SPRINGFIELD – A proposed ordinance designating Springfield as a “Welcoming Community” has reignited ongoing contention between Mayor Dominic Sarno and the members of his City Council about the status of immigrants in the City of Homes.

On Nov. 19, the Council unanimously voted to advance an ordinance presented by councilors Adam Gomez, Jesse Lederman, Justin Hurst, Michael Fenton and president Orlando Ramos that would, according to its purpose statement, “affirm that Springfield is a welcoming city, to promote trust between employees of the city and all members of our community and to facilitate effective law enforcement and public safety.”

A final vote on the ordinance, the Welcoming Community Trust Act, is due to take place at the City Council meeting slated for 7 p.m. on Dec. 3 in City Council chambers of city Hall, downtown Springfield. Public speak-out begins at 6:30 p.m.

This ordinance is not the first time the mayor and his councilors have clashed over how the city should treat residents who have unclear immigration status. At the Nov. 19 meeting, Councilor Gomez noted in June of 2017, the council had supported a resolution with “some of the same language” and that in April of this year, the council had voted on another similar ordinance put forth by Councilor Tim Ryan. The council also supported the work of the South Congregational Church when it offered sanctuary to a Guatemalan woman named Giselle – which Sarno also tried to stop through an examination of housing code ordinances – in March.

Giselle was among numerous city residents who spoke in favor of the Welcoming Community ordinance during the public speak-out portion of the Nov. 19 meeting.

However, on Nov. 27, Mayor Dominic Sarno released a statement indicating he would veto this most recent ordinance if passed by the Council.

In his statement, Sarno said “My concerns have always been for the health and public safety of our residents and business community and not to create a liability issue if our city employees to neglect their sworn duties to follow the letter of the law.”

In response to a request from Reminder Publishing, Sarno added the following clarification of his position on the ordinance: “As a son of immigrants and since I've been a kid, my personal, professional and political record has always shown respect, an embrace and celebration of our city's diversity. I've always been a supporter of legal immigration and a positive pathway towards citizenship. What we really need here is for our federal government officials to stop the back and forth rhetoric and leaving this federal issue on the doorstep of cash-strapped municipalities and get something done for the good of all involved. Again, as Mayor of the City of Springfield, I have a responsibility to uphold the laws that provide for the public health and safety of all of our citizens and business community.”

Reacting to the mayor’s initial statement, Council President Ramos told Reminder Publishing he believes the council has sufficient votes to override the mayor’s veto of this ordinance, should it occur. He added he was in support of the ordinance because of what happened earlier this year with the South Congregational Church situation.

Ramos noted there was an outpouring of community support for the Welcoming Community ordinance on Nov. 19, and that in the council chambers it was “standing room only” for the early part of the meeting.

Among those residents who spoke in favor of the ordinance was Western New England University Constitutional Law Professor Bruce Miller, who called the proposed ordinance “a traditional constitutional ordinance.”

Miller noted that “This body  – every council, every state legislature in the country – has the right to be accountable to its citizens and to its citizens only, that is, to its constituents, to the people who live in its community and not to the federal [laws], and all this ordinance does is that it makes sure Springfield acts consistently with that.”

Ramos said in essence, the Welcoming Community Trust Act simply means that municipal employees do not have to ask residents about their immigration status in the day-to-day transaction of business in city hall, in police business, or while discussing education matters at city schools.

“They are not required for the most part [by law] to determine immigration status before assisting a resident,” Ramos said. “If there are actual federal laws, as this ordinance states, they may ask, but only if required by federal law.”

Councilor Lederman, when presenting his support for the ordinance, stated “what we are doing, as the duly elected legislative body of the city of Springfield, is saying we will not allow the municipal government apparatus to be weaponized against our most vulnerable constituents, we will not allow due process to be violated.”

He also acknowledged that there were members of the community who were concerned adopting the ordinance would affect Springfield’s ability to receive Community Development Block Grant funding from the federal government.

“That is incorrect, because a judge has already struck that down,” Lederman said.

Ramos stressed it is important to make clear the Welcoming Community ordinance up for approval Dec. 3 “is not a sanctuary city ordinance.

“There is no mention of sanctuary city [in the wording],” he said.

In reaction to Sarno’s initial statement, Lederman released the following: “We can disagree politically, but we should all be working with the same facts. The facts are: there is no such thing as a ‘Sanctuary City’ in the legal sense. Courts have consistently ruled that municipalities have the legal right to determine what information they collect or do not collect with regard to immigration status, and nothing in the proposed ordinance requires an employee to neglect the law, or skirt any law.

“The courts have also already protected federal funding for cities that have chosen to exercise their legal rights in this regard.”