14 Discussion and Possible Adoption of a Resolution Declaring the City a Sanctuary City or a Resolution Affirming the City’s Commitment to the Values of Dignity, Inclusivity, and Respect for all Individuals.

Note from TheGardeningSnail: This page was prepared by running a PDF Image File through a program which converts Image to Print. My apologies for any textual Gremlins that may have crept in. I may also have broken up some of the larger paragraphs and highlighted a few sections.

Meeting Date: May 16, 2017

STAFF REPORT

AGENDA ITEM: Discussion and Possible Adoption of Resolution Declaring the City a Sanctuary City or a Resolution Affirming the City’s Commitment to the Values of Dignity, Inclusivity, and Respect for all Individuals.

MEETING DATE: May 16, 2017

PREPARED BY: Jose M. Sanchez, City Attorney  Ruben Chavez, Acting interim City Manager, Police Chief

RECOMMENDATION

1. Discuss options and potential risks related to adopting a Resolution declaring the City a "Sanctuary City."

2. Consider adoption of a Resolution declaring the City a Sanctuary City or a Resolution affirming the City’s commitment to the values of dignity, inclusivity, and respect for all individuals.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

In February, the Merced Organizing Project ("MOP") and many Merced County and City community members attended a City Council meeting and requested that that City Council adopt a resolution declaring the City of Livingston a Sanctuary City. At that meeting, the Council heard testimony from many affected individuals. Council Members Aguilar and McCabe volunteered to serve on a subcommittee to work with MOP and bring forward a resolution for the Council to consider.

The subcommittee has discussed the risks in the City Council declaring the City as a Sanctuary City. On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed an executive order threatening to deny federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that choose not to cooperate with federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. That order entitled, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States" ("Executive Order"), states that "sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States" and that those "sanctuary jurisdictions have caused "immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic."’

The goal of this Staff Report is to provide the City Council with sufficient information regarding sanctuary policies to assist this Council on whether the City should implement any sanctuary policies. It also provides options related to what other types of resolutions jurisdictions have adopted in order to show their commitment to the values of dignity, inclusivity and respect for all individuals, while attempting to avoid the potential negative impacts threatened in the Executive Order and by the Federal Administration.

General Overview of "Sanctuary Cities"

Sanctuary jurisdictions have existed in the United States since at least the 1970s. The cities of Berkeley, Los Angeles and the City and County of San Francisco were some of the first jurisdictions in the State of California to adopt ordinances or policies relating to local law enforcement of federal immigration law.

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 United States 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 actively 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 federal immigration authorities’ access to non-public government spaces without a court order.

Supporters of sanctuary city policies argue that cities already have many obligations and that using local resources to support the enforcement of federal programs, such as immigration, would undermine community relations, disrupt municipal and county services, interfere with local law enforcement, and violate humanitarian principles.

Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that local law enforcement agencies 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.

Federal Context

The Federal Government has the exclusive authority to enforce federal immigration law. Existing law generally allows the Federal Government to permit, but not require, the assistance of local officials in immigration enforcement efforts. Furthermore, federal statutes prohibit state or local governments from restricting voluntary communication with the Federal Government regarding the immigration status of any individual.

While applicable federal law does not require local cooperation or information sharing with federal immigration authorities, it does prohibit local policies, statutes and ordinances that directly prohibit the voluntary sharing of acquired information. Specifically, 8 U.S.C. section 1373 provides that:

"Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual"

Many state and local jurisdictions have adopted laws or policies to limit their own involvement in federal civil immigration law enforcement. However, the Federal Government has not previously made a formal determination as to whether such laws and policies violate federal law, and it is not clear whether they do. Some sanctuary cities have policies that restrict city staff from making inquiries about or investigations into an individual’s immigration status in certain circumstances.

While this does not directly conflict with federal laws requiring information sharing, the practice does result in those cities not having any information to potentially share, which defeats the purpose of the statute. Furthermore, while ICE often relies upon cooperation and notification from local law enforcement, refusing to provide such notice or cooperation does not prevent ICE from unilaterally enforcing federal immigration laws.

