If Aurora is a “sanctuary city” for those entering this country illegally, then no one bothered to tell city officials.
A recent flier surfaced that labeled Aurora as a sanctuary city, a term given to cities that shelter those who are living in the United States illegally. Aurora never has adopted such a policy, but it is working toward adopting a resolution saying it is not a sanctuary city and plans to spell out how it deals with detention issues.
This month, the Durango council passed a resolution saying it was not a sanctuary city.
“I don’t know what it means. I don’t know how we got on it,” Aurora City Councilwoman Marsha Berzins said.
Communities such as Aurora have been named online on anti-immigration websites such as Ohio Jobs and Justice PAC ) as cities, even though Aurora has not adopted policies to shelter people who are in this country illegally. Denver and Thornton are other cities listed as sanctuary cities.
At stake potentially is losing federal law enforcement funding.
President Obama recently ruled that detainer policies across the country would no longer be enforced.
So the House passed a bill that would penalize cities by withholding federal law enforcement funding if they do not detain people as requested by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Senate is planning to consider the proposal, but it went on its month-long recess in August without doing so.
Obama has threatened to veto any such measure.
Even so, the issue certainly has drawn the concern of Aurora and other municipalities.
Aurora officials discussed the sanctuary city issue at a recent policy committee meeting, and they hope to forward a measure to the full City Council for consideration.
“I don’t want to be labeled a sanctuary city because I don’t want to lose grant dollars,” said Aurora City Councilwoman Barb Cleland, chairwoman of the Federal, State and Intergovernmental Relations Committee, where the issue was discussed recently. “There’s discussions within Homeland Security that those cities that are sanctuary cities will not get federal dollars.”
In legal terms, the phrase “sanctuary city” is a designation that allows a city to say it will not enact policies prohibiting people from coming forward and reporting a crime if they are in this country illegally, according to Aurora immigration attorney Jeff Joseph.
But the term has taken on a more broad definition — for example, when a city or county arrests a person not in this country legally it is required to contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and in some cases hold the person.
But some entities are not doing so.
That issue came to light in July after the fatal shooting in San Francisco of Kathryn Steinle by someone who is in this country illegally and has a long criminal record and multiple prior deportations, according to The Associated Press.
The man, Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez, had been released by authorities in San Francisco, despite a request from federal immigration authorities to keep him detained.
Joseph said 300 jurisdictions have refused to act on ICE detainer requests.
He said courts have upheld that under, state statutes, probable cause that someone has violated the law is needed to hold someone in a jail or detention center. A person’s immigration status cannot be a reason for detention, he said.
Commerce City also has appeared on a list of sanctuary cities. City spokeswoman Michelle Halstead said Commerce City would hold someone only if it had reasonable cause or if the person is a threat to the community. But even then, Commerce City just has a holding cell, and those who warrant criminal charges are sent to Adams County for lockup.
“Certainly if it was a real threat, we’d be concerned,” she said of potentially losing money if the city is deemed a sanctuary city. “But I think our policies in place … are about the equity of enforcement. We do comply with federal policy.”
Carlos Illescas: 303-954-1175, cillescas@denverpost.com or twitter.com/cillescasdp
