FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM

Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S.

October 25, 2013

Executive Summary Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S. details resolutions, ordinances, executive actions and other initiatives that now exist in 103 cities, towns and counties across 33 states and the District of Columbia. This study is the first and only comprehensive compilation of sanctuary policies and shows how non-enforcement and outright defiance of immigration law which is expressly prohibited by federal law is a dangerous trend sweeping the country. Sanctuary policies bar state or local officials, including law enforcement officials, from asking persons about their immigration status, reporting them to federal immigration authorities, or otherwise cooperating with or assisting federal immigration authorities. The overwhelming majority of sanctuary policies cited in this study either prohibit state or local officials from inquiring, acting on, or reporting an individuals immigration status, even when there is reasonable suspicion that federal immigration laws are being violated. Still other policies represent more aggressive efforts to shield illegal aliens, such as anti-detainer policies that restrict local and state police from cooperating with federal authorities seeking to remove aliens who have been arrested and charged with other crimes. While some of the state and local sanctuary policies noted were enacted ten or more years ago, the majority have occurred since President Obama took office in 2009, and almost half of the policies have been put in place in just the past two years. State and local jurisdictions often justify their sanctuary policies by claiming that illegal aliens will be more likely to report crimes to police without fear of deportation. Yet, the cost of illegal immigration in terms of education, health care, crime committed by illegal aliens themselves, and overall declines in a communitys quality of life are far greater than any benefit that may accrue from illegal aliens sharing information with police. And, in reality, all police have the discretion to grant immunity to crimes witnesses regardless of their immigration status and virtually all do. By accommodating those who violate our immigration law, sanctuary policies only serve to encourage others to follow the same path. A growing illegal alien population lowers wages and work standards at the low end of the job market, adds to overcrowded housing, creates an underground economy that undermines the tax base, and has other negative consequences. Looking the other way does not solve the problem; it only permits it to grow larger. The authors of this study question how politicians who are paid to allocate limited community resources to legal residents and police chiefs who are paid to maintain the

rule of law can ever justify advertising their towns as safe havens? Theyre just encouraging the illegal aliens already there to stay and encouraging hundreds or thousands more to come in and drain finite services. But, the most compelling argument for ending state and local sanctuary policies is that they undermine federal anti-terrorism efforts. It is a sad fact of life since September 11, 2001 that we must be more vigilant regarding the activities of foreigners in our midst. The underground society of illegal aliens, with street sales of fake identity documents, creates a nurturing environment for terrorists. With an estimated 11.7 million illegal aliens residing in the U.S. and a mere 20,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement employees, only half of whom are dedicated to the apprehension and removal of illegal aliens, it is clear that sanctuary policies seriously hamper efforts to harness state and local police capabilities in augmenting federal enforcement of immigration laws.

Sanctuary Policies Across the U.S.

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 2 of 24

ALASKA
Statewide
House Joint Resolution 22 (23rd Legislature, May 2003)

Anchorage

Resolution No. AR 2003223 (July 15, 2003)

Fairbanks

Resolution No. 4036 (January 6, 2003) City Council Meeting Minutes (January 6, 2003) Resolution No. 05-12-078 (December 13, 2005)

Haines Borough

Sitka

Resolution No. 03-886 (October 2, 2003)

Prohibits agencies and instrumentalities of the state from disclosing views, associations, or activities of any individual, group, association, organization, corporation, business, or partnership relating to immigration matters unless the information directly relates to the investigation of criminal activities and there are reasonable grounds to suspect that such information is involved in the criminal conduct An agency or instrumentality of the Municipality may not, (1) unless necessary to protect the safety of people, use Municipal resources or institutions for the enforcement of Federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the Federal government. This Resolution forbids in the absence of probable cause of criminal activity, the enforcement of immigration matters, which are entirely the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. No city service will be denied on the basis of citizenship. Unless there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity as defined by Alaska Statutes, the Borough, its officers, employees and agents shall not, even where permitted by the USA Patriot Act or related Executive Orders...Enforce immigration matters, these being the jurisdiction of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. ...it is the policy of the City and Borough of Sitka that the City and Borough of Sitka shall not use its resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters pursuant to the USA Patriot Act which are the responsibility of the federal government. If reasonable suspicion exists that the individual is an illegal alien, the officer shall not extend detention in order to wait for ICE. If ICE notifies police that the detainee has only civil charges (not criminal), then the officer must let the detainee go. While the investigation and enforcement of federal laws relating to illegal entry and residence in the United States is specifically assigned to ICE, the MPD commits to cooperating with ICE and others, to the extent permitted by law on any criminal act that threatens the safety and well-being of our community. In enforcing the laws, officers may legally stop, detain or arrest anyone when reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists that a crime has occurred. ...department personnel shall not ask person who is a victim of a crime, a witness to a crime, a juvenile..., stopped and/or cited for a civil traffic violation with a valid drivers license or evidence of identity pursuant to ARS 28-1595(B), seeking medical assistance, a victim of domestic violence incident, or a community volunteer in police service...about his or her immigration status. Arizona law authorizes police officers to enforce provisions of the criminal law. The authorization is limited to criminal and does not include civil. Therefore, officers shall not transport for civil violations or continue to detain if the only violation is a civil DRO hold.

ARIZONA
Chandler
Chandler Police Department General Orders: E-17 Immigration Enforcement/Foreign Nationals (September 19, 2012) Mesa Police Department Special Order 2009-01: Immigration and Customs Enforcement Protocol (January 1, 2009)

Mesa

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 3 of 24

Phoenix

Phoenix Police Department Operations Order Manual

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

San Luis Tucson

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Tucson Police Department General Order, Volume 2 General Operating Procedures: 2300 Immigration (September 2012)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Order 1.4 (January 2011): The investigation and enforcement of federal laws relating to illegal entry and residence in the United States is specifically assigned to ICE. The goal of the Department is to ensure the safety of all residents of Phoenix. The Department provides law enforcement services and enforces the laws of the City of Phoenix and the State of Arizona, as well as upholds the United States Constitution. Order 4.48 (Rev. Aug. 2013): The only time an officer will transport a person to ICE is: 1. If ICE verifies the person is wanted for a CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION violation AND the person is NOT under arrest for a State Criminal Charge, (includes criminal traffic, CLD) or; 2. The person has a civil immigration violation only and CONSENTS to a transport. The Mayor of Phoenix joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. San Luis joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Tucson Police Officers are instructed to exercise discretion in making immigration status inquiries during consensual contacts or with victims and witnesses of crime. If any valid U.S. federal, state or local government issued identification is presented, it is presumed the detainee is lawfully in the U.S. Officers will not transport for civil violations or continue to detain if the only violation is a civil DRO hold. Tucson joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Law enforcement may not comply with an ICE detainer unless the detainee: (1) has been convicted of specific serious or violent felony; (2) has been convicted of a felony punishable by imprisonment; (3) has been convicted in the past 5 years of a misdemeanor for a crime that could have been punishable either as a misdemeanor or a felony, (specifically listed crimes include child abuse, bribery, gang-related offenses or driving under the influence, but only for a conviction that is a felony); (4) is a registrant in the California Sex and Arson Registry; (5) has been arrested on suspicion of a serious or violent felony and a magistrate has made a finding that there is probable cause to hold the person for that charge; or (6) has been convicted of certain federal aggravated felonies or is subject to a federal felony arrest warrant. Even then, AB 4 gives state and local law enforcement officials the option of not complying with an ICE detainer request. California Attorney General Kamala Harris issued an information bulletin stating that local agencies have no obligation to honor detainers issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of Berkeley shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate immigration status of individuals in the city of Berkeley unless such assistance is required by federal or state statute, regulation or court decision.

