Zeno Swijtink
05-27-2010, 05:14 PM
Meetings - Commission on Human Rights - Human Resources Department - County of Sonoma, California (https://www.sonoma-county.org/hr/cid/chr_meetings.htm)
Immigration Policy Recommendation (Revised Draft))
Commission on Human Rights - Human Resources Department - County of Sonoma, California
April 27, 2010
PREAMBLE
Having studied both United States historical precedent and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
Having considered the actions of numerous communities and cities large and small throughout the United States relative to cooperation with the Federal Government in matters of immigration; and
Having carefully reviewed the statements and documentation of the immigrant community and both local and federal law enforcement officials;
The Commission concludes that current immigration-related policies and procedures have on multiple occasions - resulted in the abrogation of the human and civil rights of members of the immigrant community, and have engendered in that community a fear of, and alienation from law enforcement, County authorities, and the greater community.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT
The Sonoma County Human Rights Commission makes the following recommendation:
Except when
(1) mandated by state or federal law,
(2) assisting with the removal of aliens convicted of serious or violent felonies, or
(3) assisting with the investigation and prosecution of persons reasonably suspected of involvement in human trafficking;
County resources, including human resources, technology, facilities, equipment, and funds, shall not be used in assisting in the enforcement of Federal immigration law.
We further recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider, review, and adopt procedures, policies, and ordinances pursuant to the above recommendations.
BACKGROUND
RECENT COMMISSION HISTORY
In October of 2009, County Public Defender John Abrahams made a presentation regarding the statistical inequities between Latinos and non-Latinos in arrests or citations for certain offenses. In December of 2009, a presentation was made by CIRSC (Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County). Included was paper documentation of several individual cases in the Sonoma County Law Enforcement system. Several individuals related their personal experiences with that same system. In January of 2010, representatives of Sonoma County Law Enforcement addressed the Commission: Sherriff Bill Cogbill, Windsor Chief Steve Freitas and SRPD Chief Tom Schwendholm. Speaking for the three officers present, Sheriff Cogbill presented his view of current policy/enforcement with regards to the immigrant community. In March of 2010, three representatives of the ICE Regional Office in San Francisco appeared before the Commission and responded to questions posed by individual Commissioners. During each of these meetings, the Commission heard numerous comments and personal stories about law enforcement and the immigrant community, from immigrants and non-immigrants, Latinos and non-Latinos including several non-Latino immigrants.
HISTORICAL PRECEDENT
While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents." In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment: "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."
In the final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The Commission has concluded that the following articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been abrogated.
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person.
Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
SIMILAR SANCTUARY ORDINANCES
A large number of cities, counties and in some instances entire states have passed resolutions/ordinances similar to what we propose. A partial list appears below:
CALIFORNIA: Bell Gardens, City of Commerce, City of Industry, Cypress , Davis, Downey, Fresno, Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, {(Special Order 40 - November 1979 [currently being revised]): Prohibits Police Department from initiating police action with the objective of discovering the immigration status of a person and from enforcing immigration law. Establishes equal enforcement of the law and service to the public, regardless of immigration status}. Lynnwood, Maywood, Montebello, National City, Paramount, Pico Rivera, San Bernardino, San Diego {(City of San Diego's Human Relations Commission Resolution -
July 2003): Opposes measures that single out individuals for legal scrutiny or enforcement activity based solely on their country of origin, religion, ethnicity, or immigration status.}, San Francisco (City and County), San Jose, San Rafael, Santa Cruz, South Gate, Vernon, Watsonville
COLORADO: Aurora, Boulder, Commerce City, Denver, Durango, Federal Heights,
Fort Collins
ILLINOIS: Chicago
NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque
OREGON: Ashland, Gaston, Portland, Salem
PENNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia
UTAH: Provo, Salt Lake City
WASHINGTON: Seattle
NEXT STEPS
This is the first in a series of actions; the Commission intends to conduct additional hearings, inviting organizations, agencies, and concerned citizens to explore the most cost effective strategies that local governments should follow in order to deal with gang related violence while preserving the civil and human rights of immigrants and their families.
