The National Network has received requests for information about responses by elected officials in San Francisco and New York City to federal welfare and immigration legislation. What follows is a brief description of how each city offers a model of local government officials' resistance to the devastating impact "devolution" will have on immigrant communities.

NOTE:The complete 41 page report "Strategies in Response to Welfare Reform's Impact on Immigrants" is available from the NNIRR. See the Network Market to order it.

In San Francisco, the Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to endorse legislation declaring the City and County a "Safety Zone" free of discrimination based on immigration status. The Board also passed measures to develop regional and federal coordination of advocacy efforts, implement programs to naturalize all eligible immigrants, monitor and prevent hate violence against immigrants, and make interpretation available at Board of Supervisors meetings. The legislative package was designed in response to testimony presented at a September community hearing attended by over four hundred immigrants, advocates, and city officials.

At this point, the "safety zone" measure is largely symbolic because it does not guarantee the provision of services once federal funding regulations take effect. However, activists from San Francisco's Immigrant Rights Action Coalition and otehr groups are encouraging the supervisors to "put teeth" into the measure by condsidering alternative funding options, including a progressive tax measure. In addition, local groups are working to initiate non-compliance campaigns among service providers through trainings and the development of a resource guide and poster assuring immigrants that they can continue to receive services at certain agencies.

In New York, Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's avowed fight against federal anti-immigrant legislation first made national headlines when he filed a lawsuit against requirements in the legislation which would require city officials to report immigration status to the INS. Giuliani has also publicly stated his support for the rights of undocumented immigrants. He has recently convened an immigration coalition to mount a public education campaign designed to combat federal anti-immigrant legislation.

The Mayor's actions break with the consensus of the Republican party (and with the Democrats, for that matter) by offering a "positive view" on the question of immigration. However, Giuliani is certainly an unusual ally in this fight. His position on public education and other social policies has traditionally reflected conservative allegiances. Some of the language he uses in his press columns and the lawsuit use "cost-benefit" arguments that reflect on some negative stereotypes about immigrant communities. (i.e., if immigrant children are prevented from attending school, they will roam the streets posing a danger to other residents.) Many question his political motives: his pro-immigrant stance improves his standing among Latino and newly-naturalized voters.

Despite these criticisms, the fact that Giuliani is drawing national attention to the issue of protecting all immigrants - regardless of legal status - could help transform the debate into one which considers human rights for all immigrants, not simply for immigrants who have family members or financial resources which assist them to enter the country "legally."

Both the San Francisco and the New York proposals demonstrate the importance of broadening the movement for immigrant rights and continuing to push lawmakers to transform the anti-immigrant tide. However, each initiative should be approached critically, to ensure community input and immigrant leadership and to press for the commitment of elected officials to immigrant rights.