San Mateo County limits ICE cooperation

Moving forward, the county now prohibits all departments, agencies, governing bodies, representatives and employees from using county funds to cooperate with ICE requests, including providing agents with an inmate’s personal information or access to county facilities, unless the agency presents a warrant signed by a federal judge.

The ordinance does not restrict the local ability to cooperate and assist with criminal investigations or other enforcement that does not relate to immigration enforcement.

Senate Bill 54, approved in 2017, already prohibits state and local agencies from using resources to comply with ICE requests but some exceptions can be made for individuals who have committed serious and violent crimes.

Former Sheriff Carlos Bolanos agreed to end cooperation with ICE in 2021 after mounting pressure from activists, community members and supervisors. Current Sheriff Christina Corpus has pledged to keep Bolanos’ promise.

Supervisor Noelia Corzo noted that Tuesday’s discussion was in response to a public outcry for board action that would make Bolanos’ decision permanent. While Bolanos and Corpus agreed to the change, Corzo noted board action assured a future sheriff would not return to the old policy.

“By passing this ordinance, our law enforcement officers and our county staff will be focused on our community, on bettering our community and not on enforcing federal immigration laws,” said Corzo who comes from a family with mixed status. “We have a sheriff now that is in support of this ordinance and we have a community that is in support of this ordinance.”

The board is limited in how it can oversee the Sheriff’s Office given that the body and department have separate constitutions but a handful of jurisdictions in the state have used their control over finances to limit interactions with ICE including San Francisco and Los Angeles and Santa Clara counties.

County Attorney John Nibbelin said a constitutional officer could challenge the decision but his department would defend the county’s policy. Corpus during Tuesday’s meeting said she was in full support of the measure, signaling no interest in presenting a legal challenge.

“Our core values at the Sheriff’s Office are dignity, compassion and respect. As stewards of our community we envision a world where all humanity is valued and respected,” Corpus said. “I’ve personally seen the effects and trauma experienced by families who have had loved ones taken into ICE custody. This is not something that I would like our office to be associated with. As mentioned before, our focus is to form lasting relationships with our community, to ensure their trust and to keep them safe. I’ll always put our community and their safety as a priority.”

Supervisors received more than an hour of public comment during which community members expressed similar strong support for the measure. Some shared concerns undocumented residents would continue to fear contacting officials out of concern for deportation. Others detailed their own experiences either going through the criminal justice system or losing a loved one to deportation.

Many argued deportation after serving time is a form of double jeopardy and that all residents should be treated the same regardless of immigration status. Deportation also breaks up families and leads to greater instability, speakers said.

Despite strong support from other electeds, including Corpus, and the public, Supervisor Ray Mueller was the lone vote against the measure. He explained that while he supports the proposal in general, he could not vote for it without incorporating an exception for those who commit some of the most egregious crimes like murder, child molestation and rape.

Mueller acknowledged the public’s concerns but noted anyone convicted of those crimes could never become a naturalized citizen under federal law. Someone convicted of serious crimes would have already been separated from their families for a long period of time, he noted, arguing that “at the date of conviction is when family stabilization should actually begin.”

“If this board sat down and reviewed what was classified as a state prison felony conviction and what those exceptions were and narrowly tailored [a local ordinance], I would support that endeavor,” Mueller said. “But that’s not what’s being asked of us today. Today we’re being asked for a blanket elimination of all the exceptions of felony convictions.”

sierra@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106

Note to readers: The story has been changed to reflect new information that Mueller wanted an exception for those who commit some of the most egregious crimes like murder, child molestation and rape, not murder, child porn and rape.