WHETHER TO HAVE A SAFE CITIES ORDINANCE IN GREENFIELD HAS
BEEN A CHARGED ISSUE THERE FOR FIRST PROPOSED IN THE SUMMER,
IT WAS PASSED BY THE COUNCIL, BUT THE MEASURE WAS CHALLENGED
AND PLACED ON HOLD.
THEN IT WAS PASSED AGAIN, ONLY TO BE
VETOED BY THE MAYOR.
FINALLY, IT WAS MADE A CITIZEN'S
PETITION QUESTION AND APPROVED IN NOVEMBER.
I SPOKE WITH JAVIE LUENGO-GARRIDO, THE ACLU
MASSACHUSETTS' IMMIGRANT PROTECTION PROJECT
COORDINATOR, ABOUT GREENFIELD'S DEBATE AND THE
UPSURGE IN THESE ORDINANCES ACROSS THE REGION.
>> WE WERE -- WE HAVE AN INCREDIBLE TEAM.
FROM THE RESISTANCE CENTER, RACHEL GORDON, LEADERS AND
ORGANIZERS IN GREENFIELD.
WE WERE NOT SURPRISED AT THE OUTCOME.
WE WERE, IN SOME WAYS, SURPRISED THAT IT WAS GOING TO
TAKE SO MANY VOTES.
YOU KNOW, WE PASSED IT THE FIRST TIME.
AFTER THAT, GOT RECALLED AND THEN PASSED IT AGAIN, GOT
VETOED, OVERRODE THE VETO.
BECAUSE OF THE RIGHT WING GROUP WAS ABOUT TO GET ENOUGH
SIGNATURES ON THE BALLOT.
WE WENT TO THE BALLOT AND WE WON.
IF AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS YOU HAD ASKED FEIF --
IF I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, I WOULDN'T
SAY THAT.
>> YOU'RE TALKING FROM JULY UNTIL VERY RECENTLY, THAT WAS
A LONG TIME FOR THIS ISSUE TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN UP.
WHEN IT WAS APPROVED, IT WAS PASSED BY 634 VOTES, THAT'S
NOT A GIANT VOTE MARGIN, EVEN RACHEL GORDON WHO WORKED WITH
YOU TO GET THIS PASSED, SHE SAID SHE WAS DISAPPOINTED,
PLEASED THAT IT PASSED AND SAID THIS TO THE GREENFIELD
RECORDER, IT'S PEOPLE'S BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES THAT ARE ON
THE BALLOT AND I WOULD HAVE HOPED GREENFIELD WOULD HAVE
VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY.
WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?
>> AS -- WE ARE AGAINST SENDING BASIC PROVISIONS TO
THE BALLOT.
THE MAJORITY SHOULD NOT RULE AND TELL THE MINORITY WHAT TO
DO AND WHAT THEY CANNOT.
I THINK THAT'S FROM THE PLACE WHERE RACHEL IS COMING FROM.
I ALSO FEEL THAT RACHEL -- IT'S AN INCREDIBLE ORGANIZER,
SHE'S A GREENFIELD RESIDENT.
I FEEL THAT PHRASE ALSO HAS SOME CONTENT OF FRUSTRATION AS
A GREENFIELD RESIDENT.
AS HOPING TO DO BETTER.
I DO FEEL THAT WE WERE HOPING THAT PEOPLE FROM GREENFIELD
CAN DO BETTER, TO HAVE A BIGGER MARGIN, BUT TO BE
HONEST WITH YOU, AT THIS POINT, I WOULD TAKE 56 PERCENT
AGAINST 44 THAT WE HAVE BEEN ACQUAINTED WITH.
>> JUST FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS VERY
CLOSELY.
WHEN WE LOOK AT SAFE CITIES ORDINANCES, SUCH AS THE ONE
PASSED IN GRIEVEFIELD.
THE IDEA IS TO LIMIT THE POWER THAT CITY EMPLOYEES HAVE IN
RELAYING INFORMATION TO ICE, CORRECT?
>> YEAH.
WHAT WE DO, WE TRY TO MAKE THE CITY POLICY, THE MUNICIPALITY
POLICY.
