After nearly five hours of public comment and council debate, the Long Beach City Council voted 6-2 to approve the Long Beach Values Act during its March 13 meeting, strengthening Long Beach’s sanctuary city policy.

 

Deputy City Attorney Monica Kilaita explained that the resolution simply expands on California Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), the California Values Act. The bill imposes restrictions on cooperating with or notifying federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers unless presented with a criminal warrant. The Long Beach Values Act applies the policy to all city manager departments, not just the police department as required by the state, and adds categories of sensitive information that are protected from being requested or disclosed without a warrant.

 

The council’s decision came one week after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions filed a lawsuit against the State of California’s sanctuary state policy, SB 54. At this point, all the city can do is wait for the outcome of the lawsuit, Kilaita said. City staff are confident that the Long Beach Values Act is in line with SB 54, she noted. The outcome of the lawsuit at the state level would inform any potential issues in Long Beach. If the state loses, the city’s policy would become invalidated.

 

“It’s just a matter of seeing how the recent lawsuit will play out in the courts. We’re anxiously awaiting that,” Kilaita said. “I think there’s always potential for [lawsuits against the city]. We really have to see . . . what the court determines in that action.”

 

Based on the council’s passage of the sanctuary city policy, the city runs the risk of forfeiting federal grant opportunities for the police department, Kilaita said. She explained that many federal grants require certification of compliance with federal law.

 

During the meeting, the crowd broke into chants of “no carve-outs” multiple times, carve-outs being exceptions to the policy such as allowing violent felons to be deported. As passed, the Long Beach Values Act has two exceptions that are also present in SB 54, according to Kilaita.

 

“The first is providing release dates and other information . . . only if the information is available to the public or if it’s related to those persons meeting the criminal background criteria that is in the law. The second is . . . permitting transfers to federal immigration authorities either pursuant to a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or for persons who meet that criminal background criteria,” Kilaita said. However, she noted that the exceptions are discretionary, to be determined by the departments involved.

 

Seventh District Councilmember Roberto Uranga said he had issue with the carve-outs as they were written because he thinks many of the crimes listed do not warrant deportation. These crimes included driving under the influence, embezzlement and forgery, which he described as white-collar crimes. In the case of what he called “serious crimes,” Uranga conceded that maybe deportation should be an option but that he still did not agree with any carve-outs because it is a “slippery slope.”

 

“There are some people in jails now that I wish I could deport who are white – go back to Europe, Switzerland or wherever,” Uranga said, noting that his example was a role reversal to emphasize his stance on carve-outs. His comment elicited cheers and hoots from the audience. The final motion was passed with the understanding that exceptions would be discussed further during a council meeting at a later date.

 

Part of the original motion included the establishment of a legal defense fund to assist residents facing deportation. The final motion separated the fund from the Long Beach Values Act and each item was voted on individually. In the end, Councilmembers Daryl Supernaw and Stacy Mungo voted against the Long Beach Values Act, with Councilmember Suzie Price joining them in voting against the defense fund. Councilmember Al Austin was absent. Staff will report back to council regarding the potential creation of a legal defense fund with options for funding and partnership.

 

In an interview with the Business Journal, Supernaw said the city had already aligned itself with SB 54 and that he could not support the proposed policy because he was not comfortable with omitting all carve-outs. He also noted that he was not in favor of utilizing taxpayer dollars to establish the defense fund.

 

“People were holding these different letters that say ‘no carve-outs.’ Well, right off the top of my head I can think of a scenario where I would want a carve-out – if it’s an incredibly violent felon,” Supernaw said. “We have a duty to protect the general population from criminals.”

Brandon Richardson is a reporter and photojournalist for the Long Beach Post and Long Beach Business Journal.