Overview of Emerging Federal Efforts – Executive Order

The President has expressed his opposition to "sanctuary" jurisdictions both during the 2016 presidential campaign and since the election. The Executive Order issued early this year addresses multiple topics, but includes provisions specific to sanctuary jurisdictions. Among other things, Section 9 of the Executive Order provides that:

"Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the Jaw that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S. C. 1373."

".. .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 Jaw, 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 Jaw."

".. .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. "

"The Director of the Office of Management and Budget [0MB] is directed to obtain and provide relevant and responsive information on all Federal grant money that currently is received by any sanctuary jurisdiction."

The Executive Order defines a Sanctuary City as a city "that willfully refuse to comply with statute 1373" and that grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the independent discretion to designate any such jurisdictions. Pursuant to this authority, ICE had begun compiling a list of cities that have declined "immigration detainer requests" from ICE in the past. However, ICE recently announced this list would be eliminated until new standards for inclusion on the list could be established.

It is not clear from the language of the Executive Order what type of enforcement action the Attorney General may take (i.e., civil/criminal/administrative), but it is clear that any ordinance that violates Section 1373, or any other policy or practice that prevents or hinders enforcement of federal law, may be exposed to enforcement. ICE has recently issued a report on the declined detainer requests for the period of January 28, 2017 – February 3, 2017, which lists a number of jurisdictions in California, including Madera County Department of Corrections.

Risks of Adopting a Sanctuary City Resolution

A Loss of Federal Grant Funding

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 may be at risk of future defunding and lose access to current and anticipated federal funding, if the City adopts, either formally or informally, a sanctuary policy.

The City currently receives federal grant funding for primarily transportation and housing projects. Table 1, below, outlines the federal grants recently received by the City. Table 2, depicts potential federal grant awards for projects that are part of pending grant applications or grant applications that were recently submitted.

On March 27, 2017, the Attorney General announced that jurisdictions applying for Department of Justice grants will be required to affirmatively show that they follow immigration law. He also announced that the Department of Justice will seek to "claw back" grants already awarded to noncompliant cities. While this policy has not been formally issued, it provides an example of how the Administration plans to implement the Executive Order.

Table 1

The following table provides a snapshot of various local projects, programs, and grant applications that are funded from federal sources. There may be other funding for police and fire personnel that is not included in Table 1. The table is not intended to be an exhaustive list, but rather, it is meant to give this Council an estimate of funding that the City could lose for future projects if the City implements sanctuary policies and the Federal Government is able to enforce the actual language of the Executive Order against this City. Some of the items below are recurring annual allocations, while others represent one-time funding.

The Interim City Manager has more information regarding the time period in which these grants were received.

Organization

Program

Amount

MCAG/Department of Transportation

Construct Sidewalk Improvement

$234,800

MCAG/Department of Transportation

Bike Lane Project

$401,000

Home Community Development

2013 HOME

$700,000

Department of Housing and Community Development

2016 CDBG Program

$1,700,000

MCAG/Department of Transportation

Main/B Street Roundabout

$626,000

 

TOTAL

$3,661,800

The City also has a considerable amount of grant funding that is pending or is being sought either directly from the Federal Government or passed through pursuant to state or local grant programs related to water. The Interim City Manager has more information regarding what is in the queue.

Table 2

Organization

Program

Amount

Status

MCAG/Department of Transportation

Purchase CNG Street Sweeper

$350,000

Submitted

USDA Emergency Community Water Assistance Grant

Peach Avenue Drinking Water Supply Project

$500,000

Future Application

National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration

Office of the Traffic Safety Grant

$52,000

Future Application

Merced County Office of Emergency Services

SHSGP

$Unknown

Future Funding is Available

 

TOTAL

$902,000

 

It is important to note that to date, it does not appear that any sanctuary jurisdiction has been targeted by the Federal Government to prevent federal funding to that jurisdiction. It is not clear whether the Executive Order would restrict sanctuary jurisdictions from indirectly receiving federal funds that pass through other agencies, such as transportation planning agencies.

As stated above, it is also not clear what jurisdictions would qualify as a sanctuary jurisdiction under the terms of the Executive Order. As a result, cities that have any sanctuary policy, either formal or informal, should assume that all federal funds, including grants from other agencies, are in jeopardy.