Immigration Policy Recommendation (Revised Draft))
Commission on Human Rights - Human Resources Department - County of Sonoma, California
April 27, 2010
PREAMBLE
Having studied both United States historical precedent and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and
Having considered the actions of numerous communities and cities large and small throughout the United States relative to cooperation with the Federal Government in matters of immigration; and
Having carefully reviewed the statements and documentation of the immigrant community and both local and federal law enforcement officials;
The Commission concludes that current immigration-related policies and procedures have on multiple occasions - resulted in the abrogation of the human and civil rights of members of the immigrant community, and have engendered in that community a fear of, and alienation from law enforcement, County authorities, and the greater community.
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED THAT
The Sonoma County Human Rights Commission makes the following recommendation:
Except when
(1) mandated by state or federal law,
(2) assisting with the removal of aliens convicted of serious or violent felonies, or
(3) assisting with the investigation and prosecution of persons reasonably suspected of involvement in human trafficking;
County resources, including human resources, technology, facilities, equipment, and funds, shall not be used in assisting in the enforcement of Federal immigration law.
We further recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider, review, and adopt procedures, policies, and ordinances pursuant to the above recommendations.
BACKGROUND
RECENT COMMISSION HISTORY
In October of 2009, County Public Defender John Abrahams made a presentation regarding the statistical inequities between Latinos and non-Latinos in arrests or citations for certain offenses. In December of 2009, a presentation was made by CIRSC (Committee for Immigrant Rights of Sonoma County). Included was paper documentation of several individual cases in the Sonoma County Law Enforcement system. Several individuals related their personal experiences with that same system. In January of 2010, representatives of Sonoma County Law Enforcement addressed the Commission: Sherriff Bill Cogbill, Windsor Chief Steve Freitas and SRPD Chief Tom Schwendholm. Speaking for the three officers present, Sheriff Cogbill presented his view of current policy/enforcement with regards to the immigrant community. In March of 2010, three representatives of the ICE Regional Office in San Francisco appeared before the Commission and responded to questions posed by individual Commissioners. During each of these meetings, the Commission heard numerous comments and personal stories about law enforcement and the immigrant community, from immigrants and non-immigrants, Latinos and non-Latinos including several non-Latino immigrants.
HISTORICAL PRECEDENT
While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here."
Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating ". . . it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents." In rejecting the argument that the "equal" protections of the 14th Amendment are limited to U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court has referred to language used by the Congressional Committee that drafted the amendment: "The last two clauses of the first section of the amendment disable a State from depriving not merely a citizen of the United States, but any person, whoever he may be, of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or from denying to him the equal protection of the laws of the State. This abolishes all class legislation in the States and does away with the injustice of subjecting one caste of persons to a code not applicable to another. . . . It [the 14th Amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction."
In the final analysis, the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The Commission has concluded that the following articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been abrogated.
Article 3: Everyone has the right to life liberty and security of person.
Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 12: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
SIMILAR SANCTUARY ORDINANCES
A large number of cities, counties and in some instances entire states have passed resolutions/ordinances similar to what we propose. A partial list appears below:
CALIFORNIA: Bell Gardens, City of Commerce, City of Industry, Cypress , Davis, Downey, Fresno, Lakewood, Long Beach, Los Angeles, {(Special Order 40 - November 1979 [currently being revised]): Prohibits Police Department from initiating police action with the objective of discovering the immigration status of a person and from enforcing immigration law. Establishes equal enforcement of the law and service to the public, regardless of immigration status}. Lynnwood, Maywood, Montebello, National City, Paramount, Pico Rivera, San Bernardino, San Diego {(City of San Diego's Human Relations Commission Resolution -
July 2003): Opposes measures that single out individuals for legal scrutiny or enforcement activity based solely on their country of origin, religion, ethnicity, or immigration status.}, San Francisco (City and County), San Jose, San Rafael, Santa Cruz, South Gate, Vernon, Watsonville
COLORADO: Aurora, Boulder, Commerce City, Denver, Durango, Federal Heights,
Fort Collins
ILLINOIS: Chicago
NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque
OREGON: Ashland, Gaston, Portland, Salem
PENNSYLVANIA: Philadelphia
UTAH: Provo, Salt Lake City
WASHINGTON: Seattle
NEXT STEPS
This is the first in a series of actions; the Commission intends to conduct additional hearings, inviting organizations, agencies, and concerned citizens to explore the most cost effective strategies that local governments should follow in order to deal with gang related violence while preserving the civil and human rights of immigrants and their families.