Iowa bill punishing 'sanctuary cities' headed to governor's desk. But will any cities actually be affected?

Iowa is the latest state in the nation attempting to crack down on so-called "sanctuary cities," passing a measure this week that will revoke state funding for communities that circumvent federal immigration laws.

Following a contentious debate, the Iowa Senate gave final approval to Senate File 481 on Wednesday night. The bill cleared the House a day earlier. The bill now heads to Gov. Kim Reynolds, a Republican, who is expected to sign it.

Supporters say the new law will maintain public safety and uphold the rule of law, but critics argue that Iowa has no sanctuary cities and that the bill will only stoke racial fears that could fuel discrimination.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 33 states considered legislation in 2017 that would ban sanctuary policies, and four passed them.

In Iowa, Republican lawmakers pointed to the death of Sarah Root, a 22-year-old Council Bluffs woman who was killed in Omaha in a January 2016 car accident involving an undocumented immigrant. They said the bill is intended to prevent similar crimes.

Eswin G. Mejia, 19, who was accused of driving drunk and causing the crash, was in the United States illegally and was charged with motor vehicle homicide. He fled after posting bond and has not been found.

“This is not about race. You know, frankly, it is about protecting people. It is about safety," said Sen. Jim Carlin, R-Sioux City. He added, "There is a place for compassion. But there is also a place for identifying criminal elements who represent a threat to the safety and security of this country."

EXPLAINER: What is a sanctuary city?

But Democrats were sharply critical, calling it anti-immigrant and noting the irony of giving it final approval on the 50th anniversary of the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr.

“Immigrants are an important part of our robust agricultural economy. So why are you guys buying into the fear mongering?" Sen. Joe Bolkcom, D-Iowa City, asked the bill's supporters.

Other Democrats said the legislation will force Iowa immigrants into the shadows and will breed distrust of local law enforcement officers.

According to the Pew Research Center, there were an estimated 40,000 unauthorized immigrants of all ages living in Iowa in 2014.

The legislation says local entities could not prohibit or discourage law enforcement officers or other employees from "assisting or cooperating with a federal immigration officer as reasonable or necessary, including providing enforcement assistance."

In addition, local entities could not prohibit or discourage law enforcement or other officials from inquiring about the immigration status of a person who is under arrest, sharing that information with other authorities, or assisting federal immigration officers as reasonable or necessary.

If state funding is cut off, local entities could apply for reinstatement of lost funding after 90 days.

Democratic legislators who opposed the bill contend Iowa doesn't have any sanctuary communities. But Republican lawmakers pointed to Iowa City, where a policy has been adopted that says the city will not commit local resources to enforcing federal immigration law, as well as similar policies in cities across the country.

However, Iowa City officials have stopped short of identifying themselves as hosting a sanctuary community, which is often used as a catch-all term to indicate those communities with policies intended to limit their involvement with federal immigration authorities.

Sen. Julian Garrett, R-Indianola, the bill's floor manager, said there is no question the bill is constitutional.

"It is legal and it is supported by the public. It deals with people who are in custody," Garrett said. "They have been arrested for something in addition to being in the country illegally. They have been arrested for something else. So why is it so objectionable to say that they should be deported?"

Garrett said he believes the big majority of Iowa sheriffs and law enforcement agencies will comply with the legislation and there will be no problem. But he also believes there are some jurisdictions in Iowa that are not currently complying with the provisions of the legislation, and some sheriffs will have to change what they are doing.

One of Garrett's concerns was a joint statement issued in March 2017 by Johnson County Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek and the five-member Johnson County Board of Supervisors. The statement said the sheriff will not honor voluntary detainer requests, nor will the sheriff's office assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in immigration enforcement raids.

The statement also said the Johnson County Board of Supervisors supports the sheriff's position and that the county will not assist ICE in immigration enforcement raids. The statement added that nothing will preclude assistance or participation with lawful warrants and criminal investigations.

Garrett was supported by Sen. Dan Dawson, R-Council Bluffs, who spoke of the pain suffered by the family of Sarah Root. Dawson stood on the Senate floor and read from a Des Moines Register story about the death of the young woman, and how the young man who was accused of causing the fatal car crash was freed from jail while the family was still making funeral arrangements.

Sen. David Johnson, an independent from Ocheyedan, unsuccessfully proposed an amendment that would have simply established an immigration enforcement work group to make recommendations regarding the enforcement of immigration laws in Iowa. The other provisions in the bill would have been stricken.

"This is a dangerous piece of legislation. We should step back from it and invite more dialogue," Johnson said.

Senate Minority Leader Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines, supported Johnson's amendment, saying she had received many calls through the Iowa Legislature's switchboard from people asking her to oppose the legislation. The bill has created panic among immigrant families across the state who are worried about being separated from their loved ones, she added.

Garrett opposed the study, explaining that he and Rep. Steven Holt, R-Denison, who managed the bill in the Iowa House, had sat down over the past year and met with Iowa county attorneys and county sheriffs so they could address their concerns by making changes in the bill.

Sen. Matt McCoy, D-Des Moines, said the legislation sends an "ugly message" that will make Iowa communities less safe, less welcoming and less diverse. He and others pointed to successes of the state's immigrants in communities such as Des Moines, Perry, Storm Lake, Marshalltown, Columbus Junction and other places. He urged lawmakers to adopt a policy of "opening our hearts and not closing our doors."

The legislation has been opposed by a long list of organizations, including the Iowa State Bar Association, Iowa attorney general's office, League of United Latin American Citizens, Iowa State Association of County Supervisors, Iowa Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO; Child and Family Policy Center, American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa, a host of faith-based groups, and many others. The only organizations registered in support are the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition and the Iowa Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.

But during the debate, Garrett pointed to a Harvard-Harris Poll released in February 2017 that reported 80 percent of voters nationally said authorities should have to comply with the law by reporting to federal agents the illegal status of immigrants they come into contact with.

What's in the bill: