city of ~ san jose memorandum · city of ~ san jose capital of silicon valle~y memorandum to:...

COUNCIL AGENDA: 6/8/10ITEM: 3.2

CITY OF ~

SAN JOSECAPITAL OF SILICON VALLE~Y

MemorandumTO: HONORABLE MAYOR FROM: RICHARD DOYLE

AND CITY COUNCIL City Attorney

SUBJECT: Arizona Immigration Legislation DATE: May 27 2010

ISSUE

On May 5, 2010, the Rules Committee approved the request of four members ofCouncil to have the issues set forth in a memo dated May 5, 2010 related to the SB1070 adopted by the state of Arizona ("Memo") considered by the Council on June 8,2010. Prior to the Council’s consideration of the issues in the Memo, the RulesCommittee requested that the City Attorney provide information to the Council whichmay have relevance to any action taken by the Council related to issues in the Memo.Specifically, the Rules Committee requested information related to: 1) the CommerceClause of the U.S. Constitution; 2) the California Public Contract Code; 3) the CityCharter and Municipal Code; 4) City Policy 0-11; 5) the status of any lawsuits filedregarding SB 1070 including lawsuits filed by the cities of Flagstaff and Tucson; and 6)information on other California cities which have adopted resolutions regarding SB1070.Accordingly, this memo provides a summary of the Arizona law and a generaldiscussion of the items requested by the Rules Committee.

BACKGROUND

On April 23, 2010 Arizona enacted SB 1070 which the legislature stated was intendedto discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activityby persons unlawfully present in the United States. On April 30, 2010, in response tosome concerns raised by opponents of SB 1070, the Arizona legislature modified SB1070, by enacting HR 2162 (collectively "the Act"). Key provisions of the Act:

prohibit any city, town or county from having policies that limit theinvestigation of violations of federal immigration laws;require law enforcement officials to investigate a person’s immigrationstatus in the course of enforcing state, county, or municipal ordinances orlaws when there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and isunlawfully present in the United States and to verify that status withimmigration officials unless the person provides one of several listeddocuments; provided that race, color or national origin my not be consideredin implementing this provision unless it is permitted by the US or Arizonaconstitutions;

658836.doc

HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMay 27, 2010Subject: Arizona Immigration Legislation

10.

11.

12.

require the local official to notify federal immigration officials upon thedischarge of any person who is unlawfully in the US and who has beenconvicted of a state of local law;allow a local official to transfer a person who has received verification thatthe person unlawfully in the US into federal custody;create a private right of action for any legal resident of the State to sue acity, town, or county for any violation of the provisions set forth in 1) aboveand collect costs and attorney fees;except when a law enforcement officer is determined to have acted in badfaith, provide for indemnification by law of law enforcement officials againstcosts or attorney fees incurred in connection with any litigation;require that the provisions of the Arizona legislation be consistent with allfederal laws regulation immigration, civil rights and the privileges andimmunities of US citizens;create a separate state offense (misdemeanor) for violation of provisions ofthe federal immigration law regarding completion and carrying of alienregistration documents, provided that race, color or national origin my not beconsidered in implementing this provision unless it is permitted by the US orArizona constitutions;amend the state smuggling law to allow a peace officer to stop a vehicle ifthe officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the driver is in violation ofany traffic law and the human smuggling law;create new misdemeanors for a person to a) attempt to hire or pick uppassengers for work at a different location if the vehicle is blocks or impedesthe normal flow of traffic, b) get into a vehicle into a vehicle in order to gethired and be transported to work at a different location if the vehicle blocksor impedes the normal flow of traffic, or c) who is unlawfully in the US toapply for work, solicit work or perform work in the state; provided that race,color or national origin my not be considered in implementing this provisionunless it is permitted by the US or Arizona constitutions;create a new misdemeanor for a person who is in violation of a criminaloffense to a) transport, move, conceal, harbor, shield from detection, orattempt to any of these actions an unlawful alien if the person knows orrecklessly disregards the fact that the person is unlawfully in the US, or b)encourage or induce any unlawful alien to go or reside in the Arizona if theperson knows or recklessly disregards the fact to going to or residing inArizona is or will be a violation of law; provided that race, color or nationalorigin my not be considered in implementing this provision unless it ispermitted by the US or Arizona constitutions, and the vehicle used to violatethis section is subject to confiscation;amend the state warrantless arrest law to include the arrest of a person whohas’committed any public offense that makes the person removable formthe US;

658836.doc


13. amend the state employer sanction law to provide for an affirmative defenseto a violation of that law if the employer was entrapped by proving, by apreponderance of the evidence, that the idea of committing the violationstarted with the law enforcement officer, the officer urged or induced theemployer to commit the violation and the employer was not predisposed tocommit the violation;

14. amend the state employment verification law to require an employer to keepverification of eligibility for longer of the duration of the employee’semployment or 3 years;

15. amend the state vehicle impoundment law requiring the impoundment ofany vehicle used to transport, move, conceal, harbor or shield an unlawfulalien.

