b) Nothing in this section shall prevent the department or any state or local law enforcement agency, including school police or security departments, from responding to a request from federal immigration authorities for information about a specific person's previous criminal arrests or convictions where otherwise permitted by state law or from responding to a lawful subpoena. (c) Notwithstanding any other law, in no event shall state or local law enforcement agencies or school police or security departments transfer an individual to federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement or detain an Individual at the request of federal immigration authorities for purposes of immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant. This subdivision does not limit the scope of subdivision (a). 885.8. (a) In order to ensure that eligible individuals are not deterred from seeking services or engaging with state agencies, all state agencies shall review their confidentiality policies and identify any changes necessary to ensure that information collected from individuals is limited to that necessary to perform agency duties and is not used or disclosed for any other purpose. Any necessary changes to those policies shall be. made as expeditiously as possible, consistent with agency or department procedures. (b) The Attorney General, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, shall publish model policies for public schools, hospitals, and courthouses to ensure that all public schools, hospitals, and courthouses remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. All public schools, hospitals, and courthouses shall establish and make public policies that limit immigration enforcement on their premises to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law. 885.10. Nothing in this chapter prohibits any state or local agency from sending to, or receiving from, any local, state, or federal agency, information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status. "Information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status," for purposes of this section, means a statement of the individual's country of citizenship or a statement of the individual's immigration status, respectively. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54 12/9/2016 Bill Text - SB -54 Law enforcement: sharing data. Page 4 of 4 885.12. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application. SEC. 3. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code. http://leginfolegislature.ca.gov/facesfbilINavClient.xhtml?bill id=201720180SB54 12/9/2016 OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS GUIDANCE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 8 U.S.C. § 1373 L Q. What does 8 U.S.C. §1373 require? A. Title 8, United States Code, Section 1373 (Section 1373) addresses the exchange of information regarding citizenship and immigration status among federal, state, and local government entities and officials. Subsection (a) prevents federal, state and local government entities and officials from "prohibit[ing] or in any way restrict[ing]" government officials or entities from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration officers information concerning an individual's citizenship or immigration status. Subsection (b) provides that no person or agency may "prohibit, or in any way restrict," a federal, state, or local government entity from (1) sending to, or requesting or receiving from, federal immigration officers information regarding an individual's immigration status, (2) maintaining such information, or (3) exchanging such information with any other federal, state, or local government entity. Section 1373 does not impose on states and localities the affirmative obligation to collect information from private individuals regarding their immigration status, nor does it require that states and localities take specific actions upon obtaining such information. Rather, the statute prohibits government entities and officials from taking action to prohibit or in any way restrict the maintenance or intergovernmental exchange of such information, including through written or unwritten policies or practices. Your personnel must be informed that notwithstanding any state or local policies to the contrary, federal law does not allow any government entity or official to prohibit the sending or receiving of information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status with any federal, state or local government entity and officials. 2. Q. May a state make a subgrant to a city that the state knows to be violating an applicable law or regulation (e.g. Section 1373), or a programmatic requirement? A. No. A JAG grantee is required to assure and certify compliance with all applicable federal statues, including Section 1373, as well as all applicable federal regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements. This requirement passes through to any subgrants that may be made and to any subgranteees that receive funds under the grant. 3. Q. Is there a specific report or source BJA is using to determine whether a jurisdiction has violated an applicable Federal law (eg. Section 1373)? A. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) will take seriously credible evidence of a violation of applicable Federal law, including a violation of Section 1373, from any source. In the ordinary course, ON will refer such evidence to the Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General for appropriate action. 4. Q. How would a determination that a subgrantee is in violation of federal law affect the state's designation and ability to receive future awards? A. A grantee is responsible to the federal government for the duration of the award. As the primary recipient of the award, the grantee is responsible for ensuring that subgrantees assure and certify compliance with federal program and grant requirements, laws, or regulations (e.g. Section 1373). If a grantee or subgrantee has policies or practices in effect that violate Section 1373, the grantee or subgrantee will be given a reasonable amount of time to remedy or clarify such policies to ensure compliance with applicable law. Failure to remedy any violations could result in the withholding of grant funds or ineligibility for future OJP grants or subgrants, or other administrative, civil, or criminal penalties, as appropriate. Our goal is to ensure that JAG grantees and subgrantees are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including Section 1373, not to withhold vitally important criminal justice funding from states and localities. 5. Q. Does the "JAG Sanctuary Policy Guidance" notice apply to all active grants? A. The Policy Guidance applies to all JAG grantees and subgrantees. 6. Q. What should a state be doing to ensure that subgrantees are complying with the legal requirements for receiving JAG funds? A. The state must comply with all of the requirements of 2 C.F.R. § 200.331. See also Section 3.14 (Subrecipient Monitoring) of the Department of Justice Financial Guide. 7. Q. The "JAG Sanctuary Policy Guidance" cited Section 1373. Are there other components of Title 8 of the United States Code that are required for compliance? A. All grantees are required to assure and certify compliance with all applicable federal statutes, regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements. States may wish to consult with their legal counsel if they have any questions or concerns as to the scope of this requirement. OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH 8 U.S.C. § 1373 L Why is OJP using Byrne/JAG grant funds to enforce 8 U.S.C. § 1373? Authorizing legislation for the Byrne/JAG grant program requires that all grant applicants certify compliance both with the provisions of that authorizing legislation and all other applicable federal laws. The Office of Justice Programs has determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (Section 1373) is an applicable federal law under the Byrne/JAG authorizing legislation. Therefore, all Byrne/JAG grant applicants must certify compliance with all applicable federal laws, including Section 1373, as part of the Byrne/JAG grant application process. 2. Does OJP's guidance on 8 U.S.C. § 1373 impact FY2016funding? No FY 2016 or prior year Byrne/JAG or SCAAP funding will be impacted. However, OJP expects that JAG and SCAAP recipients will use this time to examine their policies and procedures to ensure they will be able to submit the required assurances when applying for JAG and SCAAP funding in FY 2017. As previously stated, our goal is to ensure that our JAG and SCAAP recipients are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including Section 1373, not to withhold vitally important criminal justice funding from states and localities like yours. 3. What is the process of determining if a recipient of JAG or SCRAP funds is not in compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373? As OJP has previously stated, our goal is to ensure that JAG and SCAAP recipients are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including Section 1373. If OJP becomes aware of credible evidence of a violation of Section 1373, the recipient must agree to undertake a review to validate its compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373. If the recipient determines that it is in compliance with Section 1373 at the time of review, then it must submit documentation that contains a validation to that effect and includes an official legal opinion from counsel (including related legal analysis) adequately supporting the validation. If the recipient determines that it is not in compliance with Section 1373 at the time of review, then it must take sufficient and effective steps to bring it into compliance and submit documentation that details the steps taken, contains a validation that the recipient has come into compliance, and includes an official legal opinion from counsel (including related legal analysis) adequately supporting the validation. Failure to remedy any violations could result in a referral to the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, the withholding of grant funds or ineligibility for future OJP grants or subgrants, or other administrative, civil, or criminal penalties, as appropriate. 