Big Cities Criticized for Failing to Cooperate With INS : Policy: Sen. Roth says many, like Los Angeles, are ‘hypocritical’ for complaining of influx of illegal immigrants while refusing to help prosecute.

One of the Senate’s leading advocates of immigration law reform Wednesday chastised large cities across the nation--including Los Angeles--that refuse to help the Immigration and Naturalization Service find and prosecute illegal immigrants.

Calling them “hypocritical,” Sen. William V. Roth Jr. (R-Del.) pointed out that some of the cities are among the harshest critics of the INS’ inability to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

Roth’s remarks came a day after the Senate approved his amendment to its fast-growing crime bill that would prohibit cities with policies of non-cooperation--Los Angeles among them--from partaking in $22.68 billion in federal crime-fighting funds.

“These local laws or policies of non-cooperation have most often been adopted in some of the nation’s largest cities, which often have the most serious problems with illegal aliens,” Roth said. In addition to Los Angeles, he singled out San Francisco, Sacramento, Oakland, New York and Chicago.

Many of these cities “have been highly critical of what they see as the federal government’s inability to effectively police our nation’s borders,” Roth said during a hearing of the Senate Government Operations permanent investigations subcommittee on illegal immigrants. “I think that’s hypocritical.”

Roth’s amendment, passed by the Senate on a 93-6 vote Tuesday, requires state and local government to provide information to federal immigration authorities that will help them enforce immigration laws. It has not been approved by the House.

It directs Atty. Gen. Janet Reno, working with INS Commissioner Doris Meissner, to report to President Clinton and Congress within six months on the level of local and state cooperation. Any jurisdiction determined to be uncooperative would be denied crime funds until its policy was changed.

A number of cities, including some in California, passed sanctuary laws in the last decade--during a time when feelings toward immigrants were less hostile--in an effort to help preserve the human rights of the new arrivals.

Oakland’s ordinance, noting that the nation “has historically served as a haven for refugees of religious and political persecution,” accused the INS of systematically denying asylum applications to refugees from some Central and South American countries.

A state law enacted Oct. 4 prohibits local jurisdictions from preventing police from cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of immigration laws. But it applies only to those arrested and booked on felony charges.

“As a result, the new law still allows non-cooperation regarding large numbers of illegal aliens, such as those who may have been arrested or convicted of misdemeanors and those who are administrative violators,” said Stephen H. Levin, a minority counsel on the subcommittee.

Administrative violators include immigrants who have entered the country illegally but are not wanted on criminal charges.

The status of the sanctuary laws also was questioned by California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren’s conclusion on Nov. 2, 1992, that the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause prohibits local jurisdictions from adopting such laws.

Roth’s amendment and its overwhelming adoption showed that senators take the non-cooperation policies seriously.

Los Angeles officials were incredulous when they learned of the crime bill amendment Wednesday evening.

“The federal government does not, as far as I know, instruct local jurisdictions to enforce immigration laws,” said Deputy Mayor Robin Kramer. “These riders and side things are going to rise and fall, but the crime bill will ultimately help Los Angeles.”

City Councilman Mark Ridley-Thomas predicted that the congressional action would not alter city policy. “This police department is not the Border Patrol,” he said. “Their mandate is decidedly different.

“We can’t throw together an immigration policy just to satisfy the base instincts of some, only to compound the problems we have with human relations. We should resist that at every turn.”

Justice Department spokeswoman Ana Cobian said that the Administration took no position on the amendment and declined to express an opinion.

Los Angeles Police Department policy allows its officers to inform the INS when they come in contact with illegal immigrants only in limited circumstances, according to the subcommittee. The LAPD manual states: “Undocumented alien status in itself is not a matter for police action.”

The manual also provides that “officers shall not initiate police action where the objective is to discover the alien status of a person” and officers are barred from arresting or booking anyone for the crime of illegal entry into the United States.

The subcommittee staff report said that current LAPD policy requires officers to notify the INS only when “an undocumented alien is booked for multiple misdemeanor offenses, a high-grade misdemeanor or a felony offense, or has been previously arrested for a similar offense.”

Levin noted that the LAPD is being sued by several groups that contend it has violated court rulings and its own policy by cooperating too closely with the INS.

Times staff writer James Rainey in Los Angeles contributed to this story.