INFORMATION REQUESTED

1. Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution

The Commerce Clause of the US Constitution is primarily an affirmative authorizationfor Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states,and with Indian tribes. US Const art I Section 8 cL 3. Consequently, states cangenerally enact laws regarding interstate commerce until Congress chooses to preempta particular interstate commerce area. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted theCommerce clause "not only as an authorization for congressional action, but also, evenin the absence of a conflicting federal statute, as a restriction on permissible stateregulation". Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 US 322, (1979). This negative aspect has beentermed the "dormant" aspect of the Commerce Clause. In applying the dormantCommerce Clause most courts have limited local protectionism in favor of promoting anational market. State regulations that discriminate against interstate commerce aresubject to a "per se" [presumed] invalidity. City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey 437 US617, (1978). The Supreme Court later allowed flexibility to the rule by allowing a stateregulation having only "incidental" effects on interstate commerce unless the burdenimposed on commerce clearly excessive in relation to the supposed local benefits. Pikev. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 US 137 (1970).

Because the power conferred by the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to"regulate", the limitations of the dormant commerce clause are not applicable unlessstate action is characterized as a regulation. The Supreme Court has drawn adistinction between "regulation" and "participation" in interstate commerce cases. Inarticulating that distinction, the Court has determined that the "market participant" is anexception to the dormant Commerce Clause under which states are permitted to enterinto the market as a buyer or seller with the same freedom and subject to the samerestrictions as private parties. Reeves, Inc. v. Stake 447 US 429 (1980). The "marketparticipant" doctrine has been determined to apply to local as well as state

658836.doc


governments. White V Massachusetts Council of Construction Employers, 460 US 204(1983).

2. California Public Contract Code

The California Public Contract Code covers all public works projects that are notspecifically covered by other statues or City charters. Section 1100.7 of the PublicContract Code reads as follows:

1100.7. This code is the basis of contracts between most public entities in thisstate and their contractors and subcontractors. With regard to charter cities, thiscode applies in the absence of an express exemption or a city charter provisionor ordinance that conflicts with the relevant provision of this code.

Section 1217 of the City Charter provides bidding requirements for public work projectsand as a result the City is not subject to the provisions of the California Pubic ContractCode.

3. City of San Jose Charter and Municipal Code

Section 1217 of the City Charter provides bidding requirements for public workscontracts where the expenditure will exceed One Hundred Thousand Dollars($100,000). With certain exceptions, the Charter requires the City to let a public worksproject to the lowest responsible bidder after appropriate notice. In addition, theCharter provides that the procedures for the purchase of supplies, materials andequipment shall be as prescribed by ordinance. Although the Charter does not define"lowest responsible bidder" the California courts have stated, in the context of a citycharter provision, that the term "lowest responsible bidder" means the lowest bidderwhose offer best responds in quality, fitness and capacity to the particular requirementsof the proposed work. West v Oakland, 30 Cal App 556 (1916).

Part 3 of Title 4 of the City Municipal Code sets out the procurement procedures for theCity.

Section 12.12.210 of the Municipal Code sets out the general procurement methodsand reads as follows:

The city shall where practicable engage in competitive procurement. Theprocurement authority shall use the following methods of procurement under thecircumstances described below:

A. Purchases which are estimated not to exceed ten thousand dollars($10,000.00) may be made without a competitive procurement method.

658836.doc


B. Request for quotes process shall be used for purchases with anestimated value between ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) and one hundredthousand dollars ($100,000.00).

C. Request for proposal process shall be used for purchases of serviceswith an estimated value of more than one hundred thousand dollars($100,000.00).

D. Formal bidding process shall be used for purchases of supplies,materials and equipment with an estimated value of more than one hundredthousand dollars ($100,000.00), or for services when the director determines thatit is in the best interest of the city to do so.

