Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Secretary Napolitano
Prosecutorial Discretion Survey Demonstrates Need for More Training, Consistency Across ICE Field Offices
02 months ago
It’s been almost six months since ICE Director John Morton issued new guidelines on prosecutorial discretion to help ICE agents, attorneys and other officials distinguish between high priority cases (national security threats and serious criminals) and low priority cases (DREAM Act students). A recent survey released by the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) and the American Immigration Council takes a look at how well those guidelines are translating into actual practice at ICE offices around the country. While the results show that prosecutorial discretion was applied in some cases, the majority of cases show that ICE field offices are confused and hesitant to make decisions, demonstrating the need for more guidance and training from DHS headquarters.
The survey tracks the attitudes and responses to 252 cases from across the country in which immigration attorneys requested the use of prosecutorial discretion. Although attorneys sought different outcomes—some sought the termination of a case, others deferral of removal or the close of a case in immigration court—it appears that similar cases received different treatment in different parts of the country. In some cases, requests which seemed to squarely fit within the guidance were denied summarily.
Granted, the use of discretion is fundamentally a judgment call, so disagreements about whether a particular case was properly decided are legitimate. But the point of this survey is not to suggest that all denials were incorrect, rather, to determine whether local ICE offices have the tools, guidance and training they need from DHS headquarters to make consistent decisions. It is clear that at the time the survey was conducted, they did not.
ICE, however, has acknowledged the need for more training. John Morton has been taking his show on the road, pressing for responsible decision-making. Likewise, Secretary Napolitano has argued that prosecutorial discretion is a critical law enforcement tool that moves immigration officer away from viewing all undocumented immigrants in the same light.
The ICE training is a good sign and continuing to track the results of that training is essential to making it work. But if DHS truly wants to maintain the momentum and value of its policy decisions, it must continue to provide guidance and training throughout the department. Both USCIS and CBP officials, as well as ICE agents, need to be held accountable and to understand the new expectations. The proposed review of all immigration cases currently pending before the immigration judges must begin to show some results as well.
In short, at the six month mark, it may be understandable that there is still some confusion about how to execute the policy. But by next year, people will be even less willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt without more evidence that Washington policy has translated into field action.
How Will DHS Continue to Partner on Existing State Enforcement Programs Given Legal Challenge to Alabama’s Law?
03 months ago
Today, several newspapers reported on DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano’s statement that the federal government is not going to help Alabama implement its new immigration law, leaving many to wonder how the federal government will continue running existing state and local immigration enforcement programs like Secure Communities. On one hand, the federal government has sued Alabama claiming that its immigration law (HB 56) is unconstitutional. On the other, the federal government regularly partners with state and local police agencies to identify unauthorized immigrants for potential deportation. Secretary Napolitano now faces the difficult decision of what DHS will do with unauthorized immigrants in Alabama who may have been picked up under the new law.
The federal government regularly partners with states through enforcement programs such as Secure Communities, which runs fingerprints through federal databases, and 287(g) programs which gives local law enforcement agencies the power to enforce federal immigration law. As of today, 37 Alabama counties (roughly 55% of the state) participate in Secure Communities. The Alabama Department of Public Safety and the Etowah County Sheriff’s Department participate in the 287(g) program. Immigrants who have been identified, arrested, detained or otherwise come into contact with local law enforcement agents through either program are funneled into the immigration deportation system.
At the same time, state immigration laws like Alabama’s requires local authorities to verify individual’s immigration status “where reasonable suspicion exists” by contacting the federal government (ICE). Section 19 of Alabama’s law requires that anyone determined to be unlawfully present must be detained “until prosecution or until handed over to federal immigration authorities.” So even if the charges are dropped or the immigrant is found innocent of any wrongdoing, s/he must be turned over to federal immigration authorities. Under Section 20 of Alabama’s law, “if any unlawfully present person is convicted of a violation of state or local law,” the jail must notify federal immigration authorities before releasing him or her at the end of his or her sentence.
In this environment, it is likely that police will stop people suspected of being unauthorized—per HB 56—on minor violations in order to get them into jail and run through the Secure Communities program. Alabama police and state agencies will then be required to contact ICE to determine their immigration status, thus alerting ICE of a potentially deportable immigrant in custody. Those convicted of new crimes under the new law would be “criminal aliens” and ICE would be expected to take custody of all of these people identified, arrested, or convicted in Alabama and put them into deportation proceedings.
