AURORA | Amid ongoing shakeups to the country’s immigration and detention policies, Aurora City Council members have re-upped the debate on whether the state’s third-largest city is, in fact, a so-called sanctuary city and what that title means for officials and residents alike.
The newest discussion comes after President Donald Trump’s administration issued guidelines for deportation of illegal immigrants that appear to make it possible for the government to deport millions of immigrants, and compel cities like Aurora to have some part of that process.
Four city council members who sit on the policy committee that deals with public relations discussed Aurora’s past flirtations with so-called sanctuary city status Wednesday and made a formal recommendation to hold an organized public debate on the topic at an upcoming special study session.
That debate could take place at the next scheduled special study session, which is slated for March 27.
But that discussion could be halted if the majority of council does not want to re-ignite the sanctuary city talks, according to Mayor Steve Hogan. Hogan sent an email to city council Wednesday afternoon stating that unless a majority of the 10 council members respond saying they’d like to discuss Aurora’s lingering tag as a sanctuary city, the topic won’t be put on a formal agenda.
“There have been like half a dozen conversations about this subject in the last year and half and nothing ever changes,” he said. “It always comes up that Aurora is not a sanctuary city under the so-called definitions of sanctuary city, there is no standard definition of sanctuary city and the federal government does not consider us a sanctuary city. So, I think for council the question is: How many times do you want to talk about it?”
Hogan said that his position could change if a council member brings forth a “firm proposal,” such as a draft resolution, on the topic.
“Lacking a firm proposal, if a majority of council doesn’t want to talk about it, then a majority of council doesn’t want to talk about it,” he said.
City council member and public relations policy committee chairman Charlie Richardson of Ward IV was first to broach the sanctuary city topic Wednesday, saying he’s disappointed that previous attempts he’s made at holding a formal discussion on Aurora’s status as a sanctuary city have been swatted down.
Richardson said he tried to raise the topic at a recent council workshop, which took place over the course of two days last month, but was “shot down.”
“The Mayor has not allowed this city council to have a discussion on the issue and I think that leads to some of the publicity and some of the characterizations that you see at 9:45 p.m. while Fox News is on TV,” he said.
The latter half of Richardson’s comment was in reference to a recent segment of the Fox News program, “The O’Reilly Factor,” which referenced the so-called sanctuary city status of Aurora, Denver and Boulder.
Aurora officials first debated whether the city could in fact be considered a sanctuary city about two years ago, when the term first came into vogue. Council took no formal stance on the matter at that time and decided to wait for the Department of Justice to issue a formal definition for a sanctuary city.
The DOJ has yet to draft such a definition, which Hogan said is irritating.
“It is frustrating, when there is no federal government definition of sanctuary city, to be lumped in with others that want to be sanctuary cities,” Hogan said. “It’s also very frustrating when our police department arrests criminals, takes their fingerprints and forwards those fingerprints to (U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) as they are required to do under federal law, but there are those out there who say, ‘The city of Aurora isn’t doing anything that we’re supposed to do as it relates to illegal immigrants or crime.’ We’re doing exactly what we’re supposed to do.”
At-large councilwoman Barb Cleland said those prior council discussions on the sanctuary city subject ended with the city sending a letter to the Department of Homeland Security affirming that Aurora is not a sanctuary city.
However, Richardson said Aurora meets two of the three prongs in the unofficial “criteria” for what makes a sanctuary city: A public declaration by the police chief that city police officers will not check immigration status during routine interactions, and a public statement by the head of the city jail saying employees will not comply with local ICE detainers.
The city has yet to pass an official resolution deeming itself a sanctuary city, which is what Richardson considered to be the third prong of his unofficial test.
“I’m just trying to explain why you see the mayor’s face (on Fox News),” he said. “Because we meet two out of the three criteria, whether that’s right or wrong.”
Aurora police have stressed since Election Day that local officers aren’t going to enforce federal immigration laws.
Chief Nick Metz again last week, as fears about the pending orders percolated, reiterated that point with a statement posted to the department’s official blog.
“I have been hearing concerns from members of Aurora’s diverse immigrant community on the subject of immigration enforcement. Many members of that community have fears of reaching out to the police and other emergency services in a time of need because of their documentation status. I want to reassure members of those communities that if they find themselves in a situation where they need help that they should not be afraid to call 911,” he said.
The department’s policies have not changed in light of any federal changes, Metz said.
“Officers will not enforce, investigate, or detain individuals based solely on their immigration status,” he said. “Our policy is not based on politics or personal philosophy. It is based on public safety. It is our goal to ensure that all individuals within Aurora feel safe in reporting emergencies and working closely with the APD to ensure our city remains a safe place for all.”
At the committee meeting Wednesday, council members rebuked Metz’s recent public comments.
“I’m not particularly pleased, and I’ll be honest with you, with the police chief saying some of the stuff that he has and then we find out about it from the press,” Cleland said.
Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Coffman told The Aurora Sentinel in a prepared statement Wednesday that Trump’s most recent directives toward deportations of illegal immigrants aren’t out of line.
“I fully support deporting violent criminals who are in this country illegally, but we also need to recognize that the federal government hasn’t effectively enforced our immigration laws for decades,” Coffman said. “The results are large numbers of immigrants living in the United States, who have not violated any laws — other than immigration laws.
“I support an opportunity for those who have only violated immigration laws to come out of the shadows, pay a fine, undergo a background check and have a legal status,” he added. “After that window closes, we must consistently enforce our immigration laws. As I have stated in the past, no city in the 6th Congressional district has deemed itself as a ‘sanctuary city’, thus I would encourage law enforcement agencies, not only locally, but across the country to cooperate with federal law enforcement when it comes to the deportation of violent criminals who are in this country illegally.”