“The Department of Homeland Security is troubled by the Department of Justice’s findings of discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO),” said DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano in a statement. “Discrimination undermines law enforcement and erodes the public trust. DHS will not be a party to such practices.”

Following a three-year investigation into MCSO’s practices, DOJ found that the office had engaged in racial profiling, unlawful seizures, unjustified stops and arrests, and other discriminatory actions in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment.

It also found that Latino drivers were four to nine times more likely to be stopped than non-Latino drivers in similar situations.

Other findings included:

• DOJ’s review of all of the traffic-related incident reports generated by MCSO’s Human Smuggling Unit (“HSU”) over a three-year period showed that roughly one-fifth of the reports, almost all of which involved Latino drivers, contained information indicating that the stops were conduct ed in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures.
• Individual accounts regarding MCSO deputies stopping Latinos on the basis of their appearance corroborate the use of discriminatory policing practices.
• DOJ’s investigation uncovered a number of instances in which immigration-related crime suppression activities were initiated in the community after MCSO received complaints that described no criminal activity, put rather referred, for instance, to individuals with “dark skin” congregating in one area, or individuals speaking Spanish at a local business. The use of these types of bias-infected indicators as a basis for conducting enforcement activity contributes to the high number of stops and detentions lacking in legal justification.
• MCSO detention officers discriminatorily punish Latino LEP inmates who fail to understand commands given in English by, for example, locking down their pods (which increases the risk of inmate-on-inmate violence), or imposing disciplinary segregation (solitary confinement).
• MCSO pressures Latino LEP inmates to sign voluntary return forms that implicate constitutional and statutory rights without language assistance.
• MCSO retaliates against individuals who criticize its police practices, including practices relating to its discriminatory treatment of Latinos, by subjecting its critics to retaliatory detentions and arrests without cause, unfounded civil lawsuits, and other baseless complaints.
• MCSO fosters and perpetuates discriminatory police and jail practices by failing to operate in accordance with basic policing and correctional practices and by failing to develop and implement policing and correctional safeguards against discrimination in such areas as training, supervision, and accountability systems.

“We find that MCSO deputies, detention officers, supervisory staff, and command staff, including Sheriff Arpaio, have engaged in a widespread pattern or practice of law enforcement and jail activities that discriminate against Latinos,” wrote writers of the report. “This discrimination flows directly from a culture of bias and institutional deficiencies that result in the discriminatory treatment of Latinos.”

The report puts into question DHS’s own practices in oversight and racial profiling training. In June, DHS announced that it would create a program to protect civil rights and civil liberties, which included a “Secure Communities 101″ video to train police in their responsibilities to protect civil rights and a quarterly statistical oversight tool to look for signs of improper police practices.

The findings by DOJ may also offer a precedent for communities that have been trying to opt-out of the program over the last year and who argue that programs like Secure Communities promotes racial profiling.

Below is the report, feel free to add your comments.

Nearly 400,000 Deported from the U.S. in 2011

The Administration reported this week that it had deported a record number of undocumented immigrants for the third year in a row, removing 396,906 individuals in FY2011.

“These year-end totals indicate that we are making progress, with more convicted criminals, recent border crossers, egregious immigration law violators and immigration fugitives being removed from the country than ever before,” said Immigration Customs and Enforcement Director John Morton.

According to the enforcement agency, nearly 55 percent or 216,698 of the people removed were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors — an 89 percent increase in the removal of criminals since FY 2008. This included 1,119 immigrants convicted of homicide; 5,848 immigrants convicted of sexual offenses; 44,653 immigrants convicted of drug related crimes; and 35,927 immigrants convicted of driving under the influence. Meanwhile, it reported that ninety percent of all ICE’s removals fell into a priority category and more than two-thirds of the other removals in 2011 were either recent border crossers or repeat immigration violators.

Critics of the administration’s failure to address systemic reform expressed disappointment with the enforcement tally. “President Obama has continued his aggressive persecution, jailing, and deportation of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who he has labeled ‘criminals’ and whose lives are being destroyed through traffic violations and similar minor infractions,” said Roberto Lovato of Presente.org.

The agency has continued to aggressively defend the increasingly unpopular program despite the program’s shortcomings. Critics have argued that the program has veered off its mandate of targeting priority offenders and deteriorated relationships between local police and the communities they work in.

In August, ICE announced  it would launch a case-by-case review of  approximately 300,000 cases of undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings, allowing those who pose no threat to society to remain in the country and apply for a work permit. It also laid out new guidelines to address enforcement activity, detention decisions, budget requests and prosecutorial discretion.

