Green Party of the Pikes Peak Region begins efforts to enact Sanctuary City Status for the City of Colorado Springs

Colorado Springs, CO/USA, February 10, 2017 – The Green Party of the Pikes Peak Region has released a Sanctuary City proposal that aims to protect the most vulnerable members of our society by ensuring that no local resources are used to carry out racist and dehumanizing federal mandates targeting undocumented immigrants.

The text of the proposal is appended below and here: http://greenpapers.net/sanctuary-cities/.

The proposal would also build trust in Colorado Springs communities by making sure that all residents feel safe reporting a crime, calling the fire department, enrolling their children in school and accessing services that are available to them regardless of immigration status.

“We believe that we must act quickly and decisively to protect our undocumented friends, neighbors and family members from draconian policies that threaten to tear family members apart in exchange for a false sense of security,” said Karyna Lemus, chair of the Green Party of the Pikes Peak Region. “The Green Party will not stand by silently and we plan on working tirelessly with like-minded individuals to ensure Sanctuary City is enacted in Colorado Springs.”

The Case for Sanctuary Cities

I. The concept of sanctuary cities is rooted in the Sanctuary Movement of the 1980’s where churches spearheaded efforts to provide refuge to Central Americans fleeing civil wars in their home countries. We seek to uphold this spirit and reaffirm immigrant and human rights in face of repressive immigration proposals that threaten to separate families and destabilize our diverse communities.

II. Immigrants’ rights are human rights: In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which, for the first time, codified the basic human rights of all people. It contains 30 articles that delineate specific rights belonging to all human beings everywhere, such as civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights. Since the adoption of the UDHR, the United States has ratified several other human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention to End All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. By ratifying these treaties, the United States has incurred binding international obligations to respect and ensure protection of the human rights recognized in these treaties. However, in spite of the guarantees afforded by the UDHR and these treaties, it is clear that persons attempting to enter the United States and immigrants already living in our country continue to face violations of their human rights. The Green Party of the Pikes Peak Region and associated organizations agree that current anti-immigrant rhetoric and repressive immigration policies being proposed exemplify the United States’ failure to ensure fairness and dignity to immigrants. It is therefore imperative that the City of Colorado Springs respond by implementing Sanctuary City status, which would benefit our city in the following ways:

1. Sanctuary City status would promote trust and ensure residents know that they’re safe accessing City services as City employees would not report Colorado Springs residents or their immigration status to federal immigration agents when they go to a public health clinic, enroll their children in school, report a crime, etc. All residents should feel safe when calling the police and fire departments during emergencies.

2. Sanctuary City status would promote equal rights for all citizens, regardless of their immigration status by preventing discrimination and racial profiling. It would also revitalize our commitment to the UDHR and other human rights treaties.

3. Sanctuary City status would facilitate community policing efforts so that members of the community, including immigrants, can safely work to prevent and solve crime.

4. Sanctuary City status would uphold the Tenth Amendment, which provides for the separation of federal and state powers. It also prevents the federal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, like immigration.

The proposed ordinance is as follows:

1. CITY OF REFUGE.

It is hereby affirmed that the City of Colorado Springs is a City of Refuge.

2. USE OF CITY FUNDS PROHIBITED.

No department, agency, commission, officer or employee of the City of Colorado Springs shall use any City funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law or to gather or disseminate information regarding the immigration status of individuals in the City of Colorado Springs unless such assistance is required by federal or State statute, regulation or court decision. The prohibition set forth in this Chapter shall include, but shall not be limited to:

(a) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigation, detention, or arrest procedures, public or clandestine, relating to alleged violations of the civil provisions of the federal immigration law.

(b) Assisting or cooperating, in one’s official capacity, with any investigation, surveillance or gathering of information conducted by foreign governments, except for cooperation related to an alleged violation of City, State or federal criminal laws.