THE FACT THAT NO PERSON WORKING FOR THE CITY, NO
OFFICIAL OF THE CITY SHOULD ASK FOR IMMIGRATION STATUS.
IF I'M DRIVING IN SPRINGFIELD, IF I'M DRIVING AND I MADE A
MISTAKE AND RUN A RED LIGHT, YEAH, I SHOULD GET A TICKET,
ABSOLUTELY, BUT I CANNOT COMPREHEND AND THERE IS NO WAY
MY IMMIGRATION STATUS IS RELEVANT TO THAT.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT WE DO.
THE REALITIES THAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE TO CONSTANTLY
RESTATE, THIS DOES NOT VIOLATE ANY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW.
THIS IS SHAPING POLICY MADE BY THE STU, AND HONESTLY, AT THE
END OF THE DAY, THE POINT IS, THE CITY'S NOT BREAKING THE
LAW BECAUSE YOU CANNOT SHARE WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE.
IF YOU DON'T COLLECT IT, IT'S THAT WE DON'T COLLECT IT.
>> OUTSIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT, WHY WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE
FOR, IN THIS INSTANCE, TO USE YOUR EXAMPLE WHERE A POLICE
OFFICER MAKES A TRAFFIC STOP, A LEGAL TRAFFIC STOP, RAN A
RED LIGHT, YOU SHOULD GET A TICKET, IN WHAT INSTANCE WOULD
IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT OFFICER TO SAY WHAT'S YOUR
IMMIGRATION STATUS?
>> OUR POLICY AND HOW WE WORK ON THIS IS THAT NO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, NO CITY DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE DOING THE FEDERAL
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY WORK, RIGHT?
THERE IS NO WAY, BASED ON THE IMMIGRATION SYSTEM, THEIR
DEPARTMENTS IN IMMIGRATION THAT THEY DO THE WORK ON THE
FEDERAL LEVEL.
WE SHOULD NOT EVEN THINK THAT MUNICIPALITIES HAVE TO SPEND
THEIR RESOURCES, HAS TO SEND -- THE SHERIFF SENDING
PEOPLE TO TRAINING AFTER THAT USING TAXPAYER MONEY TO
ENFORCE IMMIGRATION.
>> EVEN IF SOMEONE WAS -- LET'S DO THE FOR INSTANCE, IF
I WERE PULLED OVER, I'VE NEVER BEEN ONCE ASKED ABOUT MY
IMMIGRATION STATUS.
PERHAPS YOU HAVE BEEN.
WASN'T THAT JUST BE DISCRIMINATION ON THE FACE OF
IT?
>> YES, YES.
SO THAT'S A RELEVANT EXAMPLE.
THERE'S NO REASON TO -- FOR ANY LOCAL POLICE OFFICER TO
ASK FOR IMMIGRATION STATUS.
SO EVEN IN MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
MAY COME AND SAY, WE DON'T ASK ANYTHING, THAT'S ALREADY
POLICY.
WE WANT THAT WRITTEN DOWN.
WE WANT TO MAKE IT.
>> JUST SO IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR?
>> NO.
WE DON'T WANT ANY CONFUSION, ESSENTIALLY.
>> BUT IF YOU HEAR PEOPLE LISTENING TO THIS DISCUSSION
AND SAY WAIT A MINUTE, IF SOMEONE IS HERE AND THEY ARE
UNDOCUMENTED, THAT IS A VIOLATION OF LAW.
THAT ARE WELL, FIRST OF ALL, BEING IN THE COUNTRY, WITHOUT
DOCUMENTS, IT'S A CIVIL VIOLATION.
WE NEED TO BE REALLY CLEAR WITH THAT.
AND I THINK ALL THIS ISSUE, IT'S ABOUT CRIMINALIZING
MINORITIES, AND IMMIGRANTS.
NOW WE HAVE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION GOING TO THE
SUPREME COURT TO TRY TO TAKE AWAY STATUS FOR DACA
RECIPIENTS.
THIS IS TARGETED.
PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RULE OF LAW AND ALL THAT.
YES, THE RULE SHOULD BE IF AN IMMIGRANT HAS TO GO IN FRONT
OF A JUDGE AT THE BORDER OR HERE IN BOSTON, THEY SHOULD
HAVE REPRESENTATION.