The Municipal Code does not require that the "the lowest responsible bidder’ of anyprocurement process be let the contract as required for public works projects under theCharter.

In addition, one of the exceptions to the general procurement procedures is in Section12.12.235 of the Municipal Code which reads as follows:

The procurement authority may initiate a procur.ement for unique professional orother services where the procurement authority determines that an unusual orunique situation exists that make the application .of the requirements forcompetitive procurement of a services agreement contrary to the public interest.Any special procurement under this section shall be made with such competitionas is practicable under the circumstance. A written determination of the basis forthe procurement and for the selection of the particular contractor shall beincluded by the Procurement authority in the department files.

4. City Policy 0-11 Council Resolution Policy

On July 10, 1979, the Council adopted Policy 0-11 which sets out the guidelines to limitCouncil resolutions to actions on issues which most directly impact and affect the City ofSan Jose. The purpose of the Policy was: "[t]o provide guidelines for the City Councilupon its receipt of a request for action which is not a directly municipal matter." Besidesthe basic criteria for resolutions permitted under the Policy, the Policy also provides thatthe Council shall not act or take a position on certain matters including:

"3. Actions or lack of action on the part of any State of the Union other than theState of California or of any political subdivision of such other State when noimpact is felt upon the government of the City of san Jose."

The Policy concludes with the following statement: "This policy is not intended to limitthe prerogative of members of the City Council to place before the City Council anyquestion which they deem to be appropriate for consideration, nor is it intended to limitdebate on issues which meet the above criteria."

658836.doc


5. Pending Lawsuits in Arizona

It is our understanding that the city councils of the Arizona cities of Flagstaff, Tucson,San Luis, Somerton, Tolleson, Douglas, Brisbee and Nogales have all adoptedresolutions approving a legal challenge to the Act. However, at this time only the City ofTucson has taken any formal action. On May 26, 2010, City of Tucson filed a cross-claim against the state of Arizona and the Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona. Inresponse to a lawsuit filed by a Tucson police officer, Martin H. Escobar, against theGovernor, the City of Tucson and the Pima County Attorney. The City of Tucson’scross-claim alleges that the Act is preempted by the federal immigration law, violatesthe various provisions of the US Constitution and delegates the inalienable policepowers of the government to individuals. In addition, the cross-claim requests injunctiverelief prohibiting the state from enforcing the Act.

In addition to the action involving the City of Tucson, the following lawsuits have beenfiled in US district courts in Arizona challenging the Act:

Roberto Javier Frisancho v. Jan Brewer filed April 27, 2010 which alleges thatthe Act violates the US Constitution including the due process clause, thesupremacy clause, the privileges and immunities clause and the equal protectionclause andalso violates the due process clause of Arizona Constitution.

National Coalition of Latino Cler.qy v. State of Arizona filed on April 29, 2010which alleges that the Act violates various provisions of the US Constitution andfederal immigration laws and request injunctive relief prohibiting the state fromenforcing the Act.

Co Friendly Housing v. Michael B Whitinq filed by the ACLU on May 17, 2010against Arizona County attorneys and County Sheriffs alleges that the Act isunconstitutional under various provisions of the US Constitution, he ArizonaConstitution and federal regulations and request injunctive relief to enjoin thestate from enforcing the Act.

David Sal.qado v. Jan Brewer filed on April 29, 2010, 2010 alleges that the Actviolates the US Constitution and is preempted by the US Immigration andNationality Act and requesting an injunction to prohibit enforcement of the Act.

658836.doc


6. Actions by other City ,qovernments re,qardin.q SB 1070

It is also our understanding that the following California c~ties have taken action withregard the Act:

OaklandSan DiegoWest HollywoodSan FranciscoLos AngelesSanta Ana

Attached are the resolutions for those cities.

RICHARD DOYLECity

cc: Debra Figone

Attachments

By.Ed MoranAssistant City Attorney

For questions please contact Ed Moran, Assistant City Attorney at (408) 535-1920.

658836.doc

Approved as to Form and Legality

,.,,-,,.,.,-,-,,,,,.., CITY COUNCIL,~, ’O~ ~,~,~. ~’. Attorney~ ...l’ "L~ £’~\~’~I~ESOLUTION NO. " C.M.S.

