From The Bob Mendes blog- Along with co-lead sponsor Colby Sledge and a growing list of
additional co-sponsors, I have submitted two bills to guide Metro’s role
in federal immigration enforcement. First reading will be on June 6.
This afternoon, the Tennessean put up a story
about the two bills, and describes a letter I wrote to Sheriff Hall to
give him a heads up about the legislation and to explain the bills. This
post is to provide more information about the two bills.
Here’s the letter I sent this morning. Here, here, and here
are three other letters we exchanged in March. We also met in early
April. Our exchanges on this topic have been cordial and professional. I
don’t know what his position, if any, will be about the two bills. I am
providing these letters because they provide a detailed explanation of
the issues.
One of the bills would require Metro to immediately exercise its
rights to terminate a 1996 contract with the U.S. Marshals Service, and
also require Metro to use its best efforts to negotiate a replacement
contract subject to the approval of the Council. Under the 1996 contract
as written, and as approved by the Council, Metro has authority to hold
unsentenced adult males and females charged with federal crimes or who
are federal material witnesses in exchange for a daily fee. That
contract expressly excludes people who already have been sentenced for
crimes, juveniles, and “aliens” (which means non-citizens).
In practice, the Davidson County jail is being used as a regional ICE
holding facility for non-citizens (or “aliens,” as described in the
contract) who are not charged with any state or federal criminal
offense. This contract has been in place for 21 years with no
legislative oversight. The new legislation would require Metro to
exercise its rights to terminate the contract, and negotiate new terms
subject to Council approval.
The only principled push back I have heard so far about this bill is
that the contract also allows Metro to house people who are charged with
federal crimes. The argument is that we shouldn’t want to undercut
Metro’s ability to house citizens charged with federal crimes. My
response to this is simple: it has been 21 years since this contract was
reviewed. Going that long without review is bad policy and bad
practice. It is time for the terms of the 1996 contract to be reviewed
by the Council. Otherwise, would this contract really just go on
forever?
The other ordinance is intended to facilitate compliance with federal
immigration laws within the limited resources of our local government.
This ordinance would require that, unless required by federal or state
law or a court order, Metro may not use its money, resources, or
facilities to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws, or to share
information about a person’s custody status or court dates. This
ordinance would also prohibit Metro from requesting information about a
person’s immigration or citizenship status. Finally, this ordinance
would prohibit Metro from honoring an immigration-related voluntary
detention request unless it is accompanied by a federal criminal
warrant.
Everyone rightly should be concerned about how this ordinance fits
with other existing law. First, this ordinance does not make Nashville a
“sanctuary city.” Earlier this week on May 22, the Department of
Justice issued a memo specifically defining what it means to be a
“sanctuary jurisdiction.” There is nothing in the new ordinance that
triggers the DOJ’s definition. As an additional precaution, the new
ordinance expressly requires Metro to follow all federal law, state law,
and court orders including federal criminal warrants.
I have heard through the courthouse rumor mill that there are a few
objections floating around. I’ll go ahead and address those here.
One argument claims that this legislation will be harmful to
immigrants. I recommend that anyone wanting to explore this argument go
locate some immigrants in our community and ask what they think. I am
confident that Nashville’s immigrant population will be strongly in
favor of this bill.
Another argument is that Metro doesn’t have the power under state law
to tell the Sheriff’s employees what to do about anything. I have only
heard this objection in the last few hours, and I don’t know who is
making the objection. But my initial reaction is that I believe it is
long settled law that the Sheriff is bound by the functional, budgetary,
purchasing, and personnel provisions of the Metro Charter. So I don’t
understand this objection.
Another argument is that this will somehow impact public safety. This
argument doesn’t make sense. The bill would require Metro to honor all
existing federal and state law. Metro simply would have to stop holding
non-citizens unless they are charged with a criminal offense.
In the coming days and weeks, I’ll provide more information about the
moral imperative behind these bills. All of Nashville’s residents add
their own note of individuality and spark to who we are. When our
immigrant neighbors are silenced or muted by fear, Music City is out of
tune. These bills will help us celebrate all our voices.
My Comment: Bob Mendes is a Councilman-at-large and co-sponsor of the immigration bill that has been filed. I am posting the above to add to an understanding of the issue. Posting of an essay by someone else on an issue does not constitute an endorsement of the views expressed in the essay. The highlighting in the essay is mine. The provision in the bill that requires Metro to follow all federal laws may be sufficient to help us avoid "sanctuary city" status, should this pass. This may put us as close as you can get to being a sanctuary city and yet not cross the line. The bill may also be totally meaningless feel-good grandstanding and have no real impact. More on this issue will follow as it becomes available.
Top Stories
Posts
