（联合早报网讯）美国加利福尼亚州成为全美第一个无证移民庇护州。
加州州长布朗5日签署了由加州众参两院表决通过的SB54法案，使该法案成为法律，并从2018年起执行。
这项由加州参议院议长莱昂（Kevin de Leon）提出的议案4月就获议会通过，但因执法单位反对，布朗和莱昂对法案做了一些修改，加上不列入保护的犯罪如性侵和斗殴等。
该法案禁止州执法人员询问民众移民身份，也禁止州执法人员参与联邦移民执法行动。
SANTA MARIA, Calif. – California is now officially a “sanctuary state” after Governor Brown signed controversial State Senate Bill 54 which limits local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
SB 54, called the California Values Act, was hard fought in the state legislature on its way to the Governor’s desk over the issue of public safety versus protecting people living in California illegally.
SB 54 protects jail inmates from being held in custody until immigration agents can come and pick them up regardless of their immigration status.
The California State Sheriff’s Association strongly opposed SB 54 saying, among other things, it protects so-called non-violent offenders including gang members, drug dealers and sex offenders from deportation.
SB 54 also protects illegal immigrants from deportation while at public schools, hospitals and courts.
“Today I am very pleased to announce the governor of the great State of California, Governor Jerry Brown, signed Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act”, said Democrat Senator Kevin De Leon of Los Angeles who introduced SB 54 earlier this year in response to the Trump Administration’s immigration policies, “our President is pursuing biased law enforcement policies based on the principles of white supremacy.”
In a written statement after signing SB 54 into law Thursday, Governor Brown said the California Values Act “does not prevent or prohibit ICE or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way. This protects public safety and ensures that hard working people who contribute to the state are respected.”
The Trump Administration has been threatening to withhold federal funds from states that declare themselves as sanctuaries.
The California Values Act takes effect January 1, 2018.
Here are the basics of the bill, officially known as SB54.
What does the bill do?
The bill’s core aim is to limit the ways that state and local officials can cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. Measures range from treating schools and courthouses as “safe zones” to restricting the ability of law enforcement to detain people on behalf of federal immigration officers. Though Brown worked to soften the bill, allowing for more interaction with federal authorities, experts like Santa Clara University law professor Pratheepan Gulasekaram say the measure still provides the most robust “p rotection available for non-citizens anywhere in the U.S.”
So what exactly does it mean to be a sanctuary state?
There is no set meaning, as there is no single set of policies that makes someplace a “sanctuary city.” The general idea is that officials in a “sanctuary” jurisdiction won’t go out of their way to help the federal government deport people, even if they will cooperate in certain cases. These policies are often passed on the city or county level. Other states, such as Illinois, have passed laws aimed at shoring up immigration protections statewide. But none are as comprehensive as SB54, Gulsekaram says. On Friday, Democratic state lawmakers argued that undocumented immigrants are crucial in contributing to the state’s economy and culture and that state and local resources should not be “used to tear families apart.”
Does that mean people in California won’t be deported?
No. Some immigrant rights advocates don’t like the phrase “sanctuary state” because they believe it gives a false impression of the amount of protection California can provide. (Others don’t like it because the word “sanctuary” has become an epithet to many conservatives. And others object to it because they believe it might suggest to undocumented criminals that they’ll be safe from the law in the state.) Nothing in the bill prevents federal immigration authorities from coming into California. But given that the feds have limited resources, their ability to target individuals in the state is lessened when local officials aren’t willing to help.
Why can’t the federal government just force local agents to assist them?
While immigration policy is the purview of the federal government, court cases have found that the federal government cannot force state and local officials to carry out federal laws or simply commandeer local officers and turn them into unwilling deputies. To some extent, the Trump Administration can use money — either as a carrot or a stick — to entice cooperation, which is why the federal Department of Justice has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. Cities and counties in California have, however, pushed back on that move in lawsuits.
What about concerns that criminals will slip through the cracks?
That is a criticism that has been voiced by the California State Sheriffs’ Association, which has argued that public safety could be endangered if officials are limited in their ability to work with federal authorities. In some cases, for example, the measure would bar them from alerting immigration officers when an undocumented person has served time for a crime and is about to be released. The bill was amended early on to allow for cooperation in cases that involve violent or serious felonies such as murder, rape, kidnapping and robbery. And, after the negotiations with Brown, that list of crimes is much longer. But the sheriffs association says “the bill still goes too far in cutting off communication.”
Several Republican state lawmakers echoed those arguments on Thursday. Assemblyman Steven Choi, an immigrant himself, said that the measure would send a message around the world that the state will welcome immigrants no matter how they came to the country and no matter their criminal background, causing “chaos” and undermining “law an order.”
Why is limiting communication so important to advocates?
State Senate Leader Kevin de Leon, the author of the bill, has argued that public safety will be undermined if the law isn’t passed. It is estimated that more than 2 million undocumented people live in California — with hundreds of thousands from Asia as well as Latin America — and advocates say many will be scared to interact with official institutions if they fear that will put them on federal immigration agents’ radar. They say individuals might not report violent crimes to police, might not send their kids to school or might not seek medical care at the local hospital. And there is some evidence to back that up: Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Police Department said that Latino communities were reporting fewer instances of sexual assault and domestic violence because of concerns about deportation under Trump.
What will this mean for Dreamers?
In early September, Trump announced that he is ending the program known as DACA, or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Under that Obama-era policy, young people known as “Dreamers” who were brought to the country illegally as children would be protected from deportation and given the ability to work. While California and several other states have filed a lawsuit over Trump’s decision, many nervous Latino communities are preparing for those assurances to go away. That means “the real protection going forward is going to be at the state and local level,” says Santa Clara’s Gulsekaram, “and California is staking its claim.” The state cannot match the “psychological reprieve” of the program, he notes, but bills like SB54 will likely lead to “people feeling much more comfortable in places like California than they do elsewhere.”
How is Trump going to react to all this?
The Trump Administration could attempt to deny more federal funds to the state over the measure, but the end result would likely be decided by the courts. In any case, becoming a “sanctuary state” is unlikely to improve relations between California and the federal government. The state has already been acting as a seat of Democratic resistance in many ways — pushing back on climate change, the proposed border wall, energy efficiency standards — and California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has vowed to protect immigrants, regardless of their legal status, on several occasions.
The President’s name came up several times during the vote on Friday. Republicans accused liberals state lawmakers of using the bill as a “football” in a “political posturing” game between the state and federal government. Democrats meanwhile argued that actions at the federal level made the bill more necessary than ever. “We can be a shining example,” said Assemblymember Joaquin Arambula, noting that his grandparents came to the country without papers, “of what we should be aspiring for.”