CALIFORNIA
Statewide
Assembly Bill 4 (October 5, 2013)

Information Bulletin (December 4, 2012)

Berkeley

Resolution No. 63, 711-NS (May 22, 2007)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 4 of 24

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Coachella

News Article: Council Declares City an Illegal Migrant Haven (March 24, 2006)

Davis
Resolution 06-**** (April 18, 2006) City Council Meeting Minutes (April 18, 2006) Resolution No. 2673 (March 7, 2008)

Berkeley joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Council members this week approved a resolution condemning a proposed federal crackdown on illegal immigration and declared Coachella a safe, healthy and dignified place to live for its immigrant communities, regardless of immigration status. Under the resolution, the city will not use local police to enforce immigration law, said Mayor Jesse Villarreal. Urges Congress and the President to oppose HR 4437

East Palo Alto

Garden Grove

Garden Grove Police Department General Order No. 17.3: Immigration Violations (June 15, 2005)

Los Angeles

Special Order 40 (November 27, 1979)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Maywood

News Article: Welcome to Maywood, Where Roads Open Up for Immigrants (March 21, 2006)

Monterey County

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Resolution No. 81310 (May 20, 2008)

Oakland

Directs the police department and all city departments to refrain from acting as agents of ICE in any program or operation that targets individuals based solely on their immigration status The United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has primary jurisdiction for enforcement of the provisions of Title 8, U.S. Code dealing with illegal entry, etc. When members of the Garden Grove Police Department are requested by the ICE to provide immediate assistance, or when suspected criminal violations are discovered as a result of any investigation, based upon probable cause...members of the Garden Grove Police Department may assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Members of the Garden Grove Police Department shall not independently conduct sweeps or other concentrated efforts to detain suspected undocumented aliens. it is the policy of the Los Angeles Police Department that undocumented alien status in itself is not a matter for police action. Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of Title 8 Section 1325 of the United States Immigration Code (Illegal Entry). Los Angeles joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. First, the city eliminated the Police Departments traffic division after complaints that officers unfairly targeted illegal immigrants. Then it made it much more difficult for police to tow cars whose owners didnt have drivers licenses, a practice that affected mostly undocumented people who could not obtain licenses. In January, the City Council passed a resolution opposing a proposed federal law that would criminalize illegal immigration and make local police departments enforce immigration law. Monterey County joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. References Resolution No. 63950 C.M.S., which made Oakland a City of Refuge on July 8, 1986 References Resolution No. 80584 C.M.S., which affirmed Oaklands status as a City of Refuge, and opposes immigration raids

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 5 of 24

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Palo Alto Richmond

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Resolution 11-07 (February 6, 2007)

Ordinance 16-11 (July 19, 2011)

San Diego

Resolution No. R-305813 (May 11, 2010)

San Francisco (City & County)

Ordinance No. 12-h (October 24, 1989)

the Oakland City Council denounces the ICE practice of conducting immigration raids or surveillance at or near school campuses and calls upon the federal government to impose a moratorium on these tactics in order to protect the school environment and the psychological well being of children. the Oakland City Council reaffirms and declares that Oakland is a City of Refuge for immigrants from all countries. Oakland joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Palo Alto joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. ...the City of Richmond reaffirms the terms of ordinance No. 20-90 ordering all officers and employees of this City not to inform, assist or cooperate with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)...without the specific authorization of the Richmond City Manager or the Chief of Police. Ordinance 20-90 (cited in Resolution 11-07): affirms the Citys desire to foster an atmosphere of trust and cooperation between the Richmond Police Department and all residents of the City of Richmond Grants municipal ID cards to anyone who establishes proof of residency, which requires presence in the City of Richmond for fifteen continuous days, and identity through specified documents, including foreign forms of identification Urges Arizona to repeal the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (SB 1070), which would require all local law enforcement to investigate a persons immigration status when there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the Country unlawfully, regardless of whether that person is suspected of a crime. Establishes the City and County of San Francisco as a City and County of Refuge Prohibits the use of City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of individuals in the City and County of San Francisco unless such assistance is required by federal or State statute, regulation or court decision (except in situations where an individual has committed a felony) No department, agency, comm ission, officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco may assist Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigation, detention or arrest proceedings unless such assistance is specifically required by federal law. No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City and County of San Francisco may require information about or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of an individual when providing services or benefits by the City or County of San Francisco except as specifically required by federal law. San Francisco City and County joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. A law enforcement official shall not detain an individual on the basis of a civil immigration detainer after that individual becomes eligible for release from custody.

Executive Directive No. 0701 (March 1, 2007)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Administrative Code, Chapter 121, Section 121.3: Restrictions on Law

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 6 of 24

Enforcement Officials (October 1, 2013)

San Jose

Resolution No. 73677 (March 6, 2007) Police Department Duty Manual Section L7911 (March 29, 2007)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

San Leandro

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Resolution No. 11418 (September 23, 2003)

San Mateo County

San Rafael

Press Release: Federal Officials Say They Will Continue Operating the Secure Communities Program in the Countys Jail Against the Countys Will (November 10, 2010)

