Denver’s stance appears moderate by comparison

Denver city officials are poised to take a stand on immigration Monday night that probably will rankle federal authorities and the Trump administration.

But even if the proposed immigration policy ordinance were to put some federal grants at risk or invite other federal backlash, national observers with differing views say it’s also likely that Denver would remain overshadowed by other cities.

Chicago, San Francisco and New York are among those that have long been more forceful in protecting immigrants who are in the country illegally, including by refusing to share jail release dates or barring nearly any communication with immigration officials. “In writing, it’s absolutely a sanctuary city policy,” Chris Chmielenski, a spokesman for Arlington, Va.-based Numbers USA, said about Denver’s proposal. His group favors more immigration restrictions and opposes such efforts.

“But at the same time,” he added, “it’s not to the level of some of the other cities.”

Denver’s approach — which would give current policies and practices the force of law while adding some new ones — shares a common intent with similar-minded cities: to assure fearful immigrants that police and city employees won’t do anything, including asking about or sharing their legal status, that might put them at more risk for deportation.

Officials say the stance is needed, in part, to ensure victims of crimes and witnesses feel secure enough to report crimes and cooperate with police.

But in some key ways, Denver has taken a moderate tack. Most notably, the measure agreed upon this month by Mayor Michael Hancock and its City Council sponsors maintains the sheriff’s practice of giving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement a headsup before releasing inmates wanted on a detainer.

Because of that, Chmielenski — while no fan of the proposal — predicted that Denver “may end up being OK” in any federal crackdown.

Annie Lai, an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, Irvine, School of Law, considers the staking out of local protections for immigrants to be progressive. She put it a different way: “It’s important for people to understand that what Denver is considering is not the most protective that a city can get.”

“We will not be bullied,” mayor says.

Still, Hancock and other officials have acknowledged the risk they’re taking.

“Let me say this to you: We at the city lead first by our values,” Hancock said during an Aug. 16 news conference where he and the council members announced the latest form of the proposal. “We will not be bullied, and we will not be blackmailed (by federal officials). We will do an assessment of … how our decisions here are impacting (grants) going forward.”

There is plenty of uncertainty surrounding those grants.

Upon taking office in Jan- uary, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that sent shock waves to cities across the country. The order promised a crackdown on so-called “sanctuary cities” and used federal grant funding as a cudgel.

Since then, though, legal challenges have hindered that effort.

Most recently, a flurry of lawsuits have been filed by Chicago, San Francisco and the state of California to challenge a policy announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions last month that requires cities and states seeking money for crime-fighting efforts through a popular grant program to cooperate in certain ways on immigration enforcement.

Chicago’s recent lawsuit has made that city a target of public criticism by Sessions, who has attempted to draw a connection between illegal immigration and the city’s violent crime problem.

The suits argue that Sessions overstepped the law by attaching new conditions to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Programs. He said applying jurisdictions must provide ICE agents with access to secure areas of jails for inmate interviews and provide 48 hours’ notice before releasing an inmate who is the subject of an ICE detainer request.

Denver has used about $400,000 to $500,000 a year from JAG grants for programs including the SpotShotter gunshot detection system. A mayoral spokeswoman said officials planned to submit the city’s next application for that program this week.

City officials argue the proposed immigration ordinance, called the Public Safety Enforcement Priorities Act, won’t fun afoul of federal law.

But Denver would fall short of Sessions’ wishes by allowing jail access to agents only if they have a judicial warrant. The city also routinely has provided release notifications with much shorter notice than Sessions has specified, leading to some protests in situations when released immigrants have gone on to commit crimes, including a February killing. But jail officials in Denver and elsewhere have said 48 hours’ notice often isn’t feasible without holding an inmate longer, a practice courts have ruled against.

The Hancock administration has argued in favor of continuing release notifications, in part to avoid making Denver a bigger target for immigration raids.

Legal experts say one of the easiest ways to flout a federal law that’s been on the books a long time is to cut off all communication with ICE agents, as cities including Chicago, San Francisco and New York have done at times in all but the most serious cases.

“It’s one thing to tell your (city employees) not to ask people about their immigration status, but to tell people not to talk to ICE if ICE inquires, that seems the most problematic under federal law,” said Barbara E. Armacost, a University of Virginia law professor.

How far can cities go in exercising authority?

Denver has taken other recent steps to assuage concerns of immigrants, including the council’s approval in May of sentencing reductions for local ordinance violations, a move portrayed by Hancock as keeping low-level offenders off ICE’s radar.

Lai, the University of California law professor, says cities are within their rights to protect immigrants from federal enforcement.

“A part of the issue here is that in local jurisdictions, the people responsible for them have to be able to

make decisions that are appropriate for their own community,” she said. “And they can’t decide who can come to the U.S. or not, but they can decide how their local law enforcement resources are going to be used. They can create conditions that will allow local residents to feel comfortable contacting local public officials.”

But Chmielenski of NumbersUSA asks why some cities block ICE agents from accessing jails for interviews without a warrant, but not other agents who enforce federal law, such as those from the FBI.

He sees an important distinction between city officials declining to help federal officials with immigration enforcement, which he says is their choice, and impeding it.

“If local officials simply don’t want to do it, that’s fine — as long as they don’t resist federal agents coming in and doing their job,” Chmielenski said. “That’s where we draw the line.”

The City Council is set to vote Monday during a meeting that starts at 5:30 p.m. in the fourth-floor council chambers in the City and County Building. Council members have allowed for an hour of public testimony at the end of the meeting, before they consider the proposed ordinance.