If ICE were to respond to all of the activity in Alabama, it would mean spending resources to pick up and process for deportation countless individuals who are not serious threats to the country and who have not committed serious crimes and who fall into ICE’s lowest priority levels. This means that ICE would have fewer resources to deal with serious criminals, terrorists, and other priority individuals.
The federal government does have a very real role to play in the implementation of Alabama’s new law. Regardless of the legal challenges, through Secure Communities, 287(g), and other communications, ICE will be alerted when Alabama police have someone in custody they believe ICE should take.
Although Secretary Napolitano testified that DHS will not help Alabama implement its law, she must decide how the agency will respond to requests from Alabama. Will she allow one state to set ICE’s priorities and use limited resources to deport non-priority cases? Or will ICE exercise its prosecutorial discretion and choose not to move forward with non-priority cases from Alabama? Or will ICE suspend Secure Communities and 287(g) in Alabama over conflicts with the new law?
Photo by MDGovpics.
Secretary Napolitano Acknowledges “Messaging Problem,” Dismisses Criticism of Key Enforcement Programs
04 months ago
In a speech at American University yesterday, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano complained that she was tired of criticism from the left and the right that accuse DHS of both blindly deporting undocumented immigrants and participating in attempts at amnesty through the use of prosecutorial discretion. Secretary Napolitano argued that both cannot be true, but that these conflicting criticisms signify the need for a “reality check” on the way we talk about immigration enforcement. Given the highly political attacks made on the Obama administration’s enforcement strategies in recent months—especially those made by restrictionist Rep. Lamar Smith—many are sympathetic to the need for a reality check. But that check must also include an honest look at all of DHS’s programs, even the problematic ones.
Secretary Napolitano bristled at criticism yesterday from across the political spectrum that not enough has been done to end deportations or improve the immigration system. In particular, she took subtle aim at the numerous critics of Secure Communities. While acknowledging that DHS had done a bad job messaging the program, and that it needed some tweaks, she dismissed much of the legitimate criticism of Secure Communities.
Despite the misleading commentary about this program, it has proven to be the single best tool at focusing our immigration enforcement resources on criminals and egregious immigration law violators.
Termination of this program would do nothing to decrease the amount of enforcement. It would only weaken public safety, and move the immigration enforcement system back towards the ad hoc approach where non-criminal aliens are more likely to be removed than criminals.
This attitude doesn’t bode well for the numerous recommendations made by the Interagency Task Force on Secure Communities that were forwarded to the Secretary by the Homeland Security Advisory Committee in September. Even more disturbing, the Secretary seemed to lump all criticism of DHS enforcement into the same category, equating critiquing DHS with diluting efforts to obtain immigration reform:
We can all agree that we need fair, consistent, and enforceable immigration laws that encourage the free flow of commerce, while respecting both security and the rights of individuals. We will continue to work toward that common goal.
But we can’t do it alone—which is why I am calling on advocates on all sides of this issue to work with us and the Congress on these issues, rather than attacking the system, or the people who work in it, as a whole.
In other words, leave DHS alone and focus on Congress.
In the face of the growing hysteria on the right over the use of recent prosecutorial discretion guidelines, it is understandable that the Secretary feels the need to defend her decisions and approach. In the process, however, she signaled that she considers critics of DHS who seek more generous policies to be equally hysterical for “attacking the system.”
This is a mistake if only because most of the groups pushing for reforms within DHS have also pushed for reform within Congress for years. Lumping all critics together may feel “safe” in that Napolitano can’t be accused of playing favorites by the restrictionists who dog her every step, but it clouds and confuses her message.
If DHS is really proud of its accomplishments, it should welcome additional critiques of how to improve the system. Instead, the Secretary’s speech signals that constructive criticism is an obstacle to reform.
Photo by CAP Action Fund.
Next Stop, Napolitano: DHS Committee Approves Task Force Recommendations on Secure Communities
04 months ago
Last week, a task force created to study DHS’ controversial “Secure Communities” initiative issued a report listing a series of recommendations to improve the program. Among other proposals, the task force recommended that federal authorities standardize the use of prosecutorial discretion around the country, make the program more transparent, and decline to initiate deportation proceedings against immigrants who have not been convicted of serious crimes or otherwise pose a threat to public safety. As of yesterday, those recommendations are one step closer actual implementation as the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) voted to approve the task force’s findings and submit them for further consideration to DHS leadership, including Secretary Janet Napolitano. While HSAC agreed (almost) unanimously to submit the recommendations to DHS, the committee was careful to characterize the findings as a good first step rather than a cure to problems with Secure Communities.