Santa Clara County

Law enforcement officials may continue to detain an individual in response to a civil immigration detainer for up to forty-eight (48) hours after that individual becomes eligible for release if the individual meets both of the following criteria: (1) The individual has been Convicted of a Violent Felony in the seven years immediately prior to the date of the civil immigration detainer; and (2) A magistrate has determined that there is probable cause to believe the individual is guilty of a Violent Felony and has ordered the individual to answer to the same pursuant to Penal Code Section 872. In determining whether to detainlaw enforcement officials shall consider evidence of the individuals rehabilitation and evaluate whether the individual poses a public safety risk. Ensures that San Jose officers will not arrest persons merely for their unlawful presence in the U.S. Condemns ICE raids that affect law-abiding illegal immigrants The responsibility for enforcement of civil immigration laws rests with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. members of the Police Department will not initiate police action where the primary objective is to discover that the person is an alien (non-United States citizen) or to discover the status of the person under civil immigration laws....At the same time, the Department will continue to cooperate with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in matters involving serious crimes, the protection of public safety, and as required by statute, federal regulation, court decision or a legallybinding agreement. Officers will not detain or question a person not suspected of a State felony or State or local misdemeanor or infraction violation solely on the basis of the persons citizenship or status under civil immigration laws... or for the purposes of discovering either the persons citizenship or status under civil immigration laws. San Jose joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. San Leandro joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. San Mateo County joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Affirming policy and practice not to make arrests for immigration violations because of the lack of authority and to do so would threaten the Police Departments ability to interact constructively with residents. opposes any amendments to the Patriot Act or other federal regulations that would force local law enforcement to undertake the enforcement of federal immigration law. Our Board has serious concerns about this program [Secure Communities]. Contrary to how ICE has described the program, it does not target only violent, criminal aliens. Instead, people with no criminal records are being apprehended and deported for minor offenses like traffic violations, said Supervisor George Shirakawa, Chair of the Boards Public Safety and Justice Committee. This program makes innocent people afraid of law enforcement. Our County

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 7 of 24

3.54 Civil Immigration Detainer Requests (October 18, 2011)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Sonoma County

Sheriffs Dept Law Enforcement Division: Section 428 -Immigration Violations (October 2006)

Resolution by Commission on Human Rights (February 22, 2011)

does not want to be at the forefront of new immigration enforcement programs that will make us lose our residents trust. Santa Clara County only complies with civil immigration detainers where there is a written agreement with the federal government providing for reimbursement for all costs associated with detainer. the County will exercise its discretion to honor the request if one or more of the following apply: (1) The individual is convicted of a serious or violent felony offense for which he or she is currently in custody and/or (2) The individual has been convicted of a serious or violent felony within 10 years of the request, or was released after having served a sentence for a serious or violent felony within 5 years of the request, whichever is later. Santa Clara County joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. The immigration status of individuals alone is not a matter for law enforcement action. If a Deputy believes that an individual taken into custody for a felony is also an undocumented alien, the ICE may be informed by the arresting Deputy so that they may consider placing an immigration hold on the individual. Except when (1) Mandated by state or federal law, (2) Assisting with the removal of aliens convicted of serious or violent felonies, or (3) Assisting with the investigation and prosecution of persons reasonably suspected of involvement in human trafficking; County resources, including human resources, technology, facilities, equipment, and funds, shall not be used in assisting in the enforcement of Federal immigration law. Repeals law mandating duty to cooperate with ICE (repeals SB 90 (2006)) municipal resources of the City shall not be utilized to identify, apprehend or deport any non-citizen resident on the sole basis of immigration status. No law enforcement officer who receives a civil immigration detainer with respect to an individual who is in the custody of the law enforcement officer shall detain such individual pursuant to such civil immigration detainer unless the law enforcement official determines that the individual: (1) Has been convicted of a felony; (2) Is subject to pending criminal charges in this state where bond has not been posted; (3) Has an outstanding arrest warrant in this state; (4) Is identified as a known gang member in the database of the National Crime Information Center or any similar database or is designated as a Security Risk Group member or a Security Risk Group Safety Threat member by the Department of Correction; (5) Is identified as a possible match in the federal Terrorist Screening Database or similar database; (6) Is subject to a final order of deportation or removal issued by a federal immigration authority; or (7) Presents an unacceptable risk to public safety, as determined by the law enforcement officer.

COLORADO
Statewide Durango
HB 1258 (April 26, 2013) Resolution No. 2004-40 (July 6, 2004)

CONNECTICUT
Statewide
House Bill 6659 (June 25, 2013)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 8 of 24

New Haven

General Order 06-2 (December 14, 2006)

Identification Card Fact Sheet (2007)

Police officers shall not inquire about a persons immigration status unless investigating criminal activity. It shall be the policy of the department not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking assistance. No person shall be detained solely on the belief that he or she is not present legally in the United States, or that he or she has committed a civil immigration violation. There is no general obligation for a police officer to contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) regarding any person, unless that person is arrested on a criminal charge. Officers shall not make arrests based on administrative warrants for arrest or removal entered b y ICE into the FBIs National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, including administrative immigration warrants for persons with outstanding removal, deportation or exclusion orders. Enforcement of the civil provisions of U.S. immigration law is the responsibility of federal immigration officials. Explains both legal and illegal immigrants may obtain municipal identification cards Public Safety Agencies and their officials and employees shall not inquire about a persons immigration status or contact United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purpose of initiating civil enforcement of immigration proceedings that have no nexus to a criminal investigation. It shall be the policy of Public Safety Agencies not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking assistance. No person shall be detained solely on the belief that he or she is not present legally in the United States or that he or she has committed a civil immigration violation. The Department of Corrections shall not send lists of foreign-born inmates to the Department of Homeland Security. Washington joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Gainesville joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Hollandale Beach joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. The Town of Jupiter owns the property and building that houses a day laborer site run by a not-for-profit organization named El Sol. Miami joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Whereas, SB 1070 requires the police 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 the belief that the government has a policy or practice that restricts immigration law enforcement; and makes it a crime to stop on

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Washington
Mayors Order 2011-174 (October 21, 2011)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

FLORIDA
Gainesville
Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Day Labor and Immigration Issues Fact Sheet Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Resolution No. 10-00585 (2010)

Hollandale Beach

Jupiter

Miami

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 9 of 24

a public street to attempt to hire a temporary worker...the Miami City Commission denounces SB 1070 and resolves that unless and until Arizona rescinds said bill, the City should: (1) to the extent practicable, and in instances where there is no significant additional cost to the City or conflict with law, refrain from entering into any new or amended contracts to purchase goods or services from any company that is headquartered in Arizona, (2) not send City officials or employees to conferences in Arizona, and (3) review existing contracts for the purchase of goods and services with companies headquartered in Arizona and explore opportunities to discontinue those contracts and principles of fiscal responsibility....

