The Union City City Council’s new Compassionate City resolution includes procedures that attempt to stop Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities if they were to happen.
The updated Compassionate City resolution states that civil immigration enforcement on city property is prohibited. If an immigration authority attempts to use non-public parts of city property for enforcement, the city manager or designee will tell them their use of city property is “not authorized” and that they have to “cease and desist immediately.”
An immigration authority includes ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland Security. The resolution adopted in 2017 said the Union City Police Department (UCPD) is not going to participate in federal immigration operations to detain people unless an officer’s safety is compromised.
If the immigration authority does not cease and desist, the city will document the incident “to the extent feasible under the circumstances.” The city would then immediately inform all city departments and the community through “all means of communication” about the agency’s attempt to enforce immigration law on city property. This includes incidents where ICE presents a valid judicial warrant signed by a federal or state judge.
Despite the city advocating against ICE activities through an updated resolution, 25 people showed up to the June 9 city council meeting to call for the ordinance. An ordinance prohibiting the use of city-owned property for ICE activities was proposed and failed with a 3-2 vote at the May 12 city council meeting.
A motion was made by Councilmember Lance Nishihira at the meeting to accept the updated resolution and bring back the proposed ordinance. It was shot down again with a 3-2 vote. The proposed ordinance said that the city may pursue civil action if necessary. City staff and council members said that UCPD can’t stop ICE enforcement activities under the resolution or the ordinance.
Nicholas Concepcion from Filipino Advocates for Justice said at the meeting to not pass the resolution and approve the ordinance instead. “We understand the ordinance is limited in its protection against ICE, but it’s protection, nonetheless, a protection that has legal backing.”
