Councilmembers seek stronger sanctuary protections

Ever since Rochester’s sanctuary city policies were thrust into the spotlight a few months ago, some city lawmakers have been examining ways to strengthen those protections. 

Proposed legislation aims to give City Council greater power to enforce policies that bar local police and city personnel from assisting or collaborating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, the federal officers who enforce immigration law.

The city’s sanctuary policies became the subject of debate after Rochester police officers allegedly violated them by assisting ICE agents at a traffic stop in March. A month later, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Rochester, alleging that the city’s sanctuary city policies unlawfully hinder federal immigration enforcement efforts. The suit claims that the policies violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution; intentionally obstruct communication between state, federal and local law enforcement agencies; and undermine national efforts to address illegal immigration.

“Cities that deem themselves as sanctuary cities have the great opportunity to define themselves. That is the moment that we are in right now,” says Councilmember Kim Smith, a co-author of the bill. “As we are redefining and trying to address the harms that are happening within our community and above our members, we should be meeting collectively with the immigrant community, with the LGBTQ community, with every community that is under threat because of this federal administration.”

A sanctuary city is a municipality that directs local law enforcement to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. While living in a sanctuary city does not grant rights for undocumented immigrants, it does offer several provisions aimed at increasing trust between immigrant communities and the local police. 

Rochester was first designated as a sanctuary city in 1986; it revised and reaffirmed those policies in 2017. Under city policy:

■ Police officers and city personnel are not to engage in or cooperate with the enforcement of federal immigration laws or policies, including inquiries about the immigration status of an individual or proof of immigration status, unless there is a specific need to do so related to criminal activity.

■ The city shall not use its funds to enforce or assist in the enforcement of federal immigration policies.

On March 24, unmarked vehicles, later determined to belong to ICE agents, stopped a van roughly half an hour before Rochester Police Department vehicles and 10 officers arrived on the scene, witness testimony shows. After those inside the vehicle did not comply with orders to exit, Rochester police cooperated with Department of Homeland Security officers by removing and handcuffing the car’s passengers, in alleged violation of the sanctuary city policy.

“Our policy clearly states that the Rochester Police Department is not responsible for and does not engage in enforcement of immigration laws, does not perform the functions of federal immigration officers, and does not assist any federal officers in the enforcement of immigration laws,” said Mayor Malik Evans, following the March incident.

“Based on my preliminary review of this incident, the officer(s) who responded to the scene may have violated and appears to have violated city policy,” he added.

Local police are prohibited from cooperating with or directly enforcing immigration laws under sanctuary policies, but are permitted to do so when it comes to criminal activity. While Rochester Police Chief David Smith affirmed that there was no immediate activity or reason for assistance in the March incident, a Rochester Police Locust Club statement notes that officers responded to a call for help from another agency and “did absolutely nothing wrong.” (Locust Club is the RPD police officers’ union.)

“The officers placed the occupants in handcuffs for officer safety without incident, and left them with the (Homeland Security) agents on scene,” the statement reads. “The officers on scene asked no questions of the occupants about their immigration status or relevant documents. No force was used. The officers present were solely concerned about their colleagues from HSI who had asked for assistance at the scene. Once the scene was secured, that ended RPD’s involvement in the matter.”

According to a joint statement from Shakira Hutchinson and Ashley Springsteen, leaders of the Legal Aid Society’s Immigration Unit, the confusion over jurisdiction stems from gaps in Rochester’s existing policy.

“Rochester’s current sanctuary policy lacks clear enforcement mechanisms and accountability measures for local law enforcement who violate policy and cooperate with immigration enforcement,” the statement reads. “The policy does outline monitoring and corrective actions; however, it does not specify concrete consequences for officers who violate it.”

Barriers to being a true sanctuary city, the Legal Aid Society claims, include significant carveouts in legislation that allow law enforcement to create or explain circumstances of cooperation with immigration enforcement in such a way that does not violate policy. 

“There must be strict non-cooperation with immigration enforcement, meaning local law enforcement should be explicitly prohibited from assisting any federal agency engaged in immigration enforcement,” the Legal Aid Society states. “Additionally, clear accountability and enforcement mechanisms are essential to ensure that sanctuary policies are upheld. This means establishing transparent disciplinary actions, independent oversight, and clear procedures for reporting and addressing violations.”

Some community members are calling for change. Days after the incident in March, protestors gathered outside City Hall.

“In my role, in my capacity as a councilmember, I think it’s so important that I take a stand and not only call for (the RPD officers’) firing, but call on my colleagues to join me and have a stronger sanctuary city,” said Councilmember Stanley Martin at the rally. 

Others touted New York for All, proposed statewide legislation that would further prevent local law enforcement from collecting, storing, or sharing information related to citizenship status with federal immigration agencies.

The legislation, drafted by Smith, Martin and Mary Lupien, a fellow councilmember, would give Council the power to investigate, discipline, and even fire city personnel for violating the policy. If it passes, Rochester would be among the first in the state to codify consequences against such violators.

The discipline and firing of unionized police officers, however, would need to be negotiated. Even so, proponents of the bill have argued for its introduction and debated in a public setting, claiming time is of the essence.

“If something has been proposed that we all don’t agree with, or there are too many barriers to passing it in the most immediate future because they need protections now, then the question becomes, what do we do to add protections?” says Smith. “What will make you feel safe? And then what is in our purview to do if what is being presented does not work?”

The legislation is expected to be introduced this month. 

Narm Nathan is a Rochester Beacon contributing writer and a member of the Oasis Project’s first cohort. 

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing  [email protected].