ILLINOIS
Chicago
Municipal Code of Chicago 2-173-020 & 2-173-040 (March 29, 2006)

Welcoming City Ordinance, 2-173-042 Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions- Federal Responsibility (September 12, 2012)

Evanston

Resolution No. 22-R-08 (March 4, 2008)

No agent or agency shall request information about or otherwise investigate or assist in the investigation of the citizenship or immigration status of any person unless such inquiry or investigation is required by Illinois State Statute, federal regulation, or court decision. (020) No agent or agency shall condition the provision of City of Chicago benefits, opportunities, or services on matters related to citizenship or immigration status unless required to do so by statute, federal regulation, or court decision. (040) Foreign identification is an adequate form of identification, not subject to a higher level of scrutiny. (040) no agency or agent shall: (1) arrest, detain or continue to detain a person solely on the belief that the person is not present legally in the United States, or that the person has committed a civil immigration violation; (2) arrest, detain, or continue to detain a person based on an administrative warrant entered into the Federal Bureau of Investigations National Crime Information Center database, or successor or similar database maintained by the United States, when the administrative warrant is based solely on a violation of a civil immigration law; or (3) detain, or continue to detain a person based upon an immigration detainer, when such immigration detainer is based solely on a violation of a civil immigration law. Exceptions to this rule where individual (1) has an outstanding criminal warrant; (2) has been convicted of a felony in any court of competent jurisdiction; (3) is a defendant in a criminal case in any court of competent jurisdiction where a judgment has not been entered and a felony charge is pending: or (4) has been identified as a known gang member either in a law enforcement agencys database or by his own admission. Unless an agency or agent is acting pursuant to a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is unrelated to the enforcement of a civil immigration law, no agency or agent shall: (A) permit ICE agents access to a person being detained by, or in the custody of, the agency or agent; (B) permit ICE agents use of agency facilities for investigative interviews or other investigative purpose; or (C) while on duty, expend their time responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE regarding a persons custody status or release date. City benefits, opportunities, or services shall not be conditioned on matters related to citizenship or immigrant status.

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 10 of 24

Cook County

Ordinance No. 11-O-73 (September 7, 2011)

The Police Department shall not assist in the investigation of the citizenship or immigration status of a person unless such inquiry is related to a criminal investigation by the Police or if it is otherwise required by law. City agencies and employees shall not disclose information about immigration status unless required by law. Foreign identification shall be an acceptable form of identification and shall not be subject to a higher level of scrutiny. The Sheriff of Cook County shall decline ICE detainer requests unless there is a written agreement with the federal government by which all costs incurred by Cook County in complying with the ICE detainer will be reimbursed. Unless ICE agents have a criminal warrant, or County officials have a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is not related to the enforcement of immigration laws, ICE agents shall not be given access to individuals or allowed to use County facilities for investigative interviews or other purposes, and County personnel shall not expend their time responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE regarding individuals incarceration status or release dates while on duty. There being no legal authority upon which the federal government may compel an expenditure of County resources to comply with an ICE detainer issued pursuant to 8 USC 1226 or 8 USC 1357(d), there shall be no expenditure of any County resources or effort by on-duty County personnel for this purpose, except as expressly provided within this Ordinance. Officers shall not seek out or stop a person suspected of being an alien just because he/she is suspected of being in this country illegally. A law enforcement officer in Kansas does not have the power of arrest for a violation of Federal immigration law. Should an officer have probable cause to believe that a person that is stopped was previously deported from the United States, the officer shall contact ICE....Re-entry after deportation is a violation of Federal Criminal Law, separate from immigration law. A Wichita police officers involvement with persons suspected of being in this country illegally is limited to situations where probable cause exists independently from the immigration laws.... The Orleans Parish Sheriffs Office shall decline all voluntary ICE detainer requests unless the individuals charge is for one or more of the following offenses: First Degree Murder; Second Degree Murder; Aggravated Rape; Aggravated Kidnapping; Treason; or Armed Robbery with the Use of a Firearm. No State employee shall disclose confidential information related to an individuals immigration status unless: (i) the individual to whom such information pertains is suspectedof engaging in illegal activity, other than mere status as an undocumented alien; or (ii) the dissemination of such information is necessary to apprehend a person suspected of

KANSAS
Wichita
Wichita Police Department Policy Manual: Policy 514 Illegal Aliens/Foreign Nationals (2006)

LOUISIANA
New Orleans
Press Release: Sheriff Gusman Revises ICE Policy (August 14, 2013)

MAINE
Statewide
Executive Order No. 13 FY 04/05 (April 9, 2004)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 11 of 24

Portland

Ordinance No. 2-21 (January 6, 2010)

engaging in illegal activity, other than mere status as an undocumented alien; or (iii) such disclosure is necessary in furtherance of an investigation of potential terrorist activity; or (iv) such disclosure is required by law. State employees shall not inquire about immigration status unless: (1) such information is necessary to determine eligibility for benefits or programs; (2) such information is required by law; or (3) such information is necessary to safeguard public health. All State agencies with law enforcement, investigative or prosecutorial authority shall not inquire about a persons immigration status unless investigating or prosecuting illegal activity other than mere status as an undocumented alien. Unless otherwise required by law or by court order, no city police officer or employee shall inquire into the immigration status of any person, or engage in activities for the purpose of ascertaining the immigration status of any person. City police officers and employees are exempted from the limitations imposed by the subsection above with respect to a person whom the officer or employee has reasonable suspicion to believe: (1) has previously been deported from the United States; and (2) is again present in the United States; and (3) is committing or has committed a felony (Class A, B or C) criminal law violation. The City Council urges Baltimore Police to: refrain from enforcing immigration matters, which are entirely the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. No city service will be denied on the basis of citizenship. Baltimore opposes ICE Secure Communities Initiative and urges the State to call for a suspension of the program, which it believes will create divisions in communities, promote a culture of fear, and discourage trust between local law enforcement and immigrant communities throughout the City. the Chief of Police and each member of the Prince Georges County Police Department is directed toRefrain City employees from enforcing immigration matters that are the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security. Montgomery County police will not conduct immigration status investigations. If an individual is arrested for a violent crime, the police will simply notify ICE of arrestees and allow ICE to perform their duty from that point forward. No agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall assist the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the investigation or arrest of any persons for civil or criminal violation of the immigration and nationality laws of the United States. no agent, officer or employee of the City, in the performance of official duties, shall ask any person about his or her citizenship or immigration status or inquire about any persons citizenship or immigration status with any third person. Boston joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070.

