By Casey Tolan / The Mercury News
Congressional Republicans are pushing a new tactic to combat sanctuary cities: Make it easier to sue them.
That effort, part of an immigration bill in the House, threatens to undermine sanctuary policies across California by making jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities liable for some crimes committed by undocumented immigrants they release.
The bill, scheduled for a vote this week, also provides a path to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants but restricts legal immigration, limits asylum claims and budgets $25 billion for the construction of a border wall and other border security measures.
It’s the culmination of weeks of negotiations and has the backing of President Donald Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., although it faced a speed bump when the president suggested Friday that he wouldn’t support the bill before clarifying that he would. Most Democrats are expected to oppose the bill, and some conservatives have argued against it as well.
The bill’s section on sanctuary policies is the latest example of the Trump administration’s war on cities such as Oakland and San Jose and states such as California that protect undocumented immigrants.
Under the bill, jurisdictions that decline requests from federal immigration authorities to detain undocumented immigrants in their custody could face lawsuits if an immigrant they release commits murder, rape or sexual abuse of a child. The victim of the crime or the victim’s relative would be allowed to sue the jurisdiction, as long as the immigrant is convicted of the crime and sentenced to at least one year in prison. States that have sanctuary policies affecting local governments also could be sued.
Trump has highlighted crimes committed by undocumented immigrants during his campaign and presidency, including the death of Kate Steinle, who was shot by an undocumented immigrant in San Francisco. Jose Ines Garcia Zarate was acquitted of murder by a jury last year. Steinle’s family sued San Francisco over her death, but their claim against the city was thrown out by a federal judge.
Meanwhile, under the bill, the federal government would step in to defend jurisdictions that do cooperate with immigration authorities if they’re sued for doing so.
That’s an attempt to stymie the sanctuary state signed by Gov. Jerry Brown last year. The law says local officials in California aren’t allowed to transfer immigrants in their custody to Immigration and Customs Enforcement unless the immigrant in question has a record of committing certain crimes (or ICE has a judicial warrant).
The U.S. Justice Department sued California over that law in March, arguing that it’s unconstitutional.
The House bill also declares that ICE can request state and local jurisdictions to hold an immigrant up to 96 hours after their release date. Courts have previously ruled that detainer requests are voluntary.
California leaders have argued that the House bill is an unconstitutional attack on the state. Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office enforces the sanctuary state law, said in a statement that “the long-awaited Republican moderates’ push for a sensible solution for DACA Dreamers was a charade.” He called the House bill “a rehash of old unworkable ideas, showing a lack of guts and respect for our Constitution.”
Local sanctuary jurisdictions said they’d stand up to the bill.
“This is simply another effort on the part of the federal government to force local jurisdictions to enforce immigration law, when that’s not what we’re supposed to be doing,” said David Campos, the deputy county executive of Santa Clara County, which has passed a sanctuary policy. If the bill passes, the county would consider a constitutional challenge, he said.
It’s not clear how it would fare in the Senate if the House passes it — previous efforts to punish sanctuary cities have been blocked by Senate Democrats.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