RESOLUTION DENOUNCING SB 1070, A LAW THAT SEEKS TO IMPLEMENTARIZONA’S OWN SCHEME OF IMMIGRATION REGULATION THAT WILL

INEVITABLY LEAD TO RACIAL PROFILING OF PEOPLE OF COLOR AND LIMITEDENGLISH PROFICIENT PERSONS, AND CALLING FOR A BOYCOTT OF THE STATE OF

ARIZONA AND ARIZONA-BASED BUSINESSES

WHEREAS, the City of San Francisco has introduced a resolution denouncing SB 1070,calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses, and the City ofOakland would like to pass a similar resolution; and

WHEREAS, Arizona’s legislature passed SB 1070, which Arizona Governor Jan Brewersigned into law on April 23, 2010, and set the clock back on a generation of civil rights gains;and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 requires the police "when practicable" to detain people they"reasonably suspect" are in the country without authorization; allows the police to chargeimmigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents; creates a private right ofaction to sue cities upon belief that the government has a policy or practice that restrictsimmigration law enforcement; and makes it a crime to stop on a public street to attempt to hire atemporary worker; and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 will inevitably lead to racial profiling, jeopardize public safety, andcreate a wedge between law enforcement and ethnic communities; and

WHEREAS, President Barack Obama has stated that SB 1070 threatens to "underminebasic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police andtheir communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe;" and

WHEREAS, the people targeted by SB 1070 are not strangers - our American lives areinextricably bound to theirs. SB 1070 will not only intimidate our nannies and our gardeners, butalso our nurses and our home care workers. And it will not-stop there. It will intimidate ourcollege students, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Everyone who looks Latino -citizens, legal permanent residents, temporary visa holders, and the undocumented - will be aprimary targets under this law; now therefore be it

RESOLVED: That unless and until Arizona rescinds SB 1070, the City of Oakland urgesCity departments (1) to the extent practicable, and in instances where there is no significantadditional cost to the City or conflict with law, to refrain from entering into any new or amendedcontracts to purchase goods or services from any company that is headquartered in Arizona, (2)to not send City officials or employees to conferences in Arizona, and (3) to review existingcontracts for the purchase of goods and services with companies headquartered in Arizona andexplore opportunities to discontinue those contracts consistent with the terms of those contractsand principles of fiscal responsibility, and

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council encourages citizens,businesses~ churches, schools, organizations, associations, and others in the City, to boycott theState of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses until Arizona repeals SB 1070, and

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the City of Oakland calls on cities throughout the countryto pass a similar resolution denouncing SB 1070 and calling for a boycott of the State of Arizonaand Arizona-based businesses until it repeals SB 1070, and

FURTHER RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Council hereby directs the City Clerk tosend a copy of this resolution to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.

IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, , 20__

PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES - BROOKS, DE LA FUENTE, KAPLAN, KERNIGHAN, NADEL, QUAN, REID, and PRESIDENT BRUNNER

NOES -

ABSENT -

ABSTENTION -ATTEST:

LaTonda SimmonsCity Clerk and Clerk of the Councilof the City of Oakland, California

(R-2010-795)

RESOLUTION NUMBER R-

DATE OF FINAL PASSAGE

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFSAN DIEGO URGING REPEAL OF ARIZONA SENATEBILL 1070, "SUPPORT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENTAND SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT."

WHEREAS, the City of San Diego has historically supported policies Nat prohibit

discrimination based on race, ethnieity, sex, age, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and

disability;, and

WHEREAS, on April 23, 20I 0, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill I070

(Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act), requiring all local law

enforcement to investigate a person’s in’~ni~ation status when there is a reasonable suspicion

that the person is in the Country unlawfaliy, regardiess of whether that person is suspected of a

crime; and

WHEREAS, SB t070 permits the arrest of a persor~ without a warrant, if there is

probaNe cause to beIieve tl~at the person has committed a punic offense; and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 does not prohibit law enforcement officers from relying on race,

etlm{city, national origin or language tO determine whom to investigate; and

WH£REAS.. gB 1070 enco~ages racial profiling and violates Fom~eenth Amendment

guarantees ofd~ae process and equal protection for U.S. citizens, legal residents and visitors who

are detained for suspicion of being in theC0untry lmtawfully; and

WHEREAS, federal funds should not be used to support immigration programs that

promote racial profiling and discrimination based on.race, ettmicity or national 0rig~m o.r any

other form of discriminatio~a; and

-PAGE I ,..,F a-

(R-2010-795)