MARYLAND
Baltimore
Resolution No. 03-1122 (May 19, 2003)

Resolution No. 11-0298R (June 13, 2011)

Prince Georges County

Resolution No. CR-782003 (December 15, 2003)

Montgomery County

Memorandum to Police Chief (February 10, 2009)

Takoma Park

Takoma Park Municipal Code Ch. 9.04 (February 11, 2008)

MASSACHUSETTS
Boston
Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 12 of 24

Brewster Brookline

Town Resolution (November 25, 2003) Special Town Meeting Warrant, Article 26 (November 14, 2006)

Forbids enforcing immigration matters Reaffirms Brooklines commitment to being a Sanctuary Town (Originally designated as a Sanctuary Town in November 1985, when the City passed a resolution which stated that the departments and employees of the town would not officially assist or voluntarily cooperate with investigations or arrest procedures relating to alleged violations of immigration law), expanding it to include individuals from all countries Rejects the use of the word illegal to describe human beings and the use of the word aliens to describe immigrants, and hereby adopts the language undocumented when referring to those who do not have federally recognized resident status and immigrant to refer to those who have migrated to the US from another country. Cambridge has a proud history as a Sanctuary city, as declared by City Council Order Number 4 of April 8, 1985. The City of Chelsea goes on record as a Sanctuary City. Lexington Town Meeting: Request that the Board of Selectmen require the Town Manager to direct the Police Department to refrain from enforcing immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the Department of Homeland Security; and from denying any town service on the basis of citizenship. the Ann Arbor City Council, as a matter of public policy, directs the Ann Arbor Chief of Police, to the extent permitted by law, to continue to limit local enforcement actions with respect to immigration matters to penal violations of federal immigration law (as opposed to administrative violations) except in cases where the Chief of Police determines there is a legitimate public safety concern and in such public safety instances, to report the situation to the City Council no later than 60 days after the incident. A public servant, who is a police officer shall not solicit information concerning immigration status for the purpose of ascertaining a persons compliance with federal immigration law (EXCEPT when assisting federal law enforcement in the investigation of a criminal offense or when relevant to the investigation/prosecution of a criminal offense). A public servantshall not solicit information concerning immigration status from a person who is seeking police services, or is a victim, or is a witness. The City of Detroit Police Department is directed to refrain from enforcing federal immigration laws. Encourages Lansing Police Department to refrain from stopping drivers or pedestrians to scrutinize identification documents or commence an investigation or surveillance without particularized suspicion of criminal activity or civil infractions, or as a necessary part of protecting public safety. Prohibits the use of the City of Lansings resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters except when such enforcement would further local law enforcement goals.

Cambridge Chelsea Lexington

Policy Order Resolution No. O-16 (May 8, 2006) Resolution (June 4, 2007) Community Resolution (July 14, 2005)

MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor
Resolution (July 16, 2003)

Detroit

Municipal Code, Chapter 27, Art 9, 27-9-4 & 279-5 (May 9, 2007)

Resolution (November 6, 2002)

Lansing

Resolution No. 022 (February 2, 2004)

MINNESOTA
Minneapolis
Minneapolis Code of Other than complying with lawful subpoenas, city employees Ordinances, Title 2, FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 13 of 24

Chapter 19 (July 11, 2003)

and representatives shall not use city resources or personnel solely for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is or may be being undocumented, being out of status, or illegally residing in the United States. Where presentation of a Minnesota drivers license is customarily accepted as adequate evidence of identity, presentation of a photo identity document issued by the persons nation of originshall be accepted and shall not subject the person to a higher level of scrutiny or different treatment. Public safety officials shall not undertake any law enforcement action for the purpose of detecting the presence of undocumented persons, or to verify immigration status, including but not limited to questioning any person or persons about their immigration status. Public safety officials shall not question, arrest or detain any person for violations of federal civil immigration laws except when immigration status is an element of the crime or when enforcing 8 U.S.C. 1324(c). Minneapolis joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. the city does not operate its programs for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. City employees shall only solicit immigration information or inquire about immigration status when specifically required to do so by law or program guidelines as a condition of eligibility for the service sought. City employees and representatives shall not use city resources or personnel solely for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is or may be being undocumented, being out of status, or illegally residing in the United States. Public safety officials may not undertake any law enforcement action for the sole purpose of detecting the presence of undocumented persons, or to verify immigration status, including but not limited to questioning any person or persons about their immigration status. St. Paul joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. it is the policy of the City of St. Louis that City employees and its departments shall refrain from profiling based on race, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, national origin, or non-violent political values; and denying any city service on the basis of citizenship. The Police Department shall not partic ipate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws, except to prevent persons from a continuing practice of transporting and harboring illegal aliens. Agencies and instrumentalities of the state shall not use state resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters that are the responsibility of the federal government.

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

St. Paul

St. Paul Administrative Code, Title III 44 (May 5, 2004)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

MISSOURI
St. Louis
Resolution No. 273 (March 12, 2004)

MONTANA
Statewide
Senate Joint Resolution No. 19 (April 2005)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 14 of 24

Helena

Resolution No. 19181 (December 6, 2004)

Butte-Silver Bow County

Resolution No. 05-8 (February 16, 2005)

The Commission of the City of Helena, MontanaAFFIRMS its support of policing currently followed by the City of Helena, including how the Cityrefrains from using city resources to enforce federal immigration laws which are the responsibility of the federal government, except when an alien has been detained or arrested on suspicion of a criminal offense. the Council affirms its support of law enforcement practices currently followed by the City-County, including how the CityCountyrefrains from using City-County resources to enforce federal immigration laws which are the responsibility of the federal government, except when an alien has been detained or arrested on suspicion of a criminal offense. Omaha joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Silver City calls upon the Lyon County Commission as well as the duly elected Sheriff to publicly clarify that it will notuse state, county, or city resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the federal government. an agency or instrumentality of Elko may not use State, County, or City resources or institutions for the enforcement of federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the federal government. No City officer or employee should disclose confidential information unlessin the case of information relating to immigration status, (i) the individual to whom such information pertains is suspected by such officer or employee or such officers or employees agency of engaging in illegal activity, other than mere status as an undocumented alien, or (ii) the dissemination of such information is necessary to apprehend a person suspected of engaging in illegal activity, other than mere status as an undocumented alien, or (iii) such disclosure is necessary in the furtherance of an investigation of potential terrorist activity. Police officers should not inquire about a persons immigration status unless investigating illegal activity other than mere status as an undocumented alien....Police officers should not inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking help. the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Hightstown strongly encourage ICE to engage in conduct that does not create needless mistrust and fear of the Hightstown Borough Police Department and other municipal agencies which are committed to help, rather than harm, productive and valuable members of our community. the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Hightstown will commit itself and the resources of the Borough of Hightstown to restoring the trust Hightstown Borough residents have in the municipal government and police department, so that all Hightstown residents and visitors, including all immigrants, can have the confidence to contact and interact with local police without fear of immigration consequences.