B. Enforcement by Federal Government

In addition to the risk of losing federal funding, the City should also consider the Executive Order’s mandate that the Attorney General shall take "appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions), or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders enforcement of Federal law."

Ultimately, if the Federal Government were to take action to enforce the Executive Order, it is not clear what type of legal action the Attorney General would take against sanctuary jurisdictions; criminal or civil. Historically, federal enforcement actions against states and local jurisdictions have been in the form of a civil enforcement for declaratory and injunctive relief.

Potential Challenges to Executive Order

Current Litigation

It is important to point out that there are many legal challenges to the Executive Order. Organizations that specialize in immigration law, such as the National Immigration Law Center, have opined that typical Sanctuary City policies do not violate Section 1373, and that the Executive Order is unconstitutional both on its face and as it is applied to local jurisdictions following sanctuary policies.

The City and County of San Francisco has already filed lawsuits challenging the Executive Order as unconstitutional. The federal district judge hearing San Francisco’s challenge recently issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the Federal Government from enforcing the Executive Order. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect until the case can be heard and the court reaches a decision regarding whether a permanent injunction is appropriate.

However, the Federal Government has stated that it will appeal this preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit and, if necessary, the United States Supreme Court. The Federal Government would be asking the court to reverse the injunction and allow the Federal Government to enforce the entire Executive Order.

Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

The broad and somewhat ambiguous language in the Executive Order, and the level of discretion afforded to the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security, make it difficult to determine what specific local practices, policies and laws constitute a violation of Section 1373. However, there is an argument that the Executive Order violates the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which provides that powers not explicitly given to the Federal Government are reserved for the states.

Some federal courts have previously held that administrative attempts to compel local compliance with immigration laws would likely be unconstitutional under the anti­ commandeering principles enshrined in the Tenth Amendment. (See Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d. Cir. 2014).) Those principles prohibit the Federal Government from "commandeering" state and local governments by requiring them to carry out specific duties.

These principles could arguably limit the Federal Government’s ability to require local officials to take specific actions to enforce federal immigration laws, such as requiring local officials to make notifications to ICE.

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

In addition to concerns regarding the Executive Order’s compliance with the Tenth Amendment, there are also questions as to whether implementation of the order would violate individuals’ rights under the Fourth Amendment to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Issues Related to Placing Condition on all Federal Aid Funds Limitations

Further, it is questionable whether the current Federal Administration will be able to place immigration enforcement-related conditions on all federal financial aid funds to state and local agencies. The Federal Government, through its constitutional power to spend, gives money to various institutions and individuals, and frequently attaches conditions to those appropriations. If funding conditions are not met, or are violated, the beneficiary agency may lose its funding. However, there are constitutional limits on the Federal Government’s ability to impose funding conditions on recipient state and local entities.

First, there is an argument that Congress is required to provide clear and advanced notice to the recipients of the federal grants. Second, the conditions imposed on the grants need to be reasonably related to the purpose of the grant. Third, the condition must not be coercive.

Finally, the conditions cannot be used to induce the recipients to violate the Constitution (i.e., unlawfully detaining people on immigration detainers without judicial determination of probable cause). The Executive Order’s direction to withhold federal grant funds from agencies that have adopted sanctuary policies is not tied to any purposes in grants. There is an argument that the Federal Government cannot 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. Furthermore, since the Executive Order threatens "all federal grant money," there is an argument that the Executive Order is coercive, since local jurisdictions have no choice but to comply or lose 100% of their federal funding.

Current State Laws Related to Immigration

Two state laws – the Trust Act and the TRUTH Act – already limit certain aspects of local law enforcement’s cooperation with ICE.

Trust Act

The Trust Act (Assembly Bill 4), which was signed into law in October 2013, and became effective January 1, 2014, added Section 7282 to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code. The Trust Act declares in the findings section that the ICE Secure Communities Program (”S­ Comm"), shifts the burden of federal civil immigration enforcement onto local law enforcement by seeking voluntary requests, known as holds or detainers.

