"Congress is in danger of taking that most cursed of American political disagreements, the debate over illegal immigration, and dragging it farther toward insanity."
-- New York Times editorial
As Senator Dianne Feinstein heads to her home state of California for August recess, her constituents are mobilized to hold her accountable for the leadership role she's taken in promoting reactionary policies aimed at targeting and criminalizing the immigrant community. Both Senators Feinstein and Barbara Boxer have been rumored to be joining this race to the bottom and are expected to introduce new legislation that would not only undermine California policies, but could also harm the very constituents they have pledged to protect and serve.
The bill under consideration by Senators Feinstein and Boxer perpetuates a false narrative that criminalizes our immigrant communities and rolls back significant progress made in California, and nationwide. They would force local law enforcement to do the work of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), or lose funding they depend on. Worse yet, it would undo years of progress made for community safety.
California's own Santa Clara County, home to one of the state's largest cities, San Jose, was one of the first jurisdictions nationwide to take a stand and refuse to do ICE's job. The Immigrant Legal Resource Center was a key partner in advocating to pass what would become one of the broadest and most influential policies in the nation. No quick task, this policy was the result of a thoughtful multi-year discussion amongst county leaders and a broad swath of community members representing faith, domestic violence, criminal justice reform, immigrant rights, and civil rights.
Several issues arose throughout this campaign, such as inclusion, equality, due process, and the use of local funds to bankroll the federal immigration system. However, one issue stood out as clear common ground: both law enforcement and immigrant communities alike wanted immigrant communities to build trust in local law enforcement. Community trust is critical in a place like Santa Clara County, where one-third of the residents are immigrants, nearly half of the workforce is foreign-born, and close to two-thirds of those under the age of 18 are children of immigrants.
Before the Santa Clara policy, the distrust in the immigrant community towards law enforcement was palpable. The federal government was aggressively pursuing a deportation agenda, with its primary accomplice being the Santa Clara County jail. The result on the ground was countless broken families and a distrust in law enforcement that at first glance seemed beyond repair. And it wasn't just undocumented immigrants that were affected. Green card holders were also deported leaving hundreds of U.S. Citizen children without their parents.
This was the catalyst for the County to adopt a policy whereby there was a comprehensive and meaningful break with ICE, sending a clear message to immigrant communities that law enforcement and ICE were not one and the same.
Virtually the entire state of California has since followed its lead. Nationally, there are more than 360 jurisdictions that push back on partnership between local law enforcement and ICE, including major cities such as New York, Chicago, Seattle, and Philadelphia. Proposals like that of Senator Feinstein would completely upend local decision making in these places, while undermining years of work that local law enforcement agencies have put into rebuilding trust with immigrant communities.
Instead of doubling down on policies that target and criminalize immigrants, perpetuate harmful stereotypes, and undermine viable community policing efforts, Senators Feinstein and Boxer would be wise to heed the warnings from localities across the country, including from their own local governments, as well as the 50 plus diverse California organizations representing civil rights, immigrants' rights, victims' services, labor, faith, and human rights organizations who wrote to them earlier this week in opposition to this reactionary approach.
Our lawmakers must understand that there is no choice between protecting immigrant rights and ensuring public safety. Protecting immigrant rights, in fact, achieves public safety.