WHEREAS, SB I070 seriousIy under~Nnes the U,S, Co~titution, which gants ConFess

exclusive power over irm~igration legislation; NOW, THEREFORE,

BE IT RESOLVED, by the Mayor and Coundl oftt~e City of San Diego, for and on

behalf of the peopte of San Diego, that tl’fis CouneiI urges the State of Arizona to repeal SB 1070,

the "Support Our Law Enforcemen{ and Safe Neighborhoods Act," and directs the City CImk to

send a copy of this resolution to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer,

BE tT FURTHER RESOLVED, that by adoption of fliis Resolution, tt~e City of

San Diego hereby includes in its Federal Le~slative Program opposition to any budgetary action

or legislation, including immigration policy, that promotes racial profiling or discrimination

based, on race, ethnicity or national origin.

.APPROVED: JAN I. GOLDSMITH, CityAttomey

By:"°’ "*~ ! ~ t’"~<" #

gharon B. Spivak /"Deputy City Attorney

SBS:]df04/28/10Or.Dept:Coundl President Hueso

-PAGE 2 OF 3-

(R-2010-795)

I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed by the Cour~dl of the City ofSart Diego, at tt~s meeting of

ELIZABETH S. MALANDCity Clerk

By.Deputy City Clerk

Approved:(date) JERRY SANDERS, Mayor

Vetoed:(date) JERRY SANDERS, Mayor

-PAGE 3 OF 3-

RESOLUTION NO. 10-XXXX "

A RESOLUTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WESTHOLLYWOOD DENOUNCING ARIZONA’S ANTI-IMMIGRATIONLAW WHICH CALLS UPON THE CITY MANAGER TOIMMEDIATELY SUSPEND OFFICIAL TRAVEL TO THE STATE OFARIZONA AND DEVELOP ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL SANCTIONSUNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE NEW LAW IS REVOKED.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD DOESHEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS.

WHEREAS, On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed intolaw Senate Bill 1070 (Pearce) which is the broadest and strictest immigrationmeasure in decades, and

WHEREAS, "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe NeighborhoodsAct," requires police officers at the state, county or city level to question a personabout their immigration status if there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in thecountry dlegally, and

WHEREAS, This new law makes being in Arizona without properdocumentation a crime under State law and also targets those who hire andknowingly transport immigrant day laborers, and

WHEREAS, This new law aims to identify, prosecute and deportimmigrants who will also face fines of up to $2,500 and up to six months in jail,and

WHEREAS, It is believed by many civil hbertanans, immigrant-rightsgroups and opponents that this law w~ll spur racial profiling and harassment, and

WHEREAS, The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a Iongtimeadvocate for comprehensive ~mmigration reform, calls this new law "draconianand inhumane," and

WHEREAS, President Obama, Latino leaders, MALDEF and the ACLU,among others, have criticized this law, and

WHEREAS, Throughout 25 years of cityhood, West Hollywood hasdemonstrated a commitment to human rights, and

WHEREAS, West Hollywood has been a destination for immigrant familiesseeking refuge, and

WHEREAS, With an official ban by the City of West Hollywood on travel tothe State of Arizona, and a review of all current and l~kely future contracts withArizona-based businesses to examine the feasibility of ascertaining suchproducts and services elsewhere until the law is revoked, we endeavor to stand~n solidarity with all those who seek rational and common sense immigrationreform in Arizona and the United States.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofWest Hollywood hereby denounces Arizona’s anti-immigration law and calls uponthe City Manager to immediately suspend official travel to the State of Adzonaand develop additional financial sanctions until such time as the new law isrevoked.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

t0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

FILE NO. 1.00256As Amended in Board

5/4/10 RESOLUTION NO.

[Calling for a Boycott of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses until Arizonarepeals Senate Bill 1070] "

Resolution denouncing Arizona State Senate Bill 1070, a law that seeks to implement

Arizona’s own scheme, of immigration regulation and will inevitably lead tO racial

profiling of people of color and limited English proficient persons, calling for a boycott

of the State of Arizona and Arizona-based businesses, and endorsing the City

Atto~’ney’s offer to cooperate in a lawsuit challenging Arizona State Senate Bill 1070.

WHEREAS, The Arizona legislature passed SB1.070, which the Arizona Governor, Jan

Brewer, signed into law on April 23, 20t0, and with a stroke of a pen set the .clock back on a

generation of civil rights gains; and,

WHEREAS, SB 1070 requires the poli(~e "when practicable" to detain people they

"reasonably suspect" are in the country without authorization; allows the. police to charge

immigrants with a state crime for not carrying immigration documents; creates a private right

of action to sue cities upon belief that the government has a policy or practice that restricts

immigration law enforcement; and makes it a crime to stop on a public street to attempt to hire

a temporary worker; and. ;

WHEREAS, SB 1070 will inevitably lead to racial profiling, jeopardizes publ.ic safety,

and creates a wedge between law enforcement and ethnic communities; and,

WHEREAS, The mayor of Phoenix, Arizona, Phil Gordon, stated that the Arizona

legislature is a "far-right:legislature that is increasingly out of step with an increasingly

moderate population, they’re also out of.step with the rules of basic civility;" and, ’

Supervisor Campos, Chiu, Avalos, Dufty, Daly, Mirkarimi, MarBOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 1

51512010654

1

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

t3

14

15

16

17

~ 18’

19

20

21

22

’23

24

25

WHEREAS, President Barack Obama has stated that S.B 1070 threatens "to undermine

basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between po!ice

and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe"; and,

WHEREAS, The people targeted by SB 1070 are not strangers - our American lives

are inextricably bound to theirs. SB 1070 will not only terrorize our ’nanfiies and our gardeners,

but also our nurses and our home care workers. And it will not stop there. It will intimidate

.our co!lege students, teachers, doctors, lawyers, and engineers. Everyone who looks Latino -

- citizens,’ legal permanent residents, temporary visa holders, or undocumented -- will be a

primary target under this law; and,

WHEREAS, Civil rights leaders, constitutional.rights scholars, elected officials, and

police chiefs across the country are repudiating SB 1070, including San Francisco City

Attorney Dennis Her:rera and San Francisco Police Chief George. Gascon; and,

WHEREAS, With the passage of AB 1070, Arizonahas once again chosen to isolate

itself from the rest of the nation as it did two decades ago when it refused to observe Martin

Luther King Jr. Day; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That unless and until Arizona rescinds SB 1070, the San Francisco Board

of Supervisors urges City Departments, to the extent practicable, and in instances where

there is no significant additional cost to the City nor conflict with law, l~to refrainfrom

entering into a0y new or amended contracts to purchase goods or services from any company

that is headquartered in Arizona, (2) to avoid sending City officials or employees to

conferences in Arizona, and (3) to review existing contracts for the purchase of goods and

services with companies headquartered in Arizona and explore opportunities to discontinue

those contracts consistent with the terms of those contracts and pr.inciptes of fiscal

responsibility, &nd,

Supervisor Campos, Chiu, Avalos, Dufty, Daly, Mirkarimi, MarBOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 2

5/5/2010

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

"18

21

22

24

25

FURTHER RESOLVED, That unless and until Arizona rescinds SB 1070 the Board of

Supervisors encourages private San F~ancisco based businesses to refrain from doing

business with the State of Arizona or holding or participating in any conventions or

conferences in Arizona, and also urge.s San Francisco private citizens to avoid ,engaging in.

tourism in the State of Arizona; and,

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Board of Supe.rvisors encourages professional and

collegiate sports organizations (such as the National Fo.otball League (NFL), Major League

Baseball, National Basketball Association (NBA), PGA Tour, and NCAA), to follow the lead of

the National Football League when it moved Super Bowi XXVII from Sun Devil Stadium in

Tempe, Arizona, to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, after the State of Arizona refused

to observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, and to refrain from holding any All-Star games, bowl

games, championship games, tournaments or other events in t.he State of Arizona where such

associations have discretion in deciding wher~ those events will take place; and,

FURTHER RESOLVED, That the.Board of Sup#rvisors endorses the City Attorney’s .

offer to lend resources of his office to cooperate in a legal challenge to SB 1070; and,

FURTFIER RESOLVED, That the San Francisco Board of Supervisors hereby directs

the Clerk of the Board to send a copy of this resolution to Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, the

Commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball, Allan

H. Selig, the Commissioner of the NBA, David Stern, the Commissioner of the PGA, Tim

Finchem, and the Interi~__m President of the NCAA, Jim Isch.