Unlike criminal detainers, which are supported by a warrant and require probable cause, there is no requirement for a warrant and no established standard of proof, such as reasonable suspicion or probable cause for issuing an ICE detainer request. As a result of the Program’s lack of an established standard of proof, the Legislature found that the Program and immigration detainers harm community policing efforts.

The Trust Act provides that the law enforcement official shall have the discretion to cooperate with federal immigration officials by detaining an individual on the basis of an immigration hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody, only if that release does not violate any federal, state or local laws or policies, and only under specific circumstances including, but not limited to, a conviction of a serious or violent felony, a conviction of gang­ related offenses, or conviction of a hate crime (1) .

The Trust Act also specifically prohibits local law enforcement from detaining an individual beyond the time the individual becomes eligible for release from custody if none of the conditions listed in Government Code section 7282.5 are met. (2)

The Trust Act only affects the City’s discretion to detain individuals. It does not affect a law enforcement agency’s discretion to otherwise cooperate with federal immigration officials. A city may not prohibit its officers and employees from cooperating in their official capacities with immigration officials, and those officials may provide information to ICE, including notification of the date that an individual will be released as requested by ICE.

TRUTH Act

In September of 2016, the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds ("TRUTH") Act was signed into law and became effective January 1, 2017. 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 TRUTH Act requires the law enforcement agency to notify the detainee of the agency’s intent to comply with ICE requests. The TRUTH 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.

 
 

clip_image001

1 Gov. Code § 7282.5(a)

2 Gov. Code § 7282.5(b)

Current State Legislation Related to Immigration

In December 2016, Senate Pro Tern Kevin de Le6n introduced Senate Bill ("SB") 54, which would establish as state policy many of the components of sanctuary policies. If passed as currently drafted, this law would, among other things, prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies, including school police and security from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes.

Additionally, the legislation prohibits local law enforcement agencies from transferring an individual to federal immigration authorities, or detaining an individual at the request of federal immigration authorities for the purpose of immigration enforcement without a warrant.

The bill would also require, within three (3) months of the effective date of the bill, the California Attorney General to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible under state and federal law, and would require certain sensitive facilities, like public schools, public hospitals and courthouses, to implement the model policy or an equivalent. The law would require law enforcement agencies that choose to participate in a joint law enforcement task force to submit a report every six (6) months to the California Department of Justice.3 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, including federal immigration.

In addition to SB 54, other bills and resolutions have been introduced in the 2017/2018 session relating to federal immigration enforcement. SB 6 would provide detained immigrants facing deportation the opportunity for a fair immigration court hearing by ensuring they have qualified immigration lawyers to represent them.

Assembly Bill ("AB") 3 would increase the capacity of the California public defenders offices to provide constitutionally competent legal counsel to immigrants.

Finally, SB 29, commencing on January 1, 2019, would, among other things, prohibit a city, county, or city and county, or a local law enforcement agency from entering into, renewing, or extending the length of a contract with a private corporation, contractor, or vendor to detain immigrants in civil immigration proceedings for profit.

SB 54 passed the Senate on April 3, 2017, and is pending in the Assembly. If SB 54 passes the Assembly, and is signed by the Governor, it will become law.

lnclusionary Resolution Option

As an alternative to declaring Livingston a Sanctuary City, the City Council also has the option of adopting a resolution expressing the City’s inclusionary and nondiscriminatory values. This resolution would highlight that immigrants are an important part of the City of Livingston, provide that the City does not discriminate on the basis of immigration status, and express support for all communities within the City, including those subject to immigration enforcement. The resolution would not specifically direct staff to refrain from participating in immigration enforcement activities, and would not subject the City to the same risk of losing federal funding that would exist by declaring the City to be a Sanctuary City.

The MOP provided the Council subcommittee with a resolution adopted by the Stockton City Council expressing the City’s inclusionary values. That resolution was the basis for the attached resolution declaring the City of Livingston’s inclusionary values. In addition to

 
 

clip_image002

3 Proposed Gov. Code § 7284.2(g) ["Joint law enforcement task force" means a California law enforcement agency collaborating, engaging, or partnering with a federal law enforcement agency in investigating, interrogating, detaining, detecting or arresting persons for violations of federal or state crimes.]

