Protesters Rally For Sanctuary Law

Several dozen immigrant rights rallied outside City Hall in support of the Board of Alders passing a sanctuary city law that would build on an executive order signed by the mayor this summer.

Unidad Latina en Acción (ULA) organizer John Lugo led the protest, calling through his megaphone for the Board of Alders to make permanent the protections for undocumented immigrants included in Mayor Toni Harp’s Aug. 14 order.

“For two years we have been meeting with aldermen,” he said. ​“We have been meeting with our community. We have been meeting with our lawyers. We have been collecting 2,000 signatures. And they still think this is not an emergency.”

“This is an emergency,” he continued. ​“Just pass the law.”

Harp’s executive order, which can be read in full here, prohibits city employees from asking about a person’s immigration status unless required by law. It also prohibits departments from using city resources to assist in registering individuals on a basis of their national origin or other demographics. And it forbids cops, school resource officers and security guards from asking crime victims about their immigration status and from detaining a person solely based on that status.

Board of Alders Majority Leader and Amity/Westville Alder Richard Furlow said, simply enough, that there is no such ordinance currently before the board.

“Currently, there is not an ordinance regarding a sanctuary city before us,” he wrote in a statement. ​“When we receive such communication, we will deal with it accordingly.”

Chris Garrafa (pictured), an organizer with the Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER) Coalition, called on the alders to extend the protections included in the executive order into law because the former can be overturned at the whim of a single elected chief executive.

The city will likely have a new mayor come next year, he said, referring to Justin Elicker’s defeat of Harp in September’s Democratic primary and Harp’s subsequent suspension of her reelection campaign (though her name will remain on the Nov. 5 general election ballot on the Working Families Party line).

“We need a law on the books of New Haven,” Garaffa said, ​“that makes this a real sanctuary city for all people living here. We cannot wait. The Board of Alders cannot wait. We need this now.”

Meriden City Councilor Miguel Castro (pictured) agreed.

“Elected officials are responsible for making sure that the decision that was part of this executive order transitions from an executive order to a permanent law,” he said.

In a phone interview after the rally, Elicker told the Independent that he has no intention of rescinding the executive order if he is elected mayor.

“I’ve been talking about how I support New Haven becoming a real sanctuary city throughout my campaign,” he said. ​“I would not rescind the order. I would support the sanctuary order becoming law in New Haven.”

Initially, the press release put out by ULA about the protest incorrectly stated that the mayor had not yet issued the sanctuary executive order.

City spokesperson Laurence Grotheer called out that error in a response provided to the Independent Wednesday afternoon before the rally.

“Mayor Harp’s Executive Order expanding New Haven’s prohibition against official questions about immigration status was issued August 14, 2019 and distributed to all city department heads that week,” he wrote, ​“so it’s difficult to understand quoted remarks or a planned rally urging Mayor Harp to act on this matter after the mayor has already done so – fully seven weeks ago.

“Beyond that, a proposed ordinance meant to codify these prohibitions is presently under consideration by the Board of Alders, the City’s legislative branch.”

In a subsequent email, Lugo provided the Independent with proposed changes that his organization would like to see to the existing executive order. Those are reproduced in full below:

• Point C of the first section of the ordinance has a typo in the reference to ​“interacting with City officials.”
• In ¶ 7, the EO allows disclosure if it is ​“authorized by law,” rather than, as the draft ordinance stated, ​“required by law.” This is an important distinction, and we recommend pushing to change this back to the ordinance language.
• The EO, unlike the draft ordinance, excludes from its definition of confidential information, ​“all information contained in any person’s income tax or other financial records, including but not limited to social security numbers.” We recommend that the explicit reference to social security numbers, possibly as a backdoor mechanism to identify documentation status, should be preserved in the EO. See ¶ 7.
• In ¶ 4, the EO is explicitly temporary (“In the interim”) while an ordinance is considered by the Board of Alders. We do not recommend pushing to change this but do want to flag it.
• In ¶ 9, the EO added Human Resources as conducting trainings in addition to the Police, which seems useful; however, the EO did not include that ​“knowledge of such provisions shall be tested on department promotion exams.” At this point in the EO process, we do not recommend pushing to change this but do want to flag it for possible discussion in the ordinance process.
• In ¶ 10, OHR is designated as the recipient of all complaints. There is no role for the New Haven Civilian Review Board, which was designated in the draft ordinance as receiving law-enforcement complaints, and which was supposed to file independent reports every six months with the alders.

Click on the Facebook Live video below to watch part of Wednesday’s protest.