Immigration Ordinance passes City Council unanimously!

Before the last vote (by Majority Leader rJo Winch) could be counted, the packed Council Chambers had burst into applause and celebratory cheering. After much deliberation and two amendments to the language, the "Ordinance concerning the City of Hartford’s policy of providence of City services as it relates to residents’ immigration status" passed unanimously. This ordinance had been highly contested by many, including people from the suburbs, from Texas, and CNN's Lou Dobbs (such a professional journalist that he misquoted Councilman Cotto and made up his own interpretation of what the Ordinance provided and didn't provide). Cowardly xenophobes attacked this ordinance, the council, and city residents on the Hartford Courant's forums with the benefit of anonymity, while immigrant residents stood before cameras and the council to support this for all residents concerned.

While there were some tense moments in ironing out the language for certain amendments and item lines, it was a proud moment that the elected officials of this city chose to stand for all residents of its borders. This is something Hartford has a history of: in 1638, the founding fathers of this city (and, let's be honest, illegal immigrants themselves), framed the Foundamental Orders, considered the first constitution which declared that "the foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people." This document was so dangerous to the King of England, that it had to be concealed from the British army in an oak tree. With a piece of that tree in Council Chambers tonight felt like history being revisited, as the council decided to make law that the city is not here to enforce federal mandates.

Full report on the vote after jump.
Link to ordinance (with amendments)

The ordinance was proposed by Councilman Luis Cotto with co-signees Councilpersons Winch, Boucher, Deutsch, Ritter and Segarra, which showed that it was starting with strong support from the Court of Common Council. That support was bolstered by public turnout at the council meeting this evening and previous testimony at a public hearing on July 17th, 2008. However, there were several other councilmembers that needed to be convinced, due to either questions with the legalities or language of the ordinance, or due to concerns from opposition forces. It should be noted that the aforementioned Public Hearing, there were no speakers opposed to the ordinance (of 50 + speakers, with 150 attendees in support that evening), while during this evening's public comment section, one elderly woman voiced her concern. Her commentary seemed to arise from pundit catch phrases, such as referring to Hartford as a 'sanctuary city'; a phrase popular with anti-immigration pundits. Lou Dobbs even referred to Hartford as such on his program the day following the July 17th Public Hearing. He then went on to misquote the ordinance, implying to viewers that the ordinance would protect undocumented immigrants who were suspected felons.

The fact is, had Mr. Dobbs researched the work that went into framing the ordinance or even read the ordinance, he would be aware that the official order from the Hartford Police Chief was that when presented by a “criminal warrant from federal agencies, the Hartford Police Department will cooperate with federal authorities in apprehending the suspect or persons involved; however, there is no legal reason compelling Hartford Police Department to pursue an arrest based on a civil warrant.” Therefore Hartford Police will not entertain pursuing someone based on a civil matter. These were the orders provided by Hartford Police Chief Roberts to HPD in March 2008 after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids over the course of several months in the winter of 2007/2008. While the goal at that time was to apprehend a violent suspect, the raids were used to intimidate the community to provide information on him. The ordinance that is being discussed will actually allow residents to report on crimes without being intimidated by potential detainment or even deportation.

Councilman Cotto's ordinance proposed a policy of “Don't Ask, Don't Report, Don't Arrest” throughout all city departments so that all residents and citizens do not have to feel discriminated against when reporting a crime, or housing violation, or any other sort of discrimination from employers to landlords. One particular amendment that Councilman Cotto made to the ordinance was to remove this piece of language:

“There is no general obligation for a police officer to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding any person, unless that person is arrested on a criminal charge.”

Councilman Cotto qualified that while it is legally true, it was a matter of opinion by the framers of the ordinance.
However, there was still some language to be debated, specifically by holdout and attorney, Councilman Ken Kennedy. His first objection came in item C of section 2-928

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.

His desire was to remove the phrase “the belief that he or she is not present legally”, instead to just read “arrest or detained unless there is a criminal warrant”, which was language as voted on in the previous resolution submitted by Mayor Eddie A. Perez. Councilman Kennedy's proposal was seconded by fellow attorney, Councilman Matt Ritter, who preferred the directness of Councilman Kennedy's language. Mostly, he did not believe that a 'belief' was enforceable in a court of law, feeling that a lawyer determine the mindset of 'arresting officer' due to the 'belief' phrase. In defense of the language of the ordinance, Councilman Cotto brought up a recent case in Simsbury, CT where police officers were stopping people based on the color of their skin; basic racial profiling.