4. What will happen if a recipient of JAG or SCRAP funds is found to be out of compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 13 73 ? If a recipient is found out of compliance with Section 1373, the recipient must take sufficient and effective steps to bring it into compliance and submit documentation that details the steps taken, contains a validation that the recipient has come into compliance, and includes an official legal opinion from counsel (including related legal analysis) adequately supporting the validation. Failure to remedy any violations could result in a referral to the Department of Justice Inspector General, the withholding of grant funds or ineligibility for future OJP grants or subgrants, suspension or termination of the grant, or other administrative, civil, or criminal penalties, as appropriate. As previously stated, our goal is to ensure that our JAG and SCAAP recipients are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including Section 1373, not to withhold vitally important criminal justice funding from states and localities like yours. S. Does OJP expect State Administering Agencies or their subgrantees to submit additional certifications specific to 8 U.S.C. § 1373? No, OR does not expect grantees to submit additional assurances in FY 2016, nor does OR expect grantees to require additional assurances from subgrantees, unless the grantees choose to do so. However, OJP expects that JAG grantees and subgrantees will use this time to examine their policies and procedures to ensure they will be able to submit the required assurances when applying for JAG funding in FY 2017. 6. Willa locality risk its entire ByrnelJAG funding if it refuses to certify compliance with federal law, including 8 U.S.C. § 1373? Yes, a JAG grantee is required to assure and certify compliance with all applicable federal statutes, including Section 1373, as well as all applicable federal regulations, policies, guidelines and requirements, as a prerequisite to obtaining funding. OJP expects that JAG recipients will use this time to examine their policies and procedures to ensure they will be able to submit the required assurances when applying for JAG funding in FY 2017. By providing this additional guidance and the prior guidance on 8 U.S.C. § 1373, the Department has made clear that its goal is to ensure that our JAG and SCAAP recipients are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including Section 1373, not to withhold vitally important criminal justice funding from states and localities like yours. 7. Willa State risk its entire Byrne/JAG funding if a subgrantee is found to be out of compliance? No, only the jurisdiction that fails to comply with Section 1373 is at risk for not being funded after being provided an opportunity to correct its policies or practices. It is the State's legal responsibility as the prime grantee to monitor its subgrantees adequately and take appropriate action if 1) a subgrantee does not certify compliance with Section 1373, or 2) the State becomes aware (after making the subaward) of credible evidence of a violation of Section 1373 by a subgrantee. In general, however, a subgrantee's continuing violation would not ordinarily result in imposition of penalties against the State, or put the State's entire Byme/JAG funding at risk. If the State disburses funds to an ineligible subgrantee, however, such that the State itself could be said to have participated in the violation (e.g. by having made the subaward knowing that the subgrantee was ineligible) or failed to take appropriate action to remedy a violation, then that State would be responsible for repayment of the dispersed funding. In addition, if OR becomes aware of credible evidence that a subgrantee may be in violation of Section 1373, OR will forward that evidence to the State, and the State will need to take steps to determine if the subgrantee is in violation, and (if it is) to require the subgrantees to take sufficient and effective steps to bring it into compliance and submit documentation that details the steps taken, contains a validation that the subgrantee has come into compliance, and includes an official legal opinion from counsel (including related legal analysis) adequately supporting the validation. Additional guidance regarding compliance with Section 1373 can be found at. Question and Answer document provided to all JAG grantees and SCAAP recipients on July 7, 2016: )lis://www.bia.aov/ProgramDetails.aspx?Program ID=59. DOJ Office of the Inspector General Memorandum posted on July 28, 2016 at: hgps://oig.iustice. og v/reports/2016/1607.pdf. FAQ on Federal Grant Conditions and Cooperation with Immigration Enforcement 1. What is the Department of Justice saying about applicants for federal criminal justice grants, including SCAAP and Byrne JAG grants? The Department of justice (DOJ) has added language to various federal criminal justice grants regarding the requirement for grant recipients to certify compliance with all applicable federal laws. DOJ also sent an email to grantees mentioning this requirement and discussing an inquiry from Members of Congress about "sanctuary policies" and the possibility of non-compliance with 8 USC § 1373, a federal law that prohibits local and state law enforcement from restricting the sharing of immigration status information with federal authorities.' DOJ stated that if the Office of Justice Programs receives information that a grant applicant is in violation of 8 USC § 1373, or other federal laws, the applicant may be referred to the Office of Inspector General and may be subject to penalties. The letter suggests, but makes no actual claim, that there may be a connection between "sanctuary" policies and violations of 8 USC § 1373. In fact few, if any, so-called sanctuary policies actually conflict with this statute. Moreover, federal law does not provide for any financial penalties for non-compliance with 8 USC & 1373. 