Stockton, other cities have adopted similar resolutions including Windsor, Martinez, and Santa Rosa among others.

CONCLUSION

This Staff Report is meant to provide the Council with additional information related to its decision of whether to adopt a resolution declaring the City of Livingston to be a Sanctuary City.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 2017-_ of the City Council of the City of Livingston Affirming the City of Livingston’s Commitment to the Values of Dignity, lnclusivity, and Respect for all Individuals, Regardless of Ethnic or National Origin, Race or Immigration Status, and Declaring the City of Livingston a Sanctuary City

2. Resolution No. 2017-_ of the City Council of the City of Livingston Affirming the City of Livingston’s Commitment to the Values of Dignity, lnclusivity, and Respect for all Individuals, Regardless of Ethnic or National Origin, Race or Immigration Status

2804075.5

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2017- _

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON AFFIRMING THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON’S COMMITMENT TO THE VALUES OF DIGNITY, INCLUSIVITY, AND RESPECT FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS, REGARDLESS OF ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, RACE OR IMMIGRATION STATUS AND, DECLARING THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON A SANCTUARY CITY

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston recognizes that the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California enshrine the fundamental and inalienable rights of Americans, including the freedoms of religion, freedom of speech, right to assembly, right to privacy and equal protection under the law for the persons, regardless of religious affiliation, race, national or ethnic origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or immigration status; and

WHEREAS, each of the City of Livingston’s duly elected or appointed public servants have sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; and

WHEREAS, immigration has been a cornerstone of the City, the region, the state, and the nation’s development throughout history; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston welcomes, honors, and respects the contributions of all residents regardless of their religious affiliation, race, national or ethnic origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or immigration status; and

WHEREAS, in the State of California, the Trust Act went into effect January 2014; requiring local law enforcement agencies to release people who have been arrested once their bond is posted or their sentence is up, so long as they have no serious convictions and even if U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") officials have issued a detainer; and

WHEREAS, the Transparent Review of Unjust Transfers and Holds ("TRUTH") Act was signed into law on September 28, 2016, which states that if ICE notifies a California jail that it plans to deport someone, it has to serve a copy upon that person in jail, thereby providing the person the "right to know" so they can seek counsel; and

WHEREAS, the Livingston Police Department equally enforces the laws and serves the public without consideration of immigration status, and an individual person’s lack of immigration documentation alone, has no bearing on the manner in which police officers execute their duties; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston recognizes the historical and current diversity of its residents and embraces this diversity as an asset. This diversity encompasses race, ethnicity, culture, national background, religion, and does not delineate based on immigration status; and

WHEREAS, fostering a relationship of trust, respect, and open communication between City officials and residents is essential to the City’s mission of delivering effective public services in partnership with the community, thereby advancing public safety and a high quality of life for residents; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston moves to promote a community of opportunities, tolerance, and inclusiveness; requiring social justice for all residents; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston desires to demonstrate its commitment to its residents by unequivocally declaring that it will safeguard the values enshrined in the United States and State of California Constitutions by providing a safe community, and by assuring them that the City will not expend any funds nor use its limited resources to administer federal immigration laws that are under the exclusive domain of the Federal Government.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livingston as follows:

1. In accordance with state and federal law, City of Livingston officials, including its law enforcement officers, shall not actively collaborate with federal agents solely for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law and shall not use City resources or personnel to investigate, question, detain, apprehend and/or register persons based solely on a civil violation of federal immigration law.

2. City of Livingston officials, including its law enforcement officers, shall not take any direct action against any individual based solely on their actual or perceived immigration status, nor shall any individual be held in local custody solely for a civil immigration hold, unless the individual has been convicted or charged with certain serious offenses, or is a sex or arson registrant.

3. City of Livingston officials, including its law enforcement officers, shall not provide or respond to requests for information about an individual, including but not limited to, the individual’s home address or work address, when such information is requested for the purpose of enforcing civil violations of federal immigration laws.

4. City of Livingston officials, including its law enforcement officers, shall not notify ICE regarding the pending release of any person detained, arrested or imprisoned by the City.