Supervisor Campos, Chiu, Avalos, Dufty, Daly, Mirkadmi, MarBOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 3

5/5t2010

RESOLUTION ’

WHEREAS, any official position of the City of Los Angeles with respect to legislation, rules,regulations or policies to or pending before a local, state or federal government body or agency must have firstbeenadopted in the form of a Resolution by the City Council with the concurrence of the Mayor; and

WHEREAS, the City of Los Angeles has historically supported policies that prohibit discriminationbased on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, and disability; and

WHEREAS, in 1992, Colorado voters passed a statewide initiative known as Amend 2 to repeal localordinances that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, thereby allowing overt discriminationagainst the LGBT community; and

WHEREAS, in that instance, the Los Angeles City.Council resolved that City funds would not beused, actively or passively, to condone Amend 2 in Colorado; arid

WHEREAS, similarly, on Apri! 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1070(Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act), requMng all local law enforcement toinvestigate a person’ s immigration status when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the Countryunlawfully, regardless of whether that person is suspected of a crime; and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 permits the arrest of a person, without a warrant, if there is suspicion that theperson has committed a public offense; and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 does not prohibit law enforcement officers from relying on race, ethnicity,national origin or language to determine who to investigate; and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 encourages racial profiling and violates Fourteenth Amendment guarantees ofdue process and equal protection for U.S. citizens, legal residents and visitors who are detained for suspicionof being in the Country unlawfully; and

WHEREAS, SB 1070 seriously undermines the U.S. Constitution which grants Congress the exclusivepower over immigration matters; and

WHEREAS, federal funds should not be used to support immigratior~ programs that promote racialprofiling and discrimination based on race, ettmieity or national origin or any other form of discrimination,and therefore, an economic boycott, will strongly convey that the City disagrees with the provisions of SB1070; and

WHEREAS, the City is contemplating suspending all City travel to Arizona and terminating all currentand future contracts with Arizona-based companies, unless SB 1070 is repealed;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by adoption ofthis Resolution, the City of Los Angeles City include in its 2009-10 Federal Legislative Program,OPPOSITION to any legislation or administrative action which will provide federal funds that support theimplementation of Arizona SB 1070 and HB 2162, which promote racial profiling, discrimination andharassment. ;;ER~IF’C!~N N~ FQRE~OINB

~’:SOLII1~’I Wt~2 A.~.gP’rED BY IHE

BY a ~.?~9i"-~i Y OF ALL JiS MEMBERS, ,.,’

VERBAL MOTION

I HEREBY MOVE that Council ADOPT the following recommendations of the ChiefLegislative Analyst (CLA) in connection with Resolution (Reyes - Hahn - Garcetti, et al.)opposing Arizona SB 1070, (Item No. t3, CF 10-0002-$36), SUBJECT TO THE APPROVALOF THE MAYOR:

ADOPT the accompanying Revised RE.SOLUT.ION which provides that the Cityinclude in its 2009-10 Federal Legislative Program OPPOSITION to federal fundsthat support the implementation of Arizona SB 1070 and HB 2t62, which promoteracial profiling, discrimination and harassment.

SUSPEND all City travel to the State of Arizona to conduct City business unlessspecial circumstances ~an be demonstrated to the Council that the failure toauthorize such travel would seriously harm City interests, with this ban lifted uponthe repeal of SB 1070 and HB 2162 in the State of Arizona.

DIRECT all City Departments, to the extent practicable, and in instances wherethere is no significant additional cost to the City nor conflict~ with the law, to refrainfrom entering into any new or amended contracts to purchase goods or servicesfrom any company that is headquartered in Arizona.

INSTRUCT the City Administrative Officer (CAO) to review the terms of all contractswith Arizona-based companies and report to Council in one week on which ofthose contracts can be legally terminated immediately.

REQUEST the City Attorney to prepare and present an ordinance to accomplish thefollowing puFpose:

The City of Los Angeles in exercising its power to make economic decisions as aparticipant in the market shall restrict, to the extent permissible and consistentwith the City’s interests, its contracting relative to goods and services to personsor entities which are not based in the State of Arizona, subject to review by the CityAttorney and CAO.

INSTRUCT the CLA to continue to monitor the status of SB t070 and HB 2162 anycourt actions and report to Council in 60 days.

MAY 1 2 2010

PRESENTED BY

SECONDED BY

ED P. REYESCoun~lmember, lstDistri~

JANICE HAHNCoun~lmember, l~hDistri~

May 12, 2010

CF 10-0002-$36

o:\docs\council agendas\mk\10-0002136.mot.doc

RESOLUTION NO. 2010-019

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OFSANTA ANA OPPOSING STATE OF ARIZONA SB 1070AND URGING THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESSOF THE UNITED STATES TO WORK ONCOMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM.