The vote, in which only one advisory council member dissented, followed a series of endorsements from some of the most recognizable names in law enforcement. William Bratton, who previously served as New York City Police Commissioner and Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, said he fully supported the task force’s recommendations and that the consistent exercise of prosecutorial discretion represented “the heart of the issue.” His remarks were echoed by Leroy Baca, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County.
John Magaw, a former director of the ATF and the Secret Service, called the report a “huge step forward.” And Judge William Webster, a former director of both the FBI and CIA, said the report contained well-though out recommendations that should make the problems with Secure Communities clear to Secretary Napolitano.
The creation of the task force was announced last June, along with the release of a two separate memoranda on prosecutorial discretion by ICE Director John Morton. Originally, the task force’s only assignment was to propose recommendations for cases of immigrants arrested for minor traffic offenses. However, task force members largely agreed that its report should address the program’s structural problems—including the misleading manner in which federal authorities rolled out the program, and the corresponding confusion in immigrant communities over the way its operates.
The only member of the advisory council who dissented from Thursday’s vote—Manny Diaz, the former Mayor of Miami—said the task force’s recommendations did not go far enough. Diaz said immigration officials will never be able to consistently exercise prosecutorial discretion in different parts of the country, and that the program should be suspended entirely against all immigrants save those who are truly dangerous or pose a threat to public safety. His comments reflected the concerns of task force members who resigned in the days before the report’s release, arguing that Secure Communities should be suspended outright until it is fixed.
Photo by Antonio Villaraigosa.
Some Hopeful, Early Signs That Prosecutorial Discretion Is Being Exercised
05 months ago
While the prospect of temporary immigration reprieves—made possible by DHS’s recent announcement that it will standardize its use of prosecutorial discretion—has excited many people, the devil remains in the details. Attorneys and community groups continue to caution that no one knows how fast or how wide spread this relief will be. Part of the confusion comes from the manner of the announcement which was made by Secretary Napolitano through a letter to Senator Durbin and others. Consequently, there have been no public fact sheets or uniform guidance issued by DHS to reassure the public or to explain the process to the department’s agencies or numerous employees. Although no one should expect DHS to drastically change its policies overnight, evidence that change is in the air is breaking through in the first reports of cases closed as a result of the announcement.
This week, the Huffington Post reported on the success of the new policy in the case of two Georgia teenagers: Pedro Morales and Luis Enrique Hernandez.
Morales has lived in the country from the age of seven, graduated from Gordon Central high school in Calhoun, and says he will be attending the Georgia Northwestern Technical College in the coming months. ‘I feel great being able to stay here, I grew up in this country. I don’t know anything about Mexico. This is my home.’
Hernandez was brought to the United States by his parents when he was two years old, and is currently a high school student and two-sport athlete. Like Morales, Hernandez was stopped while driving, and waited trial for over two months in the Stewart detention center. During this time, his coaches and teachers wrote letters to the authorities describing Hernandez’s moral character and benefit to the community and pleading for his release.
Morales and Hernandez’s cases were closed because of quick action on their attorneys’ part. CNN reports:
A day after the guidelines were announced, Georgia attorney Charles Kuck argued in court that his clients’ cases should be dropped under the new guidelines.
The clients—two teens with no criminal records who police arrested during traffic stops—were released from a detention center on Tuesday, Kuck said.
‘These kids were detained for months. We had previously asked for their release numerous times,’ he said. ‘It was only after the memo came out that they were released.’
It’s important to note that these young men were already in the immigration system, and represented by counsel. They did not seek out immigration officials, but were picked up through traffic stops. There is no guarantee that any case will turn out as well as Morales and Hernandez, and immigration attorneys are warning against anyone rushing out on their own. According to Eleanor Pelta, President of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, caution is still the word:
Some attorneys say they’re seeing more cases administratively closed, Pelta said, but others say local immigration officers have told them they need more guidance from the federal government before they can change course.
We hope that there will be more stories like those of the Georgia teenagers, but even their story only has a temporary happy ending. Slowing down the deportation machine is important, but the long term consequence will never change until we go further and fix our broken immigration system.
Photo by Lane V. Erickson.
