Sanctuary cities bill passes House panel along party lines

Sanctuary cities

Sanctuary cities Photo: JOSE CABEZAS, AFP/Getty Images Photo: JOSE CABEZAS, AFP/Getty Images Image 1 of / 1 Caption Close Sanctuary cities bill passes House panel along party lines 1 / 1 Back to Gallery

AUSTIN - A state House committee on Wednesday passed a "sanctuary cities" bill that is less harsh than the version passed by the Senate, but that still would require local sheriffs and jailers to comply with federal requests to hold on to individuals in this country illegally or face a misdemeanor criminal charge.

The Republican-dominated House State Affairs Committee voted 7-5 along party lines to send the bill to the full chamber for what is expected to be a heated debate and floor vote as early as next week.

At issue is whether local law enforcement should honor every federal immigration request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold on individuals in the country illegally until federal officials give further instructions or take them into custody.

As noted by several of the bill's opponents, the decision to honor ICE requests, known as detainers, is voluntary.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security acknowledged last month that ICE detainers are not legally binding and that local jurisdictions have various policies regarding whether to honor the agency's requests.

The Senate version of the bill, which was passed in February, would bar local law enforcement agencies and university police departments from enacting policies prohibiting officers from asking about immigration status if they have been stopped with probable cause.

As part of its enforcement provisions, the bill would allow citizens to file complaints with the attorney general's office if they believe a jurisdiction is not in compliance with the law.

It also would impose a civil penalty between $1,000 and $1,500 on the local agency or campus for the first violation.

A subsequent violation would cost the entity at least $25,000 each day it continues.

One of the Senate bill's major enforcement mechanisms is a provision that would charge a sheriff or other local officer overseeing a jail with a Class A misdemeanor for refusing to comply with immigration detainer requests.

A Class A misdemeanor is punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $4,000, or both.

Such a charge effectively would force the elected officials out of their job and bar them for life from working as a police officer or jailer in Texas.

Introducing his changes to the Senate version, state Rep. Charlie Geren, the Republican from Fort Worth who wrote the House bill, said the criminal penalty is enough to deter sheriffs and constables from violating the law. He eliminated a provision in the Senate proposal that would have withheld state grant money from local jurisdictions that do not comply, a punishment Democrats have argued would hurt domestic violence programs, veterans courts and other local services.

"By implementing this, we'll be able to remove these individuals from office for not complying with the provisions of the bill. Also, by targeting those solely responsible for not complying with detainer requests, there is no need for removal of state grant funds," Geren said.

Revising Senate bill

The House version also cut wording in the Senate version that a department cannot "discourage" a police officer from enforcing detainer requests.

Citing concerns that it was too vague, Geren said he worked with the attorney general's office to include instead a prohibition on a "pattern and practice" of barring officers from enforcing ICE requests.

"This raises the bar on what the state must prove, and existing other laws use the term 'pattern and practice' to show an entity has an unwritten policy that would violate the law if it were written," he said. "This allows a defense for an entity acting in good faith. But if the entity has a pattern and practice of violating (the bill), it is not operating in good faith."

Geren's bill also would require that an individual be lawfully arrested - not just detained - before authorities question his immigration status.

It also would require police to inform the arrested person if the federal government has issued a detainer request for him.

Rep. Eddie Rodriguez, D-Austin and a member of the State Affairs Committee, said he and his colleagues would try to amend the bill when it reaches the full House and hinted at potential lawsuits if the measure is passed.

"Despite the improvements we made in committee, SB 4 is still a heavy-handed solution to an imaginary problem," Rodriguez said in a statement. "If it comes down to a vote along party lines, my Republican colleagues will own their vote on SB 4. They will own the unnecessary suffering caused by the bill, the decrease in public safety, the next generation of taxpayer-backed lawsuits and the significant growth in the size and power of the Office of the Attorney General."

Limits local powers

Denise Gilman, director of the Immigration Clinic at the University of Texas' School of Law, said the federal government cannot force a local sheriff's department to comply with ICE detainers, so Texas lawmakers are trying to introduce stiff penalties to deter their actions as much as possible.

"Really, what I think is troubling in particular is that the whole debate at the Legislature seems to be one of suggesting that the problem is that certain jurisdictions are acting unlawfully that SB 4, cloaked in legality, would bring them into compliance," Gilman said. "The opposite is the case. Under federal law, there is no obligation to comply."

She also predicted lawsuits if the bill is signed into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, who has named such legislation a priority.

"The question is whether it's a good idea for the state to get in the middle of a question of federal immigration enforcement in a way that limits local jurisdictions to make their own decisions," Gilman said. "If it passes, it's extremely likely that there will be a lot of litigation around implementation and individual cases where people are profiled by law enforcement under the encouragement of SB 4, where people are held under detainer not supported by probable cause."