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT ANY -- IF SOMEBODY RISKS
TO GO TO JAIL, SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET A LAWYER, BUT THAT
DOESN'T APPLY FOR IMMIGRATION COURT.
SO YOU HAVE MINORS, PREGNANT WOMEN GOING IN FRONT OF THE
IMMIGRATION JUDGES WITHOUT REPRESENTATION.
EVEN THOUGH COUNSEL IS GOING TO BE THERE.
THEY HAVE A FULLY TRAINED LAWYER OPPOSING THE MINOR.
WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RULE OF LAW, BUT IT'S REALLY
COMPLICATED TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IMMIGRATION,
THE RULE OF LAW MANY TIMES DOESN'T APPLY.
>> I THINK ALSO WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS ISSUE, WHETHER
IT'S SPRINGFIELD, GREENFIELD, PITTSFIELD, OR HAMPDEN LOOKING
AT IT, RIGHT?
TO ME, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AND THERE'S A STATES RIGHTS
ISSUE AND A FEDERAL RIGHTS ISSUE.
AND YOU AND I WERE SPEAKING BEFORE WE STARTED ROLLING HOW
OFTENTIMES CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE WILL LOOK AT THE STATES RIGHTS
AND FEDERAL RIGHTS ISSUE AND SAY THIS IS CLEAR CUT.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE INTERFERING WITH WHAT'S
HAPPENING AT THE STATE LEVEL.
IS THE FLIPSIDE OF THAT ARGUMENT?
>> YES.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S A REALLY INTERESTING COMMENT.
THE FACT THAT WE HAVE CONSERVATIVE PEOPLE IN ONE END
SAYING THAT SHOULD NOT INTERVENE IN THE STATE
BUSINESSES AND WHAT PEOPLE DO ON A STATE LEVEL, BUT ALL OF A
SUDDEN, THEY GO AROUND TOWN CLAIMING THAT THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD COME HERE.
I THINK THAT THAT'S SHOWING PROBABLY ONE OF THE WORST
FACES OF THE U.S. I THINK THAT'S TAINTED WITH
RACISM.
I FEEL THAT'S TAINTED WITH THE -- TAKING THE HUMANITY
AWAY FROM IMMIGRANTS AND THINKING THAT THERE IS A GROUP
OF PEOPLE THAT DESERVE MORE THAN OTHERS.
WE ARE THERE, FIGHTING, AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP FIGHTING
BECAUSE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR EVERYBODY, WHETHER YOU ARE
A CITIZEN OR NOT.
>> YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS ISSUE CITY TO CITY, TOWN TO
TOWN, WE ARE TAKING IT TO THE STATE, CORRECT?
THERE'S GOING TO BE A RALLY SOON AT THE STATEHOUSE AROUND
THIS ISSUE?
>> THAT'S CORRECT.
WE ARE WORKING IN COALITION WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN
THE SAFE COMMUNITY'S ACT.
THE SAFE COMMUNITIES ACT, IT WOULD COVER THE STATE.
PRETTY MUCH THE SAME POLICIES THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PASS
CITY BY CITY.
ONE OF THE BIG DECISIONS THAT THE UCLA DID, WE TAUGHT, WAS
THAT WE ARE NOT WILLING TO LEAVE WITH COLLATERAL DAMAGE
OF THIS.
WE ARE NOT GOING TO WAY TO PASSE SAFE CITIES ACT, WE ARE
GOING TO FIGHT FOR IT AND TRY TO PASS IT.
WE WILL PASS IT EVENTUALLY.
IN THE MEANTIME, WE ARE HAVING FAMILIES BEING DEPORTED.
WE ARE HAVING PARENTS OF YOUR CITIZEN CHILDREN BEING
DEPORTED, FAMILIES BEING TORN APART.
AT THE UCLA, WE ARE NOT WILLING TO WAIT.
SO WE'RE GOING TO KEEP FIGHTING, KEEP GOING CITY BY
CITY, WE WILL KEEP WORKING WITH ELECTED OFFICIALS TO KEEP
FAMILIES TOGETHER.