Anti-Immigrant Activists Hysterical Over Recent DHS Guidelines
05 months ago
Anti-immigrant activists are nothing if not predictable. They scream “amnesty” whenever any administration or congress tries to inject a little justice and humanity into our broken immigration system. So, naturally, the anti-immigrant crowd has been screaming “amnesty” without pause since August 18—the day the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would review all of the nearly 300,000 pending deportation cases in order to identify those which are “low priority” and should be “administratively closed.” In other words, DHS will focus on deporting dangerous criminals rather than dishwashers.
This is a relatively modest policy shift and amounts to a decision as to how finite DHS resources can best be utilized to enhance national security and public safety. Needless to say, anti-immigrant activists don’t see it this way. Judging from their shrill comments, the DHS announcement means that all unauthorized immigrants in the country are now on the road to legal status, that all U.S. immigration laws have been rescinded, and that the Obama Administration is trampling upon the Constitution, Congress, and the public in its lawless quest for open and uncontrolled borders.
The statements coming from the anti-immigrant crowd range from the farcical to the delusional. Consider the following:
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC):
“Obama has just created a constitutional crisis by nullifying the US Constitution, existing federal immigration laws, the votes of the Congress, and every vote cast and e-mail sent by Americans who have defeated this Amnesty legislation eight times in the last six years. This is the death of a nation. This is the fall of the American Republic and the loss of all that our forebears have fought to build and preserve.”
Stuart Hurlbert, board member of Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS):
“Effectively this is mass amnesty and another announcement to the world that indeed our gates are wide open. When the next million invaders arrive, Obama and Napolitano will plead that now a ‘shortage of resources’ forces them to limit enforcement actions only to serial killers who are unshaven, have bad manners and have killed in excess of ten persons.”
Frosty Wooldridge, advisory board member of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):
“In the most anti-American act of his short term in office, Barack Hussein Obama, an outsider president gave amnesty to over 20 million illegal aliens and possibly a much higher number when the final count arrives. Obama, America’s chief law enforcement officer, decided to stop enforcing the law. No more deportations of illegal aliens! Usurp every legal immigrant and American citizen! U.S. borders do not mean anything anymore and U.S. sovereignty has been assigned to the highest bidder: employers of illegal aliens.”
Rick Oltman, former employee of FAIR and CAPS:
“In the most anti-American act of his administration that showed complete contempt for America and Americans, President Barack Hussein Obama amnestied over 30 million illegal aliens on Thursday. There was no legislation, no debate and no consideration for American citizens… It was cowardly because Obama and the political elites of both parties who want amnesty for illegal aliens knew they couldn’t get the legislation passed.”
Comments such as these bear no relationship to what DHS actually announced on August 18. But accuracy is not a highly valued trait in anti-immigrant circles. Inflamed and inflammatory rhetoric is far more important than facts.
Photo by CREATISTA.
DHS Acknowledges that U.S. Immigration Policy Needs to Spark Economy and Attract Entrepreneurs
06 months ago
By PAUL ZULKIE, PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
Yesterday, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Alejandro Mayorkas announced a series of policy initiatives designed to “fuel the nation’s economy and stimulate investment” by attracting foreign entrepreneurs who can invest in fields of high unemployment, create jobs, and form startup companies. It is encouraging that USCIS recognizes that immigrant entrepreneurs and innovators are a key to continued growth and to maintaining America’s competitive edge into the 21st century. It’s important that the agency keep this recognition in mind as it adjudicates visa petitions and applications.
The release of the USCIS guidelines coincided with a meeting in Palo Alto, CA, of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. The meeting, which included a number of Silicon Valley CEOs—including Facebook—highlighted the need for reforms in both educational and immigration policies. As the participants in the meeting explained, the struggling U.S. economy needs more entrepreneurs and highly skilled workers who can help to create jobs. For this to happen, the U.S. educational system must draw more students into high-tech fields, while the U.S. immigration system must attract (and retain) more foreign talent.
The importance of immigrant entrepreneurs in fueling U.S. economic growth and job creation was the subject of a June report by the Partnership for a New American Economy. The report, entitled The “New American” Fortune 500, finds that immigrants founded 18 percent of all Fortune 500 companies. These companies generate $1.7 trillion in annual revenue and employ 3.7 million workers worldwide. The report argues that this is evidence of how immigrants “create American jobs and drive our economy.” However, notes the report, the U.S. immigration system often forces immigrant entrepreneurs away, rather than welcoming them.
