Glendale just nixed its ICE deal. Why did it have one in the first place?

Glendale’s City Council meeting Tuesday night may be more contentious than usual.

On Sunday, it terminated a longstanding contract with U.S. Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement that allowed the agency to use its jails. The city had come under pressure to end the deal amid the recent wave of immigration raids in Southern California.

Though the city says the move wasn’t politically motivated, it’s drawn a line between liberal and conservative Angelenos.

How was the contract allowed?

The agreement, which started in 2007, came to light again after an immigration attorney brought it up during public comment at last week’s council meeting.

Many were confused as to how it could have been signed in the first place as Glendale is in California — a sanctuary state.

Under SB 54, also known as the California Values Act, state and local agencies are prohibited from cooperating with ICE in certain ways — including by using law enforcement facilities to hold immigrant detainees. Former Gov. Jerry Brown signed that bill into law in 2017.

Glendale’s contract got through because of its timing. Agreements on or before June 15, 2017, were allowed to continue under California law, provided local officials didn’t renew or modify the contract to expand how many people they could hold.

It’s unclear if Glendale’s deal changed over the years. City documents show the arrangement was indefinite and that it was paid just over $6,000 in 2016.

“I believe the agreement allows for increases for the per diem contract rate, and that was a discussion point in the last few weeks, but I don’t believe new rates have gone into effect,” said city spokesperson Domenica Megerdichian.

Per diem refers to the $85 ICE paid to Glendale per day for each person in the jail. LAist asked ICE for comment on the cancellation, and if other municipalities still have similar deals, but did not get a response in time for publication.

What the city says

The decision comes from Glendale’s city manager, Roubik Golanian, according to a statement released Sunday evening.

“This is a local decision and was not made lightly,” it said. “The city recognizes that public perception of the ICE contract — no matter how limited or carefully managed, no matter the good — has become divisive.”

The cancellation wasn’t politically driven, the statement continued, and came after “careful evaluation of legal, operational, and community considerations.” While many have applauded the city’s decision online, it’s also irked conservatives who see it as not supporting the current administration.

Glendale said it remains compliant with SB 54. Its Police Department has not engaged in immigration enforcement, “nor will it do so moving forward.”

LAist asked the city whether people in ICE custody were being held in Glendale’s jail at the time of the cancellation.

“We don’t have any,” Megerdichian said. Glendale has reportedly held 82 immigrants in the jail since January.

What happens next?

Andrés Kwon, an attorney and senior policy counsel with the ACLU of Southern California, said his organization will be at Tuesday’s Glendale City Council meeting to “hold them accountable.”

He said the Glendale jail was only supposed to hold people temporarily. Detained immigrants would spend about six to 12 hours there, but Kwon knows of clients who were held over the weekend.

Among the questions the ACLU wants answered, he said, is how the city ensured immigrants weren’t detained unconstitutionally or whether ICE mistakenly arrested U.S. citizens and put them into its jail.

Kwon said the ACLU has represented U.S. citizens with ICE immigration holds, including one from Burbank. Data also show ICE has taken some enforcement actions — such as arrests, detentions or removals — against U.S. citizens over the years while investigating a person’s citizenship, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

Kwon said SB 54 is a “legal floor,” so they'll advocate for Glendale to go beyond that by enacting its own sanctuary city ordinance which would allow it to create its own regulations.

“ Ending this shocking contract to detain Angelenos for ICE and just simply complying with SB 54 are the bare minimum actions that the city can take to support their immigrant community members,” he said.