(c) Requesting information about, or disseminating information regarding, the immigration status of any individual, or conditioning the provision of services or benefits by the City of Colorado Springs upon immigration status, except as required by federal or State statute or regulation, City public assistance criteria, or court decision.

(d) Including on any application, questionnaire or interview form used in relation to benefits, services or opportunities provided by the City of Colorado Springs any question regarding immigration status other than those required by federal or State statute, regulation or court decision. Any such questions existing or being used by the City at the time this Chapter is adopted shall be deleted within sixty days of the adoption of this Chapter.

Nothing herein shall be construed or implemented so as to discourage any person, regardless of immigration status, from reporting criminal activity to law enforcement agencies.

3. ENFORCEMENT.

The Human Relations Commission shall review the compliance of the City departments, agencies, commissions and employees with the mandates of this ordinance in particular instances in which there is question of noncompliance or when a complaint alleging noncompliance has been lodged.

4. CITY UNDERTAKING LIMITED TO PROMOTION OF GENERAL WELFARE.

In undertaking the adoption and enforcement of this Chapter, the City is assuming an undertaking only to promote the general welfare. This Chapter is not intended to create any new rights for breach of which the City is liable in money damages to any person who claims that such breach proximately caused injury. This section shall not be construed to limit or proscribe any other existing rights or remedies possessed by such person.

5. SEVERABILITY.

If any part of this ordinance, or the application thereof, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected thereby, and this ordinance shall otherwise continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this ordinance, and each of them, are severable.

###

Green Party of the United States
http://www.gp.org/

This entry was posted in Green Party on by .

About Caryn Ann Harlos

Caryn Ann Harlos is a paralegal residing in Castle Rock, Colorado and presently serving as the Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado, Colorado State Coordinator for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus, as well as Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee. Articles posted should NOT be considered the opinions of the LPCO, LPRC, or LNC nor always those of Caryn Ann Harlos personally. Caryn Ann's goal is to provide information on items of interest and (sometimes) controversy about the Libertarian Party and minor parties in general not to necessarily endorse the contents.

26 thoughts on “Green Party of the Pikes Peak Region begins efforts to enact Sanctuary City Status for the City of Colorado Springs

  1. NewFederalist

    If Sanctuary City status includes NOT having to pay any US income taxes then sign me up!

  2. paulie

    You may need to seek a sanctuary city in another country for that. I support sanctuary cities, whether in the US or elsewhere.

  3. Tony From Long Island

    I support sanctuary cities in any shape or form!

    As for the guy seeking to avoid his moral duty to help provide for the general welfare of the entire nation, may he (and many of you) should re-think why you oppose the income tax so vehemently.

    I am, however, sure that we would all agree that the revenue generated by said income tax could be utilized a lot better 🙂

  4. paulie

    I support sanctuary cities in any shape or form!

    Same here.

    As for the guy seeking to avoid his moral duty to help provide for the general welfare of the entire nation, may he (and many of you) should re-think why you oppose the income tax so vehemently.

    I have no moral duty to be coerced into giving money to a regime that massively abuses whatever funds it gains control of, and frequently uses them to bomb people, lock them up, etc., often for no good reason.

  5. dL

    I support sanctuary cities in any shape or form!

    yep…

    I have no moral duty to be coerced into giving money to a regime that massively abuses whatever funds it gains control of, and frequently uses them to bomb people, lock them up, etc., often for no good reason.

    yep…

  6. Tony From Long Island

    As I said, we will almost certainly agree that the funds should be used for different things.

    I may actually be the most vehemently opposed to the way our country uses it’s military and our foreign policy than any regular poster on this board. So there’s a point of agreement.

    I don’t however, think the income tax is coercion . . or theft . . .or whatever other catchphrase the LP is using.

    Also, in my twelve years of incarceration, I can’t recall meeting one guy there for smoking marijuana. Just about every person I met there on drug charges also had some other underlying offense.

    I did meet a few innocent people, though. Some of them were eventually overturned and released.