While Councilman Kennedy agreed with Councilman Cotto, his desire to make the language more precise seemed to come more from his concern with language in subsection D: Hartford police officers shall not make arrests based on administrative warrants for removal entered by ICE into the National Crime Information Center database. As Councilman Kennedy himself stated, he “was uncomfortable with Hartford Police Department shall not do xyz based on administrative warrant because it is not their job or responsibility,” but then how should the city respond to a mandate from the Federal Government. “Should we tell the federal government 'no'?” he asked the council and corporation counsel, John Rose. Councilman Kennedy stated his objection to this part of the ordinance, revolving around issues involving federal government; while the federal government “screwed up border control and security, so that passing these types of ordinances is faced in cities,” however, he was “uncomfortable with local government telling the federal government what we will or will not do with respect to federal government.” His absolute “discomfort”, he stated.

Councilman Pedro Segarra, himself an attorney, stated that, “he had not objected to any amendments proposed and had voted for them, but wanted to be careful not to dilute the ordinance to the point that it basically serves no practical purpose.” As he described, the point of the ordinance is to prevent the abuse created by putting officers in the position to actively seek out people they suspect to be here 'illegally' as well as to prevent reports from other persons about people they suspect to be here 'illegally'. For Councilman Segarra, there is also the issue of needless pre-trials and detentions based on the perceived responsibilities of municipal police officers to have to do this work on behalf of the federal government and immigration services. To give the ordinance significant meaning to protect the people they want to protect from potential harassment, should remain intact. The council had fine tuned some elements to protect the municipality regarding federal mandates that they must abide by. “Federal Constitution allows states and municipality to afford broad protection to its residents and citizens,” he explained, “I don't think by providing this protection to our city residents we run afoul of our responsibilities to our federal government.”

When it came to vote on the amendment, Couniclmen Cotto, Deutsch, and Segarra voted 'no' to Kennedy's amendment. The amendment passed nonetheless. It was now time for what many in chambers were awaiting: the vote on the Ordinance, as amended. However, Councilman Kennedy was still not comfortable with one particular issue: if federal government asks the municipal police department to take action on a civil matter, how does the city respond? Corporation Counsel John Rose responded that, as written, “we will do nothing.” And while as an attorney, Mr. Rose was “not comfortable with some language,” he rhetorically asked, “does it matter if the warrant was entered? So what if it wasn't and they ask.” What it will come down to in making the ordinance necessary and valuable, is that one “can't sue the federal government, but can sue a municipality.” The example that Mr. Rose provided translates as such: If ICE commands that the city police officials detain someone and it turns out to be a wrongful detention, ICE cannot be sued but the city of Hartford could be for for wrongful imprisonment.” Did that satiate Councilman Kennedy's questions and ease his discomfort? When it came down to vote for the ordinance, he voted in favor.

Before voting, Councilman Segarra thanked Councilman Cotto for giving voice to city residents who lurked in shadow of city for fear that getting piece of American dream would cause hardship. This ordinace will be important to the community. Councilman Segarra presided over the 3+ hour public hearing where everyone supported the ordinance. Privately, however, he received some calls from suburbanites and people from out of state, as far as Texas, who did oppose, with blatant racism and incongruent arguments against the ordinance. However, he stated, “my responsibility as a councilperson is to the residents of Hartford. I'm not responsible for securing our borders, I'm not empowered to grant visas, or political asylum to anyone. Let me set the record straight: I am not for illegal immigration, except for political asylum, facing inhumane conditions. But considered in context. I, myself, am in civil union, whose legal status is recognized by this city, this state, but not by the federal government. Very heartened by the fact that during the process of debate in this ordinance, there were people of all colors, all ages, gay straight, transgender, all types of people. If we had that type of unity in all issues, our city would truly be the shining star. In passing this ordinance, it would be consistent with our practice for decades. I do not support providing sanctuary for people who violate the civil laws, but as long as they obey the law, they will not be oppressed by the city and we should support a safe respectful environment for all residents.”

His comments were followed by Council President Calixto Torres, who stated that he was “very proud of our city, which has a pattern of welcoming everyone here and we do the best we can with our limited resources. Throughout deliberation, there had not been a moral compass regarding obligations to all residents of city.” The council was faced with the question whether or not they were going against the federal laws. Because of the national laws, municipalities have been able to uphold human rights. So, lawmakers pick and choose what laws we will support or not support. No one favors an illegal situation without a process for people to enter and become citizens. “But this is a problem all towns and cities have inherited from congress's inaction to put together a humane process,” President Torres explained. His fear is of hurting people they are trying to help with backlash from federal government, put in jeopardy people trying to help and Hartford's viability in this very difficult time. However, his concerns were addressed with the amendments, and the ordinance servers to reaffirm the mayor's resolution and the police chief's orders that citizens shall not face discrimination based on their immigration status.

The ordinance passed with unanimous support from the 8 members of the council present, and celebrated with great cheers and applause from the standing room only council chambers' attendees. (Councilman Boucher who supported the ordinance as a cosignee was not present this evening.)