NEBRASKA
Omaha
Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Resolution (November 11, 2005)

NEVADA
Silver City

Elko

Resolution No. 2-04 (July 14, 2005)

NEW JERSEY
Camden
Resolution No. MC-06-259 (May 11, 2006) [Search MC-06-259]

Hightstown Borough

Resolution No. 2005-66 (March 7, 2005)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 15 of 24

Montclair Township

Patriot Act Resolution

Newark

Resolution No. 7RBB(AS) (October 4, 2006)

Police Directive (July 24, 2013)

Princeton

News Article: Town police to issue protocol regarding non-involvement in immigration law enforcement (October 14, 2013)

the Council of the Township of Montclair URGES the Police Department of the Township of Montclair, to the extent permitted by law, to consider refraining from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration and anti-terrorism laws and policies. All City officers and employees should be reminded that no person shall be denied any City services or benefits by reason of his or her immigration status. No City officer or employee shall disclose confidential information unlessin the case of information relating to immigration status, (i) the individual to whom such information pertains is suspected by such officer or employee or such officers or employees agency of engaging in criminal activity, other than mere status as an undocumented alien, or (ii) the dissemination of such information is necessary to apprehend a person suspected of engaging in illegal activity other than mere status as an undocumented alien or (iii) such disclosure is necessary in the furtherance of an investigation of potential terrorist activity. A City officer or employee, other than law enforcement officers, shall not inquire about a persons immigration status unless such a persons immigration status is necessary for the determination of program, service or benefit eligibility. Police officers shall not inquire about a persons immigration status unless investigating illegal activity other than mere status as an undocumented alien. Police officers shall not inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking help. All department personnel shall decline ICE detainer requests. There shall be no expenditure of any departmental resources or effort by on-duty personnel to comply with an ICE detainer request. At the urging of several town council members, the Princeton Police Department will issue an official protocol this month clarifying the departments role in federal immigration law enforcement. Confirming the departments current practice, the protocol will publicly declare that the department will not become involved in raids by federal immigration authorities and will not investigate the legal status of immigrants who are arrested for minor violations. State Law Enforcement officers shall not inquire about a persons immigration status for the sole purpose of determining whether that person is present in the United States in violation of federal civil immigration law; and State Law Enforcement officers shall not inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking assistance. No municipal resources shall be used to identify individuals immigration status or apprehend persons on the sole basis of immigration status, unless otherwise required by law to do so. The City opposes the enactment of the CLEAR Act and HSEA and any other legislation encouraging or compelling local law enforcement to enforce federal civil immigration laws. The City reaffirms its commitment to civil rights and equal access to all city services including police protection

NEW MEXICO
Statewide
Executive Order No. 2005019 (April 7, 2005)

Albuquerque

Resolution No. R-2001-009 (December 18, 2000) Resolution No. R-2004-070 (June 7, 2004)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 16 of 24

Mesilla

Rio Arriba County

News Article: Mesilla Board of Trustees directs marshal not to enforce immigration laws (September 10, 2013) Resolution No. 2003-085 (April 15, 2003)

regardless of immigration status. The City reaffirms that no municipal resources will be used to identify and apprehend persons solely based on their immigration status. References a Mesilla Board of Trustees resolution that instructs the Mesilla Marshals Department not to enforce federal immigration laws the Board of Rio Arriba County Commissionersdirect all state and local law enforcement agencies operating in Rio Arriba County to refrain from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. the Board of Rio Arriba County Commissionersdirect all state and local law enforcement agencies operating in Rio Arriba County to refrain from the practice of stopping drivers or pedestrians for the purpose of scrutinizing their identification documents without reasonable and particularized suspicion of criminal activity. on January 26,2010, the Board of County Commissioners of Santa Fe County adopted Resolution No. 2010-20 reaffirming Santa Fe Countys commitment to civil rights and equal access to County services including public safety protection regardless of immigration status. when an immigrant living, visiting and/or working in the City of Albany is not posing a threat to the community, the City of Albany Common Council calls on all state, federal and local political leaders and agencies to: 1) Refrain from all unnecessary measures to jail, detain or deport documented and undocumented immigrants and their families living in the City of Albany; 2) Instruct public safety personnel to refrain from asking people their immigration status, which is a federal matter; 3) Support a transparent and equitable legal due process leading to citizenship for all immigrants living in our city; 4) Provide equitable language access to all city offices and services; and 5) Support a welcoming and compassionate environment for immigrants and their families within our city and its institutions. No City officer or employee shall transmit information respecting any alien to federal immigration authorities unless (1) such officers or employees agency is required by law to disclose information respecting such alien, or (2) such agency has been authorized, in writing, by the alien, or (3) such alien is suspected by such agency of engaging in criminal activity. Any service provided by a City agency shall be made available to all aliens who are otherwise eligible for such service unless such agency is required by law to deny eligibility for such service to aliens. No City officer or employee shall disclose confidential information, unlessin the case of information relating to immigration status, (i) the individual to whom such information pertains is suspected by such officer or employee or such officers or employees agency of engaging in illegal activity, other than mere status as an undocumented alien or (ii) the dissemination of such information is necessary to apprehend a

Santa Fe

Resolution No. 2012-2 (January 10, 2012)

NEW YORK
Albany
Resolution No. 54.52.09R (May 18, 2009)

New York City

Executive Order No. 124 (August 7, 1989)

Executive Order No. 41 (September 17, 2003)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 17 of 24

Local Law 62 [INT 06562011] (November 22, 2011) Local Law 021 [INT 09822012] (March 18, 2013)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Syracuse

Resolution No. 37-R (September 10, 2003)

person suspected of engaging in illegal activity, other than mere status as an undocumented alien or (iii) such disclosure is necessary in furtherance of an investigation of potential terrorist activity. A City officer or employee, other than law enforcement officers, shall not inquire about a persons immigration status unless: (1) Such persons immigration status is necessary for the determination of program, service or benefit eligibility or the provision of City services; or (2) Such officer or employee is required by law to inquire about such persons immigration status. Law enforcement officers shall not inquire about a persons immigration status unless investigating illegal activity other than mere status as an undocumented alien.It shall be the policy of the Police Department not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking assistance. The New York city department of correction and Police Department shall not honor a civil immigration detainer by: (1) holding an individual beyond the time when such individual would otherwise be released from the departments custody, except for such reasonable time as is necessary to conduct the search specified in paragraph two of this subdivision, or (2) notifying federal immigration authorities of such individuals release. This will not apply when: a search results in the discovery that the individual (a) has been convicted of a crime, (b) is a defendant in a pending criminal case; (c) has an outstanding criminal warrant in the state of New York or another jurisdiction, (d) is identified as a gang member, (e) is identified as a possible match in the terrorist screening database or if the search results in the discovery that the individual has an outstanding warrant of removal issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 241.2, or has previously been subject to a final order of removal pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 1241.1. New York City joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. the City of Syracuse: Calls on the Police Department of the City of Syracuse to recognize that the enforcement of federal immigration laws is a function of federal law enforcement authorities, and to therefore refrain from participating in the enforcement of these laws except when specifically requested by federal officials in relation to particularized suspicion of criminal activity. Carrboro joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. It shall be the policy of the Carrboro Police Department not to arrest or take into custody persons when the sole basis for arresting or taking such persons into custody is that they have or may have committed a civil immigration violation. 1. We will not detain a person merely for the purposes of verifying his immigration status nor will we question a person about his immigration status during a routine detention for another matter (i.e. a traffic stop or a minor criminal offense). 2. If we have an individual in custody for a felony or for an act which resulted in injury to another (i.e. an aggravated assault,

NORTH CAROLINA
Carrboro
Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Resolution No. 123/200506 (May 16, 2006)

Chapel Hill

Memorandum RE: CHPD Immigration Policy (January 26, 2007)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 18 of 24

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Durham

Resolution No. 9046 (October 20, 2003)

domestic violence involving injury or threatening intimidation, a traffic accident fatality) we will inquire and attempt to confirm that persons residency status and will hold the individual for federal immigration officials if they request same. North Carolina General Statute 128-1.1 authorizes local law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements with federal agencies for the purposes of enforcing federal statutes and regulations. Some North Carolina agencies have entered into such agreements for the purposes of being local agents for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. We have not and will not enter into such agreements. Chapel Hill joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Unless otherwise required as part of a City officer or employees duties, by law, or by court order, no Durham City officer or employee, during the course and scope of their employment, shall inquire into the immigration status of any person, or engage in activities designed to ascertain the immigration status of any person. Division personnel shall not arrest or detain persons for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless a warrant exists or a criminal violation was observed. Refers to an Executive Order made by Police Chief Richard Biehl that would prohibit officers from questioning victims of and witnesses to crimes about their immigration status Adopted the Welcome Dayton Plan that urges policies that emphasize immigration status checks limited to people suspected of serious crime only, prevent questioning victims/witnesses about their immigration status, and focus enforcement efforts on serious/violent crime and not federal immigration law. Establishes a basic dont ask, dont tell approach in regards to immigration status and prevents Oberlin law enforcement from entering into 287(g) agreement with the Department of Homeland Security No law enforcement agency of the State of Oregon or of any political subdivision of the state shall use agency moneys, equipment or personnel for the purpose of detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. An agency can contact ICE in order to: (a) verify the immigration status of a person if the person is arrested for any criminal offense or (b) request criminal investigation information. The City of Ashland directs the Ashland Police DepartmentTo continue to carry out investigations without regard to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, sexual orientation, gender, economic status, marital status, citizenship status or disability, except when such factors are part of the description of a particular suspect, or an element of a state crime as provided in the Oregon Revised Statutes, and to refrain from participating in enforcement of federal

OHIO
Columbus
Columbus Police Division Directive 3.40: Arrest, Transport, and Slating (April 15, 2010) Dayton Commission Meeting Minutes (January 13, 2010) Resolution No. 5857-11 (October 5, 2011)

Dayton

Oberlin

Resolution No. R08-14 CMS (December 15, 2008)

OREGON
Statewide
Oregon Revised Statutes 181.850 (2011)

Ashland

Resolution No. 2003-05 (February 19, 2003)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 19 of 24

Beaverton

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Resolution No. 03-01 (May 16, 2003)

Gaston

Marion County

Multnomah County

Administrative Policy: Role of Marion County in Relation to the Immigration and Naturalization Services (June 1997) Resolution No. 2013-032 (April 4, 2013)

immigration laws, which are the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Beaverton joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. no City employee or department [shall] violateORS 181.850, which generally prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from detecting or apprehending a person of foreign citizenship based only on violation of federal immigration laws. County law enforcement entities including but not limited to the Sheriffs Office and Juvenile Department will not use their resources and personnel to detect or apprehend persons solely for violation of immigration laws. The enforcement of federal civil immigration law is the responsibility of the federal government and not of county, city or state governments. The County will only comply with I-247 Immigration DetainersNotice of Act requests for individuals who are: (1) charged with felonies, (2) charged with Class A- person misdemeanors, (3) when ICE can demonstrate through affidavit that an individual poses a threat to public safety based on previous, non immigration-related convictions or current charges. Multnomah County joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Portland affirms its and the states commitment to ...protecting our diverse immigrant population from undue scrutiny by prohibiting law enforcement from detecting or apprehending persons whose only violation of law is that they are persons of foreign citizenship residing in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. Portland joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. City employees and representatives carry out their regular duties for the purpose of administering City services and programs and do not perform duties dictated by the INS or agents of the INS. City employees and representatives may seek race, sex, color and national origin information on a voluntary basis, so long as the information is not used for the enforcement of immigration laws. City employees and representatives will not use their resources and personnel to detect or apprehend persons whose only violation of law is illegally residing in the US. The City of Talent directs the Talent Police Department...to refrain from participating in enforcement of federal immigration laws, which are the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Tualatin joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. All City servicesshall be made available to all City of Philadelphia residentsregardless of the persons citizenship or legal immigration status. No City officer or employee, other than law enforcement

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Portland

Resolution No. 36179 (October 29, 2003)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Salem

Council Policy No. 9-A (December 15, 1997)

Talent

Resolution No. 03-642-R (April 4, 2003)

Tualatin

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Executive Order No. 8-09 (November 10, 2009)

PENNSYLVANIA
Philadelphia

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 20 of 24

Philadelphia Police Department Memorandum 01-06: Departmental Policy Regarding Immigrants (May 17, 2001)

Resolution No. 020394 (May 30, 2002)

Resolution (May 29, 2003)

City of Philadelphia Law Department Memorandum (October 10, 2003)

officers, shall inquire about a persons immigrations status unless: (1) documentation of such persons im migration status is legally required for the determination of program, service or benefit eligibility or the provision of services; or (2) such officer or employee is required by law to inquire about such persons immigration status. Law enforcement officers shall not: (1) stop, question, arrest or detain an individual solely because of the individuals ethnicity, national origin, or perceived immigration status; (2) inquire about a persons immigration status, unless the status itself is a necessary predicate of a crime the officer is investigating or unless the status is relevant to identification of a person who is suspected of committing a crime; (3) inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, or others who call or approach the police seeking help; or (4) inquire regarding immigration status for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws. The Police Department will preserve the confidentiality of all information regarding law abiding immigrants seeking city services to the maximum extent permitted by law. police personnel will transmit information about immigration status to federal immigration authorities only when: (1) required by law, or (2) the immigrant requests, in writing, information be provided, to verify his or her immigration status, or (3) the immigrant is suspected of engaging in criminal activity, including attempts to obtain public assistance benefits through the use of fraudulent documents. the Council of the City of Philadelphia, vigorously opposes a new federal policy which would provide state and local law enforcement agencies with the legal authority to arrest and detain persons for violations of federal immigration laws. the Council of the City of Philadelphia, calls upon Mayor Street to adopt an Executive Order prohibiting all City departments and agencies, including the Philadelphia Police Department, from requesting information about or otherwise investigating or assisting the investigation of the citizenship or residency status of any person unless such inquiry or investigation is required by statute, ordinance, federal regulation or court decision. Reaffirms Resolution No. 020394, which vigorously opposes federal policy giving local and state law enforcement agencies the authority to investigate the citizenship and residency status of any person, unless required by court decision, or statute. Commends Police Directive Memorandum 01-06 requiring all police personnel to preserve the confidentiality of all information regarding law abiding immigrants to the maximum extent permitted by law. all City officers and employees should be reminded that no person shall be denied any City services or benefits by reason of his or her immigration status. A City officer or employee, other than law enforcement officers, shall not inquire about a persons immigration status unless such a persons immigration status is necessary for the determination of program, service or benefit eligibility. Law enforcement officers shall not inquire about a persons immigration status unless investigating illegal activity other