  7. Luchorpan

    As Bernie Sanders said, open borders would lower market wages.

    Sanders wanted a lot of immigration, but the impact he stated is real. Sanders just didn’t realise, or pretended to not realise, high levels of immigration also lower market wages.

    Much of the world is in poverty. A great many would like to move to the US just for the better opportunities. The population here could hit 1 billion people quickly if accepting everyone.

  8. dL

    As Bernie Sanders said, open borders would lower market wages.

    Sanders, like most progressives, advocate a 1000 authorities between supply and demand, between human consent, in a promise exchange for security and egalitarianism. Hmmm, he got his million dollar pension and second home. Where’s mine? All I get is Donald Trump and the border control finger man thugs.

    “We be protected and we be starving.”

    No thanx. I’ll take open borders, free trade and competition. Competition is merely the absence of oppression.

  9. dL

    I may actually be the most vehemently opposed to the way our country uses it’s military and our foreign policy than any regular poster on this board. So there’s a point of agreement.

    Tony, unless you advocate for complete nuclear weapons abolition and abolition of standing armies, intel/security organs, etc, I doubt it.

  10. Jim

    Luchorpan “The population here could hit 1 billion people quickly if accepting everyone.”

    Gallup does a survey of 154 countries asking to which country people would like to move (if they want to move at all), assuming they had the ability to move.

    The last survey I saw (from 2012) an estimated 630 million people would move to another country, if they had the ability. The US was the top destination of choice globally with an estimated 138 million people who would like to move here. The top contributor was China, with 19 million. I can’t find the article I saw originally, but IIRC, about 15 million wanted to move out of the US.

    So we’re talking about a max US population of about 445 million, if everyone had the opportunity to move wherever they wanted, which they wouldn’t even if the US had open borders.

  11. dL

    DL: Ok, but close ?

    Well, I can compromise. I’ll take 80-90% reductions, which will put the US on par w/ everyone else.

  12. paulie

    unless you advocate for complete nuclear weapons abolition and abolition of standing armies, intel/security organs, etc,

    Dunno about Tony, but I do. Still, I’m not literally a pacifist, like for example Caryn Ann.

  13. paulie

    The US was the top destination of choice globally with an estimated 138 million people who would like to move here. The top contributor was China, with 19 million. I can’t find the article I saw originally, but IIRC, about 15 million wanted to move out of the US.

    So we’re talking about a max US population of about 445 million, if everyone had the opportunity to move wherever they wanted, which they wouldn’t even if the US had open borders.

    Good point. The alarmism has gotten way out of control.

  14. dL

    Good point. The alarmism has gotten way out of control.

    The United States ranks anywhere from 160-176 out of 233 in terms of population density.
    http://statisticstimes.com/population/countries-by-population-density.php

    Historically, immigration control is an anti-competitive/protectionist device as means to limit competition. Political and economic. If competition is the absence of oppression, then controlling competition is oppressive. Even in political economic/welfare rent-seeking, trying to limit it to some but excluding it to others is oppressive. It is beyond me how a site for 3rd parties would have anyone sign on to the notion of empowering the state to reduce political competition. Because that is exactly what immigration control would do: limit political competition. It is exactly why repressive regimes practice it.

  15. Luchorpan

    Capitalists desire to “build a moat”, to obtain some advantage where they’re protected from competition.

    It’s a game where everyone rushes to get ahead, and monopoly is the trend. Facebook, for example, has a great moat. MySpace (or a new competitor) couldn’t readily compete even if offering better service. And the trend is towards one giant social media company like FB, not many small companies.

    Assuming democracy is favoured, new immigrants do vote for wealth redistribution. So, you’d need to end democracy to protect your capital from confiscation upon opening borders.

  16. dL

    Capitalists desire to “build a moat”

    Who said we were capitalists?

    Assuming democracy is favoured, new immigrants do vote for wealth redistribution. So, you’d need to end democracy to protect your capital from confiscation upon opening borders.

