Rivera Introduces Bill to Protect Immigration Information

Councilmember Maritza Rivera has done something right. 

This morning, the Public Safety Committee passed her bill that protects immigrants from our own municipal code. It strikes language that says city employees (including police) must “cooperate with, not hinder” federal immigration enforcement, and adds a section clarifying that they are not to share personal information with federal immigration agencies, either.

Yay! Thanks, Rivera!

Unfortunately, nothing in government is that simple. While police are regulated under state law, local law, and department policy, there’s still a conflict between city code and state law Rivera’s bill does not address.

Let’s start with the language repeal. Rivera’s bill removes that “cooperation” line, which originated in 1986 from an initiative passed by Seattle voters (what the hell, ’80s Seattle voters!). Excellent first step. Rivera’s bill also creates a new section in the Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) blocking city employees and officers from sharing personal information—like someone’s address, phone number or social media handle—for immigration enforcement, except if required by a court order. Good second step. 

Both changes align city code with state laws like the 2019 Keep Washington Working (KWW) Act and the 2020 Courts Open to All (COTA) Act, which place information collection and sharing restrictions on local law enforcement, judges, court personnel and prosecutors. The bill also aligns the city code with the city code. In 2003, a “don’t ask” policy was added to the SMC—city employees can’t ask about someone’s immigration status.

Except officers if they have “reasonable suspicion” that (1) a person has been previously deported, (2) that person is again in the United States and (3) they’ve committed or are committing a felony. 

SPD has its own policies separate from, but governed by, city and state law. According to Council Central Staff, the department has “chosen to enact a policy” for immigration situations that is “quite a bit narrower and does not contemplate any of the criteria” described in current city or state law. Even though there is a discrepancy, SPD tells its officers, “Just don’t ask.”

It’s unclear enough that Councilmember Eddie Lin abstained. 

“I don’t want to hold up the important bill and good work that you brought forward, Councilmember Rivera,” he said. “But it just seems like there’s still a bit of confusion, at least in my mind.”

Rivera acknowledged the shortfalls. She said KWW likely overrides the SMC code, but said they’d need to do further legal analysis before amending that section. She was adamant—passionate, even—that the bill should still be passed. 

“One doesn’t preclude the other, so we can move this bill forward,” Rivera said. “[We can] take this what I deem to be an important step, all while then having the conversations about what else.”

The bill passed, with Rivera, Committee Chair Bob Kettle and Vice Chair Rob Saka voting yes. Councilmember Debora Juarez was absent. It’ll go before the full City Council at the February 17 meeting.

Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article stated that SPD policies undermine Rivera’s bill. The language of SPD policy, the Seattle Municipal Code, and Washington State Law conflict, but SPD policy will be expected to conform to changes in the municipal code.