Council mulls sanctuary policy
IMPERIAL — The Imperial City Council will further discuss the possibility of drafting a resolution expressing opposition to Senate Bill 54, the state’s sanctuary state law, at its July 18 regular meeting.
The council had initially discussed SB 54, which limits the ability of statewide law enforcement agencies to engage in immigration enforcement activities, at its June 20 meeting.
It directed city staff to further research the law to determine its impact on the Police Department’s capabilities as well as any potential litigation associated with formally opposing the law.
In the meantime, City Manager Stefan Chatwin said he will speak with as many law enforcement experts as needed to better understand the issue, and report back to council. “I hesitate to say that it won’t have any impact,” Chatwin had said during the June 20 meeting. “I don’t know that.”
It is possible to have the city draft a resolution in opposition to SB 54, while simultaneously ensuring its Police Department continues to comply with the law, Chatwin said.
He also notified the council that the city had recently received a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union suggesting municipalities adopt policies that would ensure their respective law enforcement agencies comply with SB 54.
“It tells me that the ACLU and other groups are very involved in watching and ensuring that every community in California is compliant with SB 54,” Chatwin said.
The council’s June 20 meeting also made apparent some council members’ support and opposition of the state law, also known as the California Values Act.
Mayor Geoff Dale acknowledged his advocating for a resolution expressing the city’s opposition to SB 54 may likely result in him being labeled a racist, which he said is not true, and that he was motivated by a strong desire to ensure the citizenry’s safety.
“I remember this city when we didn’t have to have challenges with laws like this,” the lifelong Imperial resident said during the June 20 meeting. “It gripes my ass that politicians can shove things down our throats.”
During the June 20 meeting, Councilman Darrell Pechtl said that SB 54 does nothing to hamper local law enforcement officials’ abilities to enforce local and state laws and continuing to ensure the public’s safety.
Among some of its provisions, SB 54 explicitly prohibits local law enforcement agencies from collecting immigration status information from people it contacts and detains, or execute search warrants based on a civil immigration violations.
Having the city’s police officers perform such immigration-related enforcement activities would likely result in the additional expenditure of resources and time that they are not financially obligated to do, Pechtl said.
“If you’re going to be looking at this for the next two weeks at least look at all the things that (SB 54) does and doesn’t do,” Pechtl said.
When asked to weigh in on the issue, police Chief Leonard Barra said that narcotics and gang activity remain the department’s major concerns at the moment.
He also told council members that he would be glad to further research SB 54’s potential impact on the city and department and provide them answers.
“There’s a lot of things and issues that’s wrong with our city that we’re trying to fix, and whatever you guys decide, good or bad, we don’t have an opinion,” Barra said. “We’ll enforce the laws the way we’re supposed to. That’s the oath that we took.”
Since SB 54’s passage into law in October, a number of California cities and counties have expressed their formal opposition to the so-called sanctuary state law.
In March, the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state of California over its enactment of SB 54 and two other laws that federal officials said they felt intruded on their ability to enforce immigration laws.
On Wednesday, a federal judge largely denied President Donald Trump’s administration’s request for an injunction halting SB 54 and the other two state laws.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez stated he arrived at his determination after having carefully considered legal precedents and without concern for possible political consequences.
“Accordingly, this court joins the ever-growing chorus of federal Judges in urging our elected officials to set aside the partisan and polarizing politics dominating the current immigration debate and work in a cooperative and bi-partisan fashion toward drafting and passing legislation that addresses this critical political issue,” Mendez wrote. “Our nation deserves it. Our constitution demands it.”