And if the United States drives them away, there are other places they can go. As an April report from the Kauffman Foundation describes, many highly educated and skilled immigrants are opting to return to their home countries and start successful businesses there. The authors of the report, entitled The Grass is Indeed Greener in India and China for Returnee Entrepreneurs, interviewed nearly 300 returnees in India and China who had started their own businesses. Some interviewees cited the difficulty in getting a U.S. “green card” as a reason for returning home, but the biggest reasons had to do with family ties and with improved quality of life and career opportunities in India and China. In other words, China and India are becoming increasingly competitive in the global market for highly skilled professionals and the United States risks falling behind. According to the report’s lead author, Vivek Wadhwa of Duke University, “Innovation that would otherwise be happening here is going abroad. Without realizing it, we are exporting our prosperity and strengthening our competitors.”
Yesterday’s announcement is significant because DHS is acknowledging that the way it has applied existing immigration laws has hurt rather than helped the economy and job creation. The announcement sends a clear message to the rank and file employees of DHS that the agency needs to be more business friendly. Hopefully, yesterday’s announcement will be the first of many areas where the administration can change the way it interprets and applies existing immigration laws to facilitate economic and jobs growth in the US.
Department of Justice Seeks Injunction Against Alabama’s Anti-Immigrant Law
06 months ago
Yesterday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed yet another lawsuit against extreme state-level immigration laws—this time against Alabama’s HB 56. Already the subject of a class action lawsuit filed by the ACLU and other immigrants’ rights groups, Alabama’s HB 56 would require local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of those stopped for traffic violations, public schools to determine the immigration status of students, employers to use E-Verify and makes it a crime to knowingly rent to, transport or harbor undocumented immigrants. In its motion for a preliminary injunction, however, the DOJ argues that Alabama’s law, much like Arizona’s, interferes with the federal enforcement of immigration laws and places undue burdens on local schools and federal agencies. Alabama’s law was signed into law by Governor Robert Bentley in June and slated to take effect September 1.
According to the DOJ, HB 56, in addition to interfering with federal enforcement efforts, could also result in the “harassment and detention” of U.S. citizens, visiting foreigners and legal immigrants who may not be able to readily prove their citizenship. The law would also burden federal agencies by vital diverting resources away from the pursuit of dangerous criminals as well as unnecessarily burden children by making students prove their lawful presence.
According to Attorney General Eric Holder:
…setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility that cannot be addressed through a patchwork of state immigration laws. The department is committed to evaluating each state immigration law and making decisions based on the facts and the law. To the extent we find state laws that interfere with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law, we are prepared to bring suit, as we did in Arizona.
Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, echoed Holder’s statement:
Legislation like this diverts critical law enforcement resources from the most serious threats to public safety and undermines the vital trust between local jurisdictions and the communities they serve. We continue to support comprehensive reform of our immigration system at the federal level because this challenge cannot be solved by a patchwork of inconsistent state laws.
In a separate lawsuit filed Monday, Alabama faith leaders charged that HB 56 would hinder faith groups’ ability to “provide things such as food clothing, shelter and transportation to those in need.”
Last year, the DOJ filed a similar suit against Arizona’s SB1070, resulting in a ruling that enjoined key provisions of Arizona’s law. Earlier this year, the federal court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a ruling that the federal government has primary authority over making and enforcing immigration law, and that while states have limited authority in this arena, they cannot interfere with federal enforcement or undermine federal priorities.
To date, federal judges have blocked key provisions of restrictive state immigration laws in four (Arizona, Utah, Georgia and Indiana) of the six states that have passed them, citing a violation of the Constitution’s due process and search and seizure provisions, and the interference with the federal government’s authority over immigration matters. A federal judge is expected to hear arguments against Alabama’s immigration law on August 24.
Meanwhile, costs to the states resulting from restrictive immigration laws—such as costs to defend these laws, loss of convention and tourism revenue and economic consequences of immigrant labor shortages on whole industries, such as agriculture industry in Georgia—continue to grow.
Photo by Maitri.
Senate Hearing on DREAM Act Emphasizes Need for Relief
07 months ago
Today, the U.S. Senate held its first ever hearing on the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act. Witnesses such as Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and Dr. Clifford Stanley, Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, testified to an overflowing Senate hearing room. The hearing renewed hope that despite a failure on the part of the Senate to pass the DREAM Act last year, Congress may yet be willing to help these deserving young adults fulfill their potential and contribute to the U.S.