5. The City of Livingston will not enter into a 287(g) memorandum of agreement with Department of Homeland Security to partner with ICE in order to receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within the City’s jurisdiction.

6. In accordance with state and federal law, City of Livingston officials, including its law enforcement officers, may cooperate with federal immigration agencies in matters that involve criminal activity and the protection of public safety. For the purposes of this resolution only, "criminal activity" shall mean a violation of criminal law and not an actual or suspected civil violation of federal immigration law.

7. City staff shall monitor any efforts by the Federal Government to withhold or withdraw federal funding as a result of the City’s policies to protect and defend its diverse community, and shall take all actions necessary to protect such funding.

8. The City of Livingston hereby declares that it is a Sanctuary City.

Passed and adopted this 16th day of May, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

The foregoing resolution is hereby approved.

 
 

clip_image001[4]

Jim Soria, Mayor

of the City of Livingston

ATTEST:

I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Livingston this 16th day of May, 2017.

Antonio Silva, City Clerk of the City of Livingston

2800596.4

RESOLUTION NO. 2017-

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LIVINGSTON AFFIRMING LIVINGSTON’S COMMITMENT TO THE VALUES OF DIGNITY, INCLUSIVITY, AND RESPECT FOR ALL INDIVIDUALS, REGARDLESS OF ETHNIC OR NATIONAL ORIGIN, RACE OR IMMIGRATION STATUS

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston recognizes that the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California enshrine the fundamental and inalienable rights of Americans, including the freedoms of religion, freedom of speech, right to assembly, right to privacy and equal protection under the law for the persons, regardless of religious affiliation, race, national or ethnic origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or immigration status; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston was founded in 1871 by immigrants seeking new opportunities; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston was formally incorporated in 1922 with the ideals of the Declaration of Independence in mind, "that all [persons] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;" and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston is guided by its mission to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston is committed to social justice, maintaining the dignity of individuals and families, and promoting equality to those unrepresented, underprivileged, and underserved; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston is a city of immigrants, and celebrates the heritage of its residents; and

WHEREAS, residents of the City of Livingston come from diverse races, ethnicities, religions, cultures, and nationalities; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston recognizes its diversity as a strength and appreciates the culture and history of its various communities of people, including immigrant communities; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston welcomes individuals of diverse racial, ethnic, religious, and national backgrounds and recognizes that diversity is critical to the economic, cultural, and social progression of the City of Livingston and the region; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston values the individuals from other countries who bring attributes to the City of Livingston making it a strong and vibrant community; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston desires to promote a community of tolerance of the diverse populous and support inclusiveness and social justice for all residents; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston serves residents without regard for their religious affiliation, race, national or ethnic origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or immigration status; and

WHEREAS, the Livingston Police Department is committed to building trust between the police and the community so that all citizens feel safe in their neighborhoods; and

WHEREAS, the City of Livingston strives to create a harmonious atmosphere in the community between the City and its residents, in partnership and collaboration to uphold a peaceful and safe community committed to inclusivity.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Livingston as follows:

1. The City of Livingston will continue to work on creating an inclusive and equitable community where everyone feels like they belong and can contribute.

2. The City of Livingston is committed to serving the entire community and recognizing the dignity of all persons, regardless of their immigration status.

3. The City of Livingston is committed to promoting the utilization of City services by all residents and visitors to Livingston who are in need of them, including immigrants. All individuals should know they can seek and obtain assistance of City Departments including the Police Department regardless of their personal status.

4. The City of Livingston recognizes that inclusivity is vital to our community, is a moral imperative and reflects our shared commitment to social justice.

5. The Livingston Police Department will treat all individuals fairly and in a manner consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.

6. The City of Livingston will work collaboratively to create a safe, welcoming, equitable and inclusive city for everyone.

7. This Resolution shall take effect immediately after its passage. Passed and adopted this 16th day of May, 2017, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

The foregoing resolution is hereby approved.

 
 

clip_image001[6]

Jim Soria, Mayor

of the City of Livingston

ATTEST:

I, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Livingston this 16th day of May, 2017.

 
 

clip_image002[6]

Antonio Silva, City Clerk of the City of Livingston