Accusations that migrants beat NYPD officers late last month and the arrest Monday of five other migrants in a string of brazen robberies by thieves on mopeds have Republicans demanding the repeal of three of New York’s so-called sanctuary city laws — and Mayor Adams signaling he’s open to changes on that front as well.
Gov. Hochul has also said that deportation “should be looked at” when migrants commit crimes against cops. Most of the suspected attackers in the Times Square attack were released without bail.
But immigration experts contend that such actions could have a negative impact on public safety — the very thing Republicans, Adams and Hochul say they’re trying to improve.
“We have fought to ensure there is process because it is the bare minimum that immigrants, and the communities they are a part of, deserve before the extreme outcome of deportation,” said Yasmine Farhang, the Immigrant Defense Project’s advocacy director. “The idea, espoused by the governor, that we would deport people without considering the ramifications is very reckless.”
The Daily News broke down the city’s existing sanctuary city policies and their impact on the case.
What do the current sanctuary city provisions say?
The city’s sanctuary city laws are complex and can be difficult to understand.
The foundation for them was laid during Mayor Ed Koch’s administration when he signed an executive order restricting city employees from sharing information about undocumented people with federal authorities. Those restrictions came with caveats and did not apply when the undocumented were suspected of engaging in criminal activity.
Mayor Mike Bloomberg altered that policy slightly in 2003 in an attempt to comply with federal law, and Mayor Bill de Blasio also switched gears during his eight years in City Hall through three laws that placed more restrictions on city agencies cooperating with federal officials.
Do the same rules that apply to “undocumented” immigrants also apply to asylum seekers?
Sanctuary city laws apply equally to all noncitizens.
What are Republicans objecting to?
It’s the provisions signed into law under de Blasio that Republicans are demanding be rolled back.
Those laws limit the city’s ability to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, as well as that federal agency’s ability to compel the city to turn migrants over. The city is permitted to transfer custody of migrants to the feds if they’ve secured a judicial warrant and if the accused falls into one of several categories, including having been convicted of a violent or serious crime or currently being a defendant in a criminal case involving such a crime.
City Councilman Joseph Borelli (R-S.I.) wants to do a “basic repeal” of the de Blasio-era provisions. He said that the prohibitions against cooperating with ICE and the requirement that a judicial warrant be obtained to transfer custody to the feds has resulted in violent criminals being released from city custody, when from his perspective, they should be in the feds’ hands.
But he conceded that, given the likelihood such a repeal is a nonstarter in the majority Democratic City Council, he’s open to a compromise.
“Something has to give. We can’t have everything from assaults on police officers to scooter gangs robbing women indiscriminately and being arrested multiple times before we can send these folks packing,” he said.
What are sanctuary city proponents saying?
Advocates like Murad Awawdeh, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, disagree with Borelli. Awawdeh said the provision in the 2014 laws that requires a judicial warrant represents basic due process and that the laws serve to encourage migrants to come forward to the NYPD as witnesses when they otherwise wouldn’t if they were subject to deportation as a result of such an interaction.
“Sanctuary policy at the end of the day is public safety policy,” he said. “Regardless of your immigration status, if you are a victim of a crime, if you want to report a crime, you can do so without having fear of the NYPD or the law enforcement you’re speaking to — that they won’t call ICE or immigration officials on you for simply reporting a crime.”
Would those changes — or rollbacks — have had any effect on the Times Square attack?
It’s not entirely clear how the aftermath of the Times Square attack against the NYPD would have played out under the iteration of sanctuary city law in place prior to de Blasio. The individual discretion of law enforcement could have played a role.
If those laws had not been in place, there may have been more cooperation between city law enforcement authorities and the feds prior to the release of some of the accused.
Before the laws were enacted, ICE typically relied on administrative warrants to facilitate the handover of migrants into federal custody — a much lower standard and logistical burden than judicial warrants. That fact could have led to the migrants accused of the crimes being turned over to the feds and facing the immigration court system.
Why are Republicans and ICE agents focused on the current requirement to secure judicial warrants?
Borelli and his fellow Councilman David Carr (R-S.I.) contend that judicial warrants take too much time to get — and hamper ICE’s ability to detain migrants suspected of committing crimes. Administrative warrants — which are issued by ICE itself and don’t require a judge’s signoff — are what they would prefer.
Emilio Dabul, an ICE spokesman, said immigration officers are authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act to issue administrative arrest warrants.
“Congress has established no process, requirement or expectation directing ICE to seek a so-called ‘judicial warrant’ from the already overburdened federal courts before an alien can be arrested for a civil immigration violation,” Dabul said. “This idea is simply a figment created by those who wish to undermine immigration enforcement and excuse the ill-conceived practices of sanctuary jurisdictions (‘sanctuary cities’) that put politics before public safety.”
Advocates argue that administrative warrants are a far cry from due process — and would lead to more migrants being deported and more undocumented people refusing to cooperate with law enforcement as witnesses.