Only the most cynical politician could claim that the DREAM Act is being used as a political tool after hearing the testimony of Ola Kaso, an unauthorized immigrant from Albania. Ola was brought to the U.S. at a young age by her mother, who was trying to find a better life for her and her family. Ola struggled to integrate into U.S. society at first, but by the end of high school, she had a 4.4 GPA and was a varsity athlete in both tennis and cross country. She became treasurer of both the Senior Class Student Council as well as her school’s chapter of the National Honor Society. She received numerous scholarship offers and was accepted by several universities including the University of Michigan. Yet, despite all of her achievements, Ola was ordered to be deported to Albania (despite not being fluent in Albanian) the March before her high school graduation. Luckily, Ola’s community rallied around her and was able to get DHS to grant her deferred action for one year while she continued her education. However, many DREAM Act students are not so lucky.
The DREAM Act not only accomplishes humanitarian goals like keeping deserving and innocent young students from being punished, but also allows bright young adults to contribute to the U.S. economy. A 2010 study by the UCLA North American Integration and Development Center estimated that the total earnings of DREAM Act beneficiaries over the course of their working lives would be between $1.4 trillion and $3.6 trillion. More earnings over the course of their working lives means another way that the U.S. can seek to reduce its deficits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House version of the DREAM Act (H.R. 6497), as introduced on December 7, 2010, “would reduce deficits by about $2.2 billion over the 2011-2020 period.”
After being pressed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), DHS Secretary Napolitano made clear that in the absence of the DREAM Act, there would be no categorical “amnesty” for DREAM Act eligible students. But on June 17, the Obama administration took a small step that may benefit some DREAM Act students. In a memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Director John Morton outlined 19 factors (ranging from age and when someone came to the country to community ties) that ICE officials should weigh when deciding whether to prosecute an immigration case. While there is no categorical pronouncement that all DREAM act students shall receive deferred action, the Obama Administration is at least signaling that these types of cases merit an individualized assessment.
Small steps like this memo and the continued push on the part of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) for the DREAM Act give hope that Congress will soon realize the obvious fiscal and humanitarian benefits of keeping these bright young adults in the United States.
Photo by Antonio Villaraigosa
More States Question Participation in ICE’s Secure Communities Program
08 months ago
Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper questions state's participation in Secure Communities program
Earlier this week, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick announced that the state of Massachusetts would not sign an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to participate in the Secure Communities program, making it the third state in recent weeks to question participation in the controversial enforcement program. That chorus of concern, however, grew louder this week as Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper questioned whether the program—which shares the fingerprints of individuals booked into local jails with federal immigration databases—is being implemented properly in Colorado. Also this week, the Los Angeles City Council voted to support a resolution that allows communities to opt-out of Secure Communities, which many argue is targeting a broader swath of people than the dangerous criminals the program states as its intended target.
Labeling Secure Communities a mere “fix” in the absence of much-needed federal reforms, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper called for a full review of the program:
“We’re gathering data. We’re going to do a full evaluation of whether it’s working,” Hickenlooper said Monday. “Always from the beginning, I said I wanted to make sure we had the real facts on this.” … who expressed some support for the program as a candidate but also has stressed that there be no racial profiling and that it be implemented “properly.”
Like many states, Colorado has good reason to question participation the program—a program ICE contends only targets “serious criminals.” According to the Denver Post, “in Colorado, through March, two-thirds of the 21 people detained and deported after being identified through Secure Communities were not in the category of the most serious criminals.”
In recent weeks, New York Governor Cuomo announced that New York would terminate its agreement with DHS, as did Governor Quinn of Illinois who made a similar announcement several weeks before, both of whom claim the program is having the opposite effect of its intended purpose (to target those who pose the greatest threat to the community) and compromises public safety by deterring witnesses to crime and others from working with law enforcement.
ICE officials, however, claim that states have no choice but to participate in Secure Communities since “the data-sharing systems the program relies upon are already in place” and because governors have “no legal standing to block their use.”
Communities, however, have long been confused whether they ever had a choice in participating in the program, a policy some suspect ICE was purposefully vague in explaining. In fact, earlier this year, California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) called for an investigation into the actions of federal immigration officials whom she said lied about whether states and localities had the right to opt-out of the program.
But in or out, the chorus demanding more from the Administration on immigration other than a vague enforcement and damaging measures like Secure Communities seems likely to grow louder. The New York Times summarizes the tension well:
The message is clear and growing louder: Mr. Obama and the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, need to try something else. That something else is real immigration reform that combines a path to legality with necessary measures to secure our borders and deport real criminals who are here illegally.
Photo by Roy Lee B.