Section 1.The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines anddeclares as follows:

On April 23, 2010, the Arizona Governor signed Arizona Senate Bill 1070(Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act), requiring alllocal law enforcement to investigate a person’s immigration status when thereis a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the Country unlawfully,regardless of whether that person is suspected of a crime; and,

Arizona’s law permits the arrest of a person by local law enforcement, withouta warrant, if there is suspicion that the person is not in the United Stateslegally; and,

This law does not prohibit law enforcement officers from solely relying onfactors such as race, ethnicity, national origin or language to determine whoto investigate; and,

This law encourages racial profiling and violates Fourteenth Amendmentguarantees of due process and equal protection for U.S. citizens, legalresidents and visitors who are detained for suspicion of being in the Countryunlawfully; and,

This law will have a chilling effect on victims and witnesses, regardless oflegal status, choosing to forego reporting crime or testifying to a crime toprevent immigration-related interrogation, discriminatory treatment and arrest.Accordingly, this law will severely undermine law enforcement’s ability toeffectively maintain public safety resulting in increased crime; and,

The City of Santa Ana considers the safety of its residents an unconditionalpriority, and strives to protect the community from all criminals, irrespective oflegal status. The practice, which will remain unchanged, when the arrest andbooking of an undocumented person suspected of having committed anoffense occurs, is to place a temporary hold on the accused, and thereafternotify federal immigration officials to determine deportation enforcement uponconviction; and

Resolution No. 2010-019Page 1 of 3

Go The stated pu[pose of this law attempts to usurp functions specifically andsolely traditionally reserved for federal authorities. As a result, many legalscholars, including UCI Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky, havequestioned the constitutionality of the law in that it violates the U.S.Constitution, and undermines the exclusive power over immigration mattersgranted to Congress,

The current immigration system is broken. It separates families, reduces theeffectiveness of national and local security programs, contributes to laborabuses, and creates long backlogs for families seeking naturalization; and

Undocumented immigrants, due to their immigration status, are often a morevulnerable segment of our community victimized by violent criminals,employers and slumlords, finding themselves without recourse due to thethreat of deportation; and,

United States Citizens, legal residents, visitors and undocumented personsalike are now being recklessly subject to racial profiling, harassment anddiscrimination in states such as Arizona and those that pass similar legislationwhile legal challenges are pending, comprehensive immigration reform iscritical and should promptly be addressed by the U.S. President andCongress; and,

The current immigration system neglects the hard work, talent, success andfinancial contributions immigrants make to our country. In Orange County,immigrants contribute 33 percent of the region’s economic activity, asreported on California Assembly Joint Resolution "A JR" 37; and,

The City of Santa Ana has one of the biggest populations of immigrants,including naturalized citizens, legal residents and undocumented persons;and it is estimated that about 11 million undocumented immigrants are in theUnited States.

Section 2. That the City Council of the City of Santa Ana opposes SB 1070and calls upon the Arizona Legislature to repeal SB 1070.

Section 3.. That the City Council of the City of Santa Ana urges the Presidentand the Congress of the United States to work on comprehensive immigration reform tofix our nation’s broken immigration system.

Section 4. That the Clerk of the Council is directed to transmit copies of thisresolution to the President and the Vice President of the United States, to the Speakerof the House of Representatives, to each Senator and Representative from California inthe Congress of the United States and to the Governor of the State of Arizona.


Section 5. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption bythe City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adoptingthis Resolution.

ADOPTED this 3rd day of May, 20100

Jel A. PLiayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

~/J~ph W. Fletcher/City Attorney

AYES:

NOES:ABSTAIN:NOT PRESENT:

Councilmembers Alvarez, Benavides, Martinez, Pulido, Sarmiento,Tinaiero (6)

Councilmembers Bustamante (1)*¯ Councilmembers None (0)Councilmembers None (0)

*Councilmember Bustamante recorded a "No" vote on Section 1 of the Resolution.

CERTIFICATE OF A]-I-ESTATION AND ORIGINALITY

I, MARIA D. HUIZAR, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attachedResolution No. 2010-019 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of theCity of Santa Ana on May 3, 2010.

Date:Maria D. HuizarClerk of the CouncilCity of Santa Ana


city of ~ san jose memorandum · city of ~ san jose capital of silicon valle~y memorandum to:...

Documents