2. Why did DOJ add these notices? DOJ's actions were taken in order to satisfy certain members of Congress who oppose laws or policies that that put any limits on local law enforcement agencies' ability to engage in immigration enforcement. These Congress members are seeking ways (without providing additional funding) to force localities to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP)'s efforts to apprehend and deport individuals who come in contact with local and state law enforcement. To the extent that the announcement threatens penalties for jurisdictions that have so- called sanctuary policies, it is misleading. Nothing in federal law requires localities to comply with immigration detainers or requests for notice of release from ICE. Although this announcement is new, the language in the notice from DOI does not necessarily indicate any underlydng change in policy or grant requirements. 1 See htWs://www.baa.gov/funding/Buscsectionl373.pdf-, http:%/culberson.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2016-7-7 section 1373 - dojletter to culberson.pdf. 1 For further information, contact: Lena Graber, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, laraberailmora or Jonathan Moore, Washington Defenders Association, ionathan@defensenet.org. 3. What is 8 USC § 1373? 8 USC § 1373 is a federal statute that prohibits local and state governments and agencies from enacting laws or policies that limit communication with DHS about "information regarding the immigration or citizenship status" of individuals. The statute prohibits such policies, but does not contain any requirement for specific action. The full text of 8 USC § 1373 is attached as Appendix A. 4. How does 8 USC § 1373 affect local jurisdictions and policies? • 8 USC § 1373 does not require any action from local or state agencies, officers, or governments. It does not compel compliance with ICE detainers or requests for notification of release dates. It only prohibits the enactment of certain policies about sharing immigration status information. It does not cover, include or mention information about criminal case information, custody status, or release dates of prisoners. • 8 USC § 1373 does not impose any affirmative obligation to share information or to collect information. It only prohibits limitations on sharing immigration status information. • 8 USC § 1373 does not prohibit enactment of a local policy against informing ICE about the release dates of inmates from jail. Criminal case information, such as a person's custody status or release date, is different from citizenship or immigration status, and is not mentioned in the statute at all. • 8 USC § 1373 does not bar a local policy stating or affirming that employees are not required to share information about immigration status. 5. Do Sanctuary Policies violate 8 USC § 1373 or other federal laws? Usually not. There are many varieties of local policies that might be considered "sanctuary policies." Unless these policies limit communication with DHS about individuals' citizenship or immigration status they do not violate 8 USC 61373 Cities and counties around the country have policies against local officials questioning individuals about their immigration status; such rules do not conflict with 8 USC § 1373 unless they limit communication with DHS about immigration status. Policies that limit or prohibit compliance with immigration detainers and requests for notice of release dates do not violate 8 USC § 1373. Immigration detainers are explicitly not mandatory and so electing not to respond to them is entirely within the discretion of local law enforcement. See Galarza v. Szalczyly 745 F.3d 634,645 (3d Cir. 2014). Moreover, nothing in federal law requires localities to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act and regulations; to the contrary, immigration regulation and enforcement are federal functions. See Arizona v. United States, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (2012). There is no violation of federal law in declining ICE detainers, and therefore the certification requirement for DOI grants can be met without any compliance with immigration detainer requests or notification requests. Forfurther information, contact. Lena Graber, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, laraber(@ilrc.org or Jonathan Moore, Washington Defenders Association, ionathan0defensenet.org. The Limits of Sanctuary Cities - The New Yorker E X 14 03 / / NEWS DESK Page 1 of 6 THE LIMITS OF SANCTUARY CITIES By Alex Kotlowitz November 23, 2016 Mayors in sanctuary cities, including Chicago's Rahm Emanuel, have hastened to reassure undocumented immigrants that they will not cooperate with the hard-line stance of the incoming Trump Administration. At a news conference last week, Rahm Emanuel, the mayor of Chicago, tried to reassure undocumented immigrants living in the city. "To all those who are, after Tuesdays election, very nervous and filled with anxiety, you are safe in Chicago," he said. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump had consistently promised to deport immigrants living in this country illegally, but Emanuel, along with other big -city mayors, including Bill de Blasio, in New York, asserted that their cities—so-called sanctuary cities—would remain safe havens against federal deportation actions. As Emanuel went on to declare, "Chicago has in the past been a sanctuary city.... It always will be a sanctuary city." What these mayors didn't say, however, was how their municipalities would be able to prevent the federal government http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-limits-of-sanctuary-cities 12/22/2016 The Limits of Sanctuary Cities - The New Yorker from exerting its authority—and what they mean by the term "sanctuary city." The American movement to provide sanctuary to undocumented immigrants dates back thirty-four years, to the Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, Arizona, where the Reverend John Fife announced that his church would protect refugees fleeing the civil wars in El Salvador and Guatemala. Because the Reagan Administration supported the regimes in those two countries, it was difficult, if not impossible, for Salvadoreans and Guatemalans who felt persecuted by government forces to gain political asylum in the U.S., and harboring them was done in open defiance of the federal government. Between fifty and a hundred people stayed at the church each night, sleeping on foam pads on the floor, or on the carpet in the chapel. Volunteers provided meals, legal assistance, medical care, and English- language classes. Over ten years, Southside Presbyterian harbored thirteen thousand refugees, and some five hundred other congregations across the country ultimately joined the effort. These churches and synagogues physically protected refugees in an act of open civil disobedience. Page 2 of 6 Today's sanctuary -cities movement shares the convictions of this campaign of the nineteen -eighties, but the means of resistance are quite different. Christopher Lasch, an associate professor at the University of Denver's Sturm College of Law, who has written extensively on sanctuary policies, warns that the term can be misleading: "What people get all wrong is that they hear the word `sanctuary,' and they think it's about harboring people." Unlike sanctuary churches, sanctuary cities aren't pursuing a public act of subversion but rather a course of non-cooperation, telling their http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-limits-of-sanctuary-cities 12/22/2016 The Limits of Sanctuary Cities - The New Yorker Page 3 of 6 police and jail personnel to refuse assistance to federal immigration authorities in their efforts to deport immigrants. For the most part, the sanctuary city is a recent phenomenon, a direct response to President Obama's efforts to target undocumented immigrants with criminal records, a policy that led to the deportation of two and a half million during his Administration. Shortly before Obama won the Presidency, in early 2008, Congress approved the Secure Communities Program, under which the fingerprints of anyone charged with a crime are entered into a national database. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or I.C.E., can ask a local jail to hold an inmate beyond his release date, giving time for the agency to send representatives to take the person into federal custody. These detention requests became the federal government's chief immigration -enforcement tool. (In 2014, Obama replaced Secure Communities with a similar but ostensibly less sweeping program.) An earlier initiative, still in place, gives local police and sheriffs' departments the ability to have officers deputized to enforce immigration law. If a local police officer makes a traffic stop, she can ask the driver about his immigration status and hold him in custody if he is here illegally. When these measures were instituted, communities across the country resisted. While most turned over illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes, many refused to turn over undocumented immigrants arrested on minor charges. And some refused to have police ask about immigration status in the first place. For some city leaders, the reason was simple: they opposed mass deportations, and they didn't want to have any role in assisting the federal government's efforts. But there were also legal considerations. Some federal courts have ruled that detaining http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-limits-of-sanctuary-cities 12/22/2016 The Limits of Sanctuary Cities - The New Yorker Page 4 of 6 a person beyond his release date amounts to holding