    The better conclusion is that you need immigrants to continue funding the generational theft of the social security/medicare unfunded liabilities. As it stands now, the “wealth redistribution” goes the other way.

  17. Just Some Random Guy

    @ Luchorpan

    It’s a game where everyone rushes to get ahead, and monopoly is the trend. Facebook, for example, has a great moat. MySpace (or a new competitor) couldn’t readily compete even if offering better service. And the trend is towards one giant social media company like FB, not many small companies.

    I disagree. It absolutely is possible to compete by offering a better service… after all, that’s how Facebook got to where it was. There was a point when MySpace had as much of a stranglehold on that market as Facebook does now. Did you know that for a while MySpace was the #1 most visited site in the United States? FaceBook was able to take its place because it offered what people viewed as a better service, and they switched over to it. Someone could come along and do the same thing to FaceBook.

    It’s not EASY to do, certainly. You’d need a lot of money and resources to make a competing product, let alone one that’s actually better, and anyone with access to that would probably rather spend it on some other enterprise than competing with such a giant. Still, as noted, Facebook got to where it is by displacing what previously was the market king, and someone else could absolutely come along and do the same to it.

    Fun fact: Did you know MySpace was given the offer to purchase FaceBook for $75 million, but declined? I literally just found that out today.

  18. paulie

    I don’t however, think the income tax is coercion . . or theft . . .or whatever other catchphrase the LP is using.

    Why not? At what point did every person in the country consent to paying tribute to the regime? The regime isn’t charity, and moral duty is not the same as “your money or your freedom (and if you resist your life).”

  19. paulie

    monopoly is the trend.

    Nonsense. Where’s Microsoft’s allegedly impenetrable monopoly on operating systems and/or browsers now?

    Facebook, for example, has a great moat. MySpace (or a new competitor) couldn’t readily compete even if offering better service.

    Also nonsense. Myspace was dominant at one time. Facebook is now, and to some extent twitter. VK (vkontakte) in the former Soviet sphere. And so on. Facebook could be replaced as the dominant social network just as myspace was.

    There is no monopoly trend. Companies break up just as much as they consolidate. If anything, the trend is in the opposite direction; airbnb and similar services are more decentralized than motels and hotels, for example. And, to what extent a monopoly trend does exist, much of it is due to the regime propping up stasis and especially big, established players at the expense of upstart competition, full liability, etc.

  20. paulie

    Historically, immigration control is an anti-competitive/protectionist device as means to limit competition. Political and economic. If competition is the absence of oppression, then controlling competition is oppressive. Even in political economic/welfare rent-seeking, trying to limit it to some but excluding it to others is oppressive. It is beyond me how a site for 3rd parties would have anyone sign on to the notion of empowering the state to reduce political competition. Because that is exactly what immigration control would do: limit political competition. It is exactly why repressive regimes practice it.

    Exactly.

  21. paulie

    Who said we were capitalists?

    Right again. Free markets and free cooperation =/= corporate capitalism.

    The better conclusion is that you need immigrants to continue funding the generational theft of the social security/medicare unfunded liabilities. As it stands now, the “wealth redistribution” goes the other way.

    Once again correct.

    Also, immigration and voting are two different things, and voting patterns converge after the first generation.

  22. paulie

    Fun fact: Did you know MySpace was given the offer to purchase FaceBook for $75 million, but declined? I literally just found that out today.

    Great point.

  23. Luchorpan

    So, first we had giant MySpace, then it was replaced by giant FB.

    And first we had giant Microsoft, then it was replaced somewhat by giant Google.

    Microsoft was seen as a possible monopoly… until it began lobbying the government. And small businesses especially can’t compete with lobbying efforts.

  24. paulie

    And small businesses especially can’t compete with lobbying efforts.

    Therefore, there shouldn’t be an entity large and powerful enough to have so many people want to lobby it because it can make it very difficult or even impossible for those who don’t have the resources to lobby it to compete.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *