County eyes immigration issue, policy: Board aims to balance inclusive community, adherence to law

San Mateo County is delicately wading into the immigration debate as officials are slated to consider a resolution aimed at balancing the interests of promoting an inclusive community with adherence to federal and state laws.

On Tuesday, Feb. 14, the Board of Supervisors will consider a resolution that clarifies its policies on not spending county resources to actively investigate undocumented immigrants in an effort to assuage fears and foster a safe community.

“Our county has a reputation for helping all of our residents. This is a humanitarian and moral issue and our proposed resolution continues and affirms San Mateo County’s longtime commitment to support and respect all of our diverse community members,” Don Horsley, president of the Board of Supervisors, said in an email.

Furthermore, county officials announced Friday they were joining cities across the nation in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold constitutional protections for detained immigrants.

With thousands of immigrants in San Mateo County, the resolution denounces all forms of bigotry while emphasizing people regardless of their religious or ethnic backgrounds should feel comfortable seeking assistance. Whether it’s the victim of a crime seeking help from law enforcement, or those in need of county medical services, the resolution aims to benefit public health and safety.

The county document also publicizes the extent of those potentially affected by the Trump administration’s aggressive shift in immigration policy.

According to the Migration Policy Institute’s census data analysis, there are an estimated 57,000 undocumented San Mateo County residents accounting for about 7.5 percent of the population, according to the county. That includes an estimated 6,000 children enrolled in schools and 14,000 DREAMers who submitted information to the federal government to qualify under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, according to the resolution.

Reaffirming policies

The resolution is two-fold. On one hand, it simply makes a statement disavowing discrimination and respecting diversity whether it’s related to race, creed, religion or sexual orientation. On the other hand, it reassures residents the county is not in the business of enforcing federal laws and encourages people to feel comfortable seeking assistance from their local government.

Board Vice President Dave Pine noted San Mateo County is one of the most diverse counties in the United States with an estimated 1 in 6 residents being foreign born.

After just three weeks in the White House, the president has taken a stern approach to the nation’s immigration policies first vowing to build a wall at the Mexican border then attempting to ban people from seven Muslim-majority countries through an executive order denied in federal court Thursday.

“Most residents are alarmed at what’s happening at the federal level. The federal government has for a long time now failed in developing effective immigration policy. What we’re seeing now is an extreme failure,” Pine said.

Referring to the county’s resolution as a balanced approach, Pine noted “law enforcement and other staff cannot do their job effectively if they’re not trusted by the community. So we’re trying to communicate that we are not an immigration agency.”

Various cities and school districts throughout the county have or are considering adopting similar “statements of solidarity,” with the topic of adopting sanctuary policies highly polarized.

While many jurisdictions note they’re simply keeping the status quo as they don’t ask people of their status and historically don’t use local funds to enforce federal immigration laws, the Board of Supervisors is the lone agency that could go further as it controls the county jail.

Sanctuary for the law-abiding?

But Tuesday’s potential resolution should not be misconstrued as San Mateo County declaring itself a sanctuary county. On the contrary, the resolution emphasizes nothing should be interpreted as conflicting with any federal laws or conditions to receiving federal funding.

The potential financial ramifications to sanctuary cities since the president vowed to cut off federal funding has prompted concerns from opponents and a pending lawsuit filed by the city and county of San Francisco.

The county’s action explicitly states enforcement of federal immigration laws is the responsibility of the federal government, however, local officials will cooperate when asked or in matters involving public safety.

Sheriff Carlos Bolanos said he supports the resolution noting it’s about protecting law-abiding citizens whether they’re documented or not.

“The sheriff’s policy is based on public safety, which is really our role and our responsibility. From our perspective in the field, it’s important that the community, documented or not, trust law enforcement and be willing to cooperate with us and report crimes and be willing to be witnesses without any fear that we’re in any way involved in the enforcement of immigration laws,” Bolanos said.

Not only do they not ask victims or witnesses about immigration status, they also don’t inquire about documentation at the jails, although they do list country of origin. They also upload inmates’ fingerprints into a federal data base immigration officials can access, he said.

Per state laws, county jails may not hold a person past their release date for purposes of deportation, however, San Mateo County cooperates with federal immigration officials should they ask to be notified of an inmate’s release, Bolanos said.

The resolution also states no county employee shall inquire about a person’s status unless it is necessary to investigating criminal activity by that individual.

Promoting health and safety

The purpose is to make clear that all county residents should feel comfortable using safety net services and approaching law enforcement for assistance or to report crimes without fear of retribution, according to the resolution.

Supervisor Warren Slocum said he’s heard heartbreaking stories from teachers, students, Latinos and people across the region who are being affected by the shakeup in Washington, D.C. With many asking for local government to stand by their side, Slocum said the county’s resolution is a middle-ground approach to keeping people healthy and safe.

“We’ve been told that people are fearful of coming forward,” Slocum said. “The danger is that people retreat into the shadows and they don’t get the care they need and that’s unfortunate. So hopefully, this will give people confidence to step forward and reach out and get those services.”

The board may also confirm county resources shall not be spent on developing any registry of people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity or country of origin.

Joining a movement in the courts

Shortly after releasing the proposed resolution Friday, the county announced it would join 19 other cities and counties across the United States in filing an amicus brief related to an ongoing court case related to bail.

The jurisdictions ask the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold constitutional protections for immigrants held in prolonged federal detention. The lawsuit Jennings v. Rodriguez relates to a group of immigrants ordered into detention for months or even years without an opportunity to be considered for release.

Last month, supervisors agreed to join the amicus brief that argues immigrants held in mandatory detention should be given equal constitutional protections similar to what all 50 states grant to every person arrested for a crime.

The county notes detaining immigrants for an average of 404 days while awaiting proceedings can have a ripple effect. While held, a person is at risk of losing their jobs and, along with it, a family may miss out on a key caretaker or breadwinner. Furthermore, billions in annual taxpayer dollars are spent on these housing costs while detainees are held without bail, according to the county.

“We want to have our voice heard and are proud to join our colleagues in other jurisdictions in standing up for every person’s constitutional rights,” Horsley said in a statement. “The question isn’t whether we think that a person should or should not be deported, but about ensuring that we don’t allow an unnecessary detention practice that carries serious consequences for our community and our basic notion of justice.”