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 21 of 24

Pittsburgh

Proclamation No. 20040295 (April 26, 2004)

than mere status as an undocumented alien. It is the policy of the Police Department not to inquire about the immigration status of crime victims, witnesses, others who call or approach the police seeking help. The Council of the City of PittsburghAFFIRMS its strong support for the rights of immigrants and opposes measures that single out individuals for legal scrutiny or enforcement activity based on their country of origin. The Council of the City of Pittsburgh REQUESTS the Mayor to direct the Police Department of the City of Pittsburgh to: refrain from participating in the enforcement of federal immigration laws which are solely the responsibility of the federal government.... Providence joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Charleston joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. the Texas Department of Public Safety- a state agencyprobably comes closest to being a sanctuary agency because it has a policy that it will not engage in enforcement of federal immigration statutes. Services funded by funds appropriated by the council shall be provided without regard to a recipients immigration status. The City of Austin will not discriminate or deny city services on the basis of a persons immigration status. declares the City of Austin to be a Safety Zone where all persons are treated equally, with respect and dignity regardless of immigration status. Austin joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Dallas County joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. HPD will only contact ICE when a person is confirmed to have a deportation warrant or a notice from ICE that they are a previously deported felon. HPD officers are not authorized to arrest or detain a person solely on a belief that the person is in the country illegally. Officers are authorized to arrest and detain a person whom they have a reasonable suspicion to believe has committed a criminal violation. Houston police officers are prohibited from inquiring into a persons citizenship status simply to determine if the person is in the country illegally. Furthermore, HPD officers are not authorized to arrest or detain a person solely on a belief that the person is in the country illegally. Laredo joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070.

RHODE ISLAND
Providence
Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

SOUTH CAROLINA
Charleston
Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

TEXAS
Statewide
82nd Session- State Legislative Update (April 6, 2011) [Pg 97 of PDF] Austin City Code Article 1 2-8-1 Resolution (January 30, 1997) [Item 33]

Austin

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Dallas County

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Houston Police Department Immigration Policy

Houston

Laredo

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 22 of 24

UTAH
Statewide
House Bill 116 (2011)

The Utah Compact

Salt Lake City

Salt Lake City Police Department Press Release (June 19, 2013) City Council Minutes (November 16, 2010) Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

Allows unauthorized workers who live in the state of Utah (since before May 10, 2011) and who have not been convicted of serious felonies to obtain guest worker permits Immediate family of individuals with guest worker permits are also eligible for permits. The Compact states: (1) Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries--not Utah and other countries... and (2) We respect the rule of law and support law enforcements professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code. The Salt Lake City Police Chief opposes efforts to compel local law enforcement officers to engage in immigration enforcement activities. Salt Lake City adopted a motion expressing support for the Utah Compact, a declaration of five principles to guide Utahs immigration discussion. Salt Lake City joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Vermont State Police Troopers should not try to identify people whose only suspected violation is that they are present in the United States without proper documentation, but [the policy] also makes it clear that officers should continue to investigate suspected criminal activity. ...local resources should not be used to support immigration enforcement programs and federal resources should not be accepted that require local police to enforce federal immigration policy that are under the exclusive power of the federal government. Expresses its opposition to Arizona SB 1070 and urges City Departments to refrain from entering into contracts with Arizona beyond what is required by State and Federal law, the City and its various agencies will neither make inquiries about nor report on the citizenship of those who seek the protection of its laws or the use of its services. County sheriffs office personnel shall not request specific documents relating to a persons civil immigration status for the sole purpose of determining whether the individual has violated federal civil immigration laws. The documents include but are not limited to: (a) passports; (b) alien registration cards; or (c) work permits. The Seattle-King County department of public health shall not condition the provision of health benefits, opportunities or services on matters related to citizenship or immigration status. The Seattle-King County department of public health may inquire about or disclose information relating to an individuals citizenship or immigration status for the purpose of

VERMONT
Statewide
Press Release: Gov. Shumlin, Public Safety Announce Revised BiasFree Policing Policy (November 4, 2011) Resolution: Opposing Arizona State Law SB 1070 and Affirming Burlington as a City of Immigrants (June 14, 2010)

Burlington

VIRGINIA
Alexandria
Resolution 2246 (October 9, 2007)

WASHINGTON
King County
Ordinance (November 9, 2009) (File No. 2009-0393) [Search 2009-0393]

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 23 of 24

determining eligibility for benefits or seeking reimbursement from federal, state or other third-party payers. ...presentation of a photo identit y document issued by the persons nation of origin, such as a drivers license, passport or matricula consular, which is a consulate-issued document, shall be accepted and shall not subject the person to a higher level of scrutiny or different treatment than if the person had provided a Washington state drivers license or identification card. Seattle opposed enactment of HR 2671, the CLEAR Act, and S. 1906, the Homeland Security Enhancement Act, because they required state and local police officers to enforce federal immigration laws or lose federal funding. Prohibits Seattle City officers or employees from inquiring into the immigration status of any person, or engaging in activities designed to ascertain the immigration status of any personUNLESS the officer has the reasonable suspicion to believe (1) the individual has previously been deported, (2) is again present in the US, and (3) is committing or has committed a felony. Seattle joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. Madison joined an amicus curiae brief that urged the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of Arizonas SB 1070. the City of Milwaukee opposes any unfunded federal mandates instructing local police to attempt to enforce the complex civil immigration laws of the U.S. to the detriment of their primary law enforcement duties, as articulated by the Boston Police Commissioner: turning all police officers into immigration agents will discourage immigrants from coming forward to report crimes and suspicious activity, making our streets less safe as a result.

Seattle

Resolution No. 30672 (April 19, 2004)

Council Bill No. 114436 (a.k.a. Ordinance No. 121063) (February 7, 2003)

Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012)

WISCONSIN
Madison Milwaukee
Amicus Brief (March 23, 2012) Resolution No. 031413 (March 2, 2004)

FAIRSanctuary Policies Across the U.S. Page 24 of 24