someone without a court order, a violation of the Fourth Amendment. There were also practical concerns. Many police departments feared that a policy of arresting people due to their immigration status would discourage victims or witnesses of crimes from cooperating with investigations. Some cities also worried that it would lead to racial profiling. In 2012, there were a few dozen sanctuary communities; today there are around five hundred and fifty. During his campaign, Trump asserted that on his first day in office he would cut federal funds to sanctuary cities. It's a powerful threat. On CNN's "State of the Union" last Sunday, Reince Priebus confirmed that removing "the criminal elements" and "people that are not good people" is still very high on Trump's early agenda. But none of the sanctuary communities seem to have backed down since the election. If anything, some have become more defiant. Last week, Los Angeles's police chief, Charlie Beck, told the Los Angeles Times, "We are not going to engage in law enforcement activities solely based on somebody's immigration status. We are not going to work in conjunction with Homeland Security on deportation efforts. That is not our job, nor will I make it our job." Trump has not been clear about how he intends to round up undocumented immigrants with criminal records (nor has he indicated what kind of criminal record would warrant deportation), but the sanctuary cities will undoubtedly complicate those efforts. Without the cooperation of local law enforcement, finding immigrants would be a difficult task. Lasch, the law professor, suggests that, "short of creating a huge deportation force, President Trump won't have any hope of making good on http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-limits-of-sanctuary-cities 12/22/2016 The Limits of Sanctuary Cities - The New Yorker Page 5 of 6 his promise of deporting two to three million people" without the help of local police. Currently, there are only fifty-eight hundred I.C.E. agents nationwide. Nonetheless, there is only so much protection that sanctuary cities can offer. There's nothing to keep federal agents from, say, conducting a raid at a factory or an individual residence within a sanctuary city. John Fife, of Southside Presbyterian, is retired now, and I reached him by phone at his home, in Tucson. He told me that over these past couple of weeks he has fielded dozens of phone calls from churches, universities, and cities about the movement of the nineteen -eighties, with callers wanting to know how the sanctuaries worked and how hard it was to actively defy the federal government. In recounting those years, Fife explained, "We had no middle ground between collaboration and resistance." Fife openly challenged authorities, draping the church in a banner addressing the government: "Immigration: Do not profane the sanctuary of God." The Reagan Administration, wanting to avoid a public confrontation, never sent federal law enforcement into sanctuary churches. But, in 1985, the Department of Justice did bring criminal -conspiracy charges against sixteen Arizona sanctuary activists, including Fife. Eight were found guilty, though no one served prison time. By 1992, with the peace accords in Central. America, the sanctuary movement had run its course. Roughly half a million Central Americans won legal status. http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-limits-of-sanctuary-cities 12/22/2016 The Limits of Sanctuary Cities - The New Yorker "Folks are asking, `How can we prepare if we need to protect these families?"' Fife told me. "I tell them what we did. How necessary that will be today, we'll have to wait and see." Alex Kotlowitz is the author of three books, including "ThereAre No Children Here,"and teaches writing at Northwestern University. MORE: DONALD TRUMP IMMIGRATION DEPORTATION About Careers Cartoon Bank Contact Customer Care FAQ Media Kit On The Town Press Reprints RSS Site Map Store Strongbox © 2016 Cond6 Nast. All rights reserved. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our user agreement (effective 1/2/2016) and privacy policy (effective 1/2/2016). Your California privacy rights. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with prior written permission of Cond6 Nast. Our sitesv❑ Page 6 of 6 http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-limits-of-sanctuary-cities 12/22/2016 r r �p 2-29-16 CITY OF IOWA CITY (Ps MEMORANDUM MEMO TO: Iowa City City C until FROM: Susan Mims =/ RE: City Clerk search Date: January 29, 2016 On December 121h, Geoff Fruin, Eleanor Dilkes, Marian Karr, Karen Jennings, Terry Dickens, Pauline Taylor and I met to discuss and lay out the process for the search for a new City Clerk. This memo lays out'the results of that discussion. Please be prepared to discuss this at ourlanuary 3rd meeting. The search committee shall be comprised of myself (chair), Pauline and Terry as council representatives, and Geoff, Eleanor, and Karen as staff representatives. Marian, as the current Clerk, will not be part of the search committee, but has and will provide us with input regarding the process. The notice of the job opening has been posted/advertised/shared in the following places: • Iowa League of Cities (encompassing Iowa Municipal Finance Officers Association and the Clerk's Institute in Ames) • Higher Education Recruitment Consortium (NERC) • Indeed.com • Kirkwood Online Job Resource • UI Hire -a -Hawk • Craigslist • Facebook • Twitter • Icgov.org • City of Iowa City Jobline • Email notification to E -Subscriber employment notification group • National organization — International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC) and regional directors from Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin • List serve of major Cities In Iowa • Iowa League of Cities, the Iowa Municipal Finance Officers Association and the Iowa Municipal Professionals Institute (Clerk's school). • IMPI Facebook (Iowa State Municipal Professional Institute and Academy) Applications are due by January 13`h. The committee will meet on January 110 to review the applications and select semi-finalists to be interviewed by the search committee. The goal is to complete the interviews of semi-finalists by February 111, then forward a list of finalists to the full council. We would like to have you tentatively reserve the week of February 131h for the full council to Interview the finalists. Karen and her staff will create a draft list of Interview questions for both the semifinalist and finalist rounds. These will be refined by the committee. If you have specific questions you would like asked, at either stage, please get them to me prior to January 18th. The committee will do the background/reference checks on the top candidate(s). The committee will also be prepared to recommend a salary range to you. Finally, we recommend that the full council and search committee meet to discuss the finalists prior to making a job offer. P �_® CITY OF IOWA CITY IP6 MEMORANDUM Date: December 29, 2016 To: Mayor and City Council From: Marian K. Karr, City Clerk Re: Joint Meeting Agenda Items for January 30 The next joint meeting with City Councils of Johnson County municipalities, the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, the Iowa City School District and neighboring school districts will be held on Monday, January 30, 2016. The meeting will be hosted by the Iowa City Schools At Penn Elementary School, North Liberty. Please come prepared to discuss agenda items you would like to include on that agenda at the next Council work session on January 3. A complete agenda and meeting date confirmation will be available in your packet preceding the January 30th joint meeting. CITY of IOWA Cm UNESCOO OFLITERATURE PENDING CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION TOPICS December 29, 2016 Strategic Plan / Budget Related Topics: 1. Provide timely and appropriate input on the ICCSD's planned 2017 bond referendum 2. Significantly improve the Council and staff's ability to engage with diverse populations on complex or controversial topics 3. Identify and implement an achievable goal to reduce disproportionality in arrests 4. Identify a substantive and achievable goal for the provision of affordable housing in Iowa City and implement strategies to achieve this goal 5. Determine scope of Council identified housing market analysis of core neighborhoods 6. Determine scope of Council identified complete streets study 7. Discuss expectations for working with the ICCSD, Kirkwood Community College, Iowa Works, labor organizations, and others to explore the feasibility of an industrial arts/crafts facility in Iowa City Other Topics: 1. Review the Child Data Snapshot (IP2 2/18) and discuss related strategies with local stakeholders 2. Discuss creation of an ad-hoc committee on social justice and racial equity 3. Review the Equity Report and discuss strategic plan goals relating to disproportionate minority contact (February 2017) IP8 • .wr®SOB CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (319) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council BUDGET Work Session Agenda Saturday, January 7, 2017 Emma J. Harvat Hall — City Hall 410 East Washington Street 8:00 AM * Saturday, January 7, 2017 Bud -get Work Session 8:00* Budget Overview and Highlights -City Manager's Office & Finance 9:30 BREAK General Government Proaram Budaets: City Attorney City Clerk City Manager Finance Public Safety Program Budgets: (1 hour) Police Department Fire Department Culture & Leisure Program Budgets: (1 hour) Library Parks & Recreation Senior Center 12:00 Noon LUNCH 1:00 Community & Economic Development Program Budgets: (1 hour) Neighborhood and Development Services Metropolitan Planning Organizations of Johnson County (MPO) r IVA.1C/ Business -type Funds: (1 hour) Transportation & Resource Management Services (Parking, Transit, Landfill and Refuse) Airport Public Works Program Budgets: (1 hour) Discussion wrap-up 5:00 Scheduled ending time *Times noted are estimates S:budget presentation memo 1-07-17.doc 12-29 IP9 CITY OF IOWA CITY 410 East Washington Street Iowa City, Iowa 52240-1826 (3 19) 356-5000 (319) 356-5009 FAX www.icgov.org City Council BUDGET Work Session Agenda Tuesday, January10, 2017 Emma J. Harvat Hall — City Hall 410 East Washington Street 1:00 PM * Tuesday, January 10, 2017 Budget Work Session 1:00* Review of Saturday's work session 1:30 Capital Improvement Projects [CIP] (2 hours) 3:30 BREAK Discussion wrap-up 7:00 Scheduled ending time *Times noted are estimates S:budget presentation memo 1-10-17.doc Minutes Human Rights Commission December 20, 2016 Helling Conference Room i-TTVWIi Members Present: Eliza Willis, Paul Retish, Shams Ghoneim, Adil Adams, Kim Hanrahan, Joe D. Coulter, Barbara Kutzko. Members Not Present: Andrea Cohen, D'Angelo Bailey. Staff Present: Stefanie Bowers. Recommendations to City Council: No. Call to Order: Ghoneim called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM. Approval of November 15, 2016 Minutes: Coulter moved to approve the minutes; the motion was seconded by Willis. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5-0. (Kutzko, Hanrahan not present). Presentation of Certificate to Outgoing Commissioner Relish: Retish was thanked for his many years of service on the Commission. Retish also agreed to continue to volunteer on the job fair planning committee. Funding Request Annual Choice Event: Coulter moved to approve the funding request for $250; the motion was seconded by Willis with a friendly amendment that payment of the $250 is contingent on the Commission being sent an itemized budget for the event. A vote was taken and the motion passed 7-0. Bowers will speak with organizers to see if any complimentary tickets are available for Commissioners for the event. Proclamations: A proclamation for Martin Luther King, Jr. National Holiday will be submitted for the Mayor's consideration for the January 3 formal City Council meeting. Ad Hoc Committee on Know Your Rights: Due to extreme cold temperatures this event was canceled and will be rescheduled for late March 2017. Building and Crossing Bridges Together: Commissioner Kutzko volunteered to serve on this ad hoc committee. The next event is planned for April 2017. Iowa City Community School District Equity Committee: There has not been a meeting held since November. At that meeting the committee discussed the District's Report Card for schools with District administrators. University of Iowa Center for Human Rights Advisory Board: The Center has many upcoming programs, events and seminars coming in 2017, many of which are student led. To see all upcoming events please visit the Center's website. https://uichr.uiowa.edu/. Inclusive Communities: The following items will be considered as future programming for the "Know Your Rights" series. Willis suggests that Commission members rotate serving on this Ad Hoc Committee to assist in the planning of those topics of most interest to them. 1. Workshops, booths/tables and web -video on what is considered hate speech/crime. 2. Sponsor events/workshops addressing topics related to interaction between law enforcement and communities of color, refugee and immigrant. 3. More programming geared at refugee and immigrant communities. 4. Hate speech/act hotline, hate speech/act online support community and recurring hate speech/act emotional support group meetings. 5. Publicize the availability of protective services (police/fire/etc.). The following items will be discussed at a future meeting. 1. Create a "rapid response" team that can participate in public events or demonstrations of support when such incidents of hate occur. (Willis would like to include with the future discussion the topic of Commission protocol as a responder). 2. Become vocal when the Commission is aware of a negative incident that occurs in the community. 3. Continuation of the "Building & Crossing Bridges Together" program. 4. Publicizing more prominently the City's stance on hate speech/a hate speech and act -free messaging campaign with audio and visual messages. Reports of Commissioners: Adams reported on a negative interaction he recently had with the University Heights Police Department. Willis and Kutzko are both serving on the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day planning committee. The event is scheduled to be held at Grant Wood Elementary School on Monday, January 16 from 10-3. The annual celebration will include a panel discussion and vendor booths. Coulter was recently reappointed to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Advisory Committee for the state of Iowa. Adjournment: 7:07 PM. Human Rights Commission Attendance Record Key X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused R = Resigned -- = Vacant TERM 1/19 2/16 3/15 4/18 5/17 6/21 7/7 7/19 8/16 9/20 10/18 11/15 12/20 NAME EXP. 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 Joe D. Coulter 1/1/2019 X X X X O/E X X O/E X O/E X X X Adil D. 1/1/2019 O/E O O/E O X X X X X X X X X Adams Eliza Jane 1/1/2019 X O/E X X X X X X X X X X X Willis Paul Relish 1/1/2017 O/E X X X X X X X X X X X X Orville 1/12017 X X X X X X X X R R R R R Townsend, Sr. Karol Krotz 1/1/2017 — — — -- O O O R R R R R R Andrea Cohen 1/12018 X X X X X X X X X X X X O/E Kim 1/1/2018 X X O/E X X X X X O X X X X Hanrahan Shams 1/1/2018 O/E X X X X X X X X X X O/E X Ghoneim Barbara 1/12020 — — — — — — — — — — X X X Kutzko D'Angelo 1/12020 — — — — — — — — — — X X O/E Bailey Key X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused R = Resigned -- = Vacant