Logo


Menlo Park City Council Email Log

[ Home ] [ City Council ] [ Search ] [ 05/06 Archive ] [ 07/08 Archive ] [ 09/10 Archive ] [ 2011 Archive ] [ 12/13 Archive ] [ Watch City Council Meetings ]


Re: Sanctuary city / Freedom city

From: domainremoved <Kirsten>
Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 05:53:33 +0000

Hello,

Thank you for your recent email requesting that the City Council consider
postponing the discussion on a sanctuary city ordinance until after the
April 5th District court hearing for the case of Santa Clara County vs. the
executive order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.

The District Court may issue a motion for a preliminary injunction on April
5th or it may continue the hearing and consolidate it with the San
Francisco case that has a similar motion scheduled for April 11th. There is
no certainty as to when the District Court will issue its decision and it
will probably be appealed by the losing party.

Based on community input on this important topic, I have moved this item
from the April 4, 2017 agenda to the April 18, 2017 agenda.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions, concerns or comments. I
look forward to seeing you April 18th.

Sincerely,

Kirsten Keith,
Mayor
On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 7:16 AM Jen Mazzon <jenmazzon_at_(domainremoved)

>
> Dear Menlo Park City Council,
>
> I'm forwarding an email thread that I had recently with the ACLU regarding
> their 9 model freedom city policies and the sanctuary city ordinance that
> San Francisco has had in place for 20 years. You can see the 9 model
> policies here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S1PizFt421mtsd5497YN1xyL8LhlVhIhvPs7WhMv5P0
>
> A group of Menlo Parkers met with Commander Bertini last Friday to
> understand his perspectives on the 9 model policies and the ordinance. A
> summary of our take-aways is here:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AO0VwmBu2imUYP86lWASSwJfuAUUgstNdVCxQPEuAqY
>
> Lastly, I request that you postpone your vote on the sanctuary ordinance
> until sometime in May, after the court hears the case of Santa Clara County
> vs. the executive order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities on
> April 5th. I do not want the sanctuary city ordinance to fail because of
> concerns around federal funds being withheld from Menlo Park. I support
> the sanctuary city ordinance because doing so will reassure our
> marginalized immigrant community and codify our values of Menlo Park
> supporting all families, regardless of their immigration status.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Jen Mazzon
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* "Jonathan Blazer" <j...r_at_(domainremoved)
> *Date:* March 13, 2017 at 00:48:16 PDT
> *Subject:* *Re: Sanctuary city / Freedom city*
>
> Hi Jen
>
>
> I'm adding my colleague Julia Mass from the ACLU of Northern CA who likely
> has other ideas or advice to offer; i imagine she may know about the menlo
> park campaigh - thank you for your efforts!
>
>
> You are right that there's quite of bit overlap between the
> long-standing San Francisco ordinance and our model rules. our rules were
> modeled after the best polices in place around the country.
>
>
> Before I point out some differences, I want to emphasize that our model
> policies are not intended to displace existing local advocacy, either in
> terms of framing (how we talk about them) or content. If you've generated
> momentum and a local coalition supporting local replication of the SF
> ordinance, that is accomplishing quite a lot - keep it going.
>
>
> On to the differences: the SF sanctuary ordinance was enacted long before
> DHS began to rely so heavily on jails as the primary focus of picking up
> immigrants. Our Rules 1, 3, and 4 hone in on jails and the specific tools
> and methods ICE uses to entangle local jails in the deportation process. In
> fact, SF enacted another law as an overlay on top of its sanctuary
> ordinance (the "due process for all ordinance") that specifically address
> some of these issues. It is worth you considering adding them, including
> assessing the extent to which the additions add or subtract from political
> support. Rule #3 has been a tough lift in some places, because it cuts
> against current practice, which in most places is to allow a variety
> of outside law enforcement agencies to come in and interview
> and investigate whoever they'd like.
>
>
> Our Rule 9 is a broader non-discriminatory policing rule intended to cover
> a range of protected categories of individuals, including but beyond
> immigrants. also worth considering, if Menlo Park does not already have a
> rule like this in place (it may- worth checking).
>
>
> I completely agree with you about ordinances being more valuable than
> administrative policies, if you can win their enactment.
>
>
> Julia is your best contact for further follow-up.
>
>
> regards,
>
>
> Jon
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Faiz Shakir <f...r_at_(domainremoved)
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 12, 2017 7:54 PM
> *Subject:* RE: Sanctuary city / Freedom city
>
>
> My colleague Jon Blazer is the best resource on this one.
>
>
>
> *From:* Jen Mazzon [mailto:j...n_at_(domainremoved)
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 12, 2017 8:19 PM
> *To:* Faiz Shakir
> *Subject:* Sanctuary city / Freedom city
>
>
>
> Dear Faiz,
>
>
>
> I have a question for you regarding the overlap between the 9 freedom city
> policies and the sanctuary city ordinance in San Francisco. Should a city
> adopt SF's ordinance, some of the 9 freedom policies would become moot, for
> example the "Don't ask rule." My question is, which policies would not
> become moot?
>
>
>
> In the last several months, I have been pursuing the adoption of a
> sanctuary city ordinance modeled after San Francisco's in my hometown of
> Menlo Park, CA.
>
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m-ktzTvybEerEC5MzskWb1pKsSXn3rIpMdY-S8Qizfo
>
>
>
> I would like to understand which of the 9 freedom city policies to pursue
> in addition to the ordinance linked to above.
>
>
>
> Secondary/related question: I assume that the ACLU is promoting policies
> vs. ordinances because they are easier to get adopted at the local level.
> However aren't ordinances are preferable? The marginalized immigrant
> community members that I have spoken with are not reassured by policies
> because they are not local laws and are therefore less likely to be upheld.
>
>
>
> Thank you for answering my questions and for everything that you do to
> protect human rights in this country.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Jen Mazzon
>
> www.sanctuarysiliconvalley.org
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 29 2017 - 22:59:30 PDT

[ Search ] [ By Date ] [ By Message ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]


Email communications sent to the City Council are public records. This site is an archive of emails received by the City Council at its city.council_at_(domainremoved)