Frontline and CNBC Document On-Going Problems with Immigration Enforcement and Detention

PBS’s Frontline, in partnership with The Investigative Reporting Workshop, produced “Lost in Detention,” a documentary based on a year-long investigation into America’s vast immigrant detention system and documented the far-rearching impact of the Obama administration’s controversial immigration enforcement policies. It examines the abuses at the Willacy Detention Center, also known as Tent City, which was given a “good” grade even after 900 complaints were filed by detainees and featured the story of “Mary,” a Canadian immigrant who was held there and sexually abused by a guard.

“Lost in Detention” is based on the work that Deportation Nation‘s Stokely Baksh began as a post-graduate fellow at the Investigative Reporting Workshop:

The Workshop requested data going back a decade about people held by the U.S. government for deportation, including detainee names, when and where individuals were booked in and booked out of detention, and what prompted their arrest. We asked for this information in several Freedom of Information Act requests to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, part of the Department of Homeland Security, one of the nation’s largest, federal, law-enforcement agencies.

What arrived at our doorstep in 2009 was a mess of confusing and incomplete information that didn’t help us answer our original questions.  After months of trying to pry data from the agency about those being detained, it was clear that the government didn’t always know where the detainees were held, how long they were detained, or how much they paid to house and feed them. In fact, our records showed that in some cases officials might not have known whether detainees were actually in custody or even if they were dead or alive.

Meanwhile, CNBC produced a documentary that explored the the profits and inner-workings of the multi-billion dollar corrections industry, which costs states and the federal government some $74 billion a year and employs nearly 800,000 employees, including the profitable business of immigration detention.

Warren Institute Study Highlights Problems with Secure Communities Program

Courtesy: Secure Communities by the Numbers Study

The Warren Institute at UC Berkeley School of Law released a study Wednesday that analyzed Secure Communities data obtained through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

“Programs like Secure Communities are understudied, largely because of their rapid implementation and expansion and because the data has been kept, in large part, confidential,” wrote the study’s authors. “Given that its expansion does not appear to be slowing down, it is all the more imperative that research on the impact of Secure Communities continues.”

According to the study, the findings in “Secure Communities by the Numbers: An Analysis of Demographics and Due Process” are based on a random national sample of 375 individuals who were identified as “IDENTMatches” by the Secure Communities Program and were apprehended by ICE after October 1, 2008. The Institute also analyzed data on removal proceedings.

Main findings:

• Approximately 3,600 United States citizens have been arrested by ICE through the Secure Communities program
• More than one-third (39%) of those arrested through Secure Communities report that they have a U.S. citizen spouse or child, meaning that approximately 88,000 families with U.S. citizen members have been impacted by Secure Communities
• Latinos comprise 93% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities though they only comprise 77% of the undocumented population in the United States
• Only 52% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities are slated to have a hearing before an immigration judge
• Only 24% of individuals arrested through Secure Communities and who had immigration hearings had an attorney compared to 40% of all immigration court respondents who have counsel
• Only 2% of non-citizens arrested through Secure Communities are granted relief from deportation by an immigration judge as compared to 14% of all immigration court respondents who are granted relief
• A large majority (83%) of people arrested through Secure Communities is placed in ICE detention as compared with an overall DHS immigration detention rate of 62%, and ICE does not appear to be exercising discretion based on its own prioritization system when deciding whether or not to detain an individual.

“The Warren Institute study demonstrates how deeply U.S. citizens’ own rights have been eroded in the name of immigration enforcement. The Obama administration should treat this study as the final nail in the coffin of a program that should have been buried long ago,” said Sarahi Uribe, Organizer for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

Jurisdictions Set New Guidelines to Limit Police Collaboration in Immigration Enforcement

In a 3-1 vote, Santa Clara County officials approved a new set of guidelines for civil immigration detainers, which would limit the county’s collaboration with ICE officials. The guidelines would require the county to only honor those detainers convicted of “serious” or “violent” felonies and it would not apply a detainer hold on juveniles. The guidelines would also require a written agreement from ICE to reimburse all costs incurred by the County for holding a detainer for an extended time.

According to the New America Media, Supervisor George Shirakawa told an audience of supporters, “Today is historic. We now have the most progressive policy in this field, and the whole nation will be looking at us as Santa Clara County makes it official: we don’t do ICE’s job.”

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reported that Washington D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) signed an executive order that would prohibit police, fire fighters, the attorney general’s office and other public safety agencies from inquiring about a person’s immigrant status or contacting ICE. However, the order does not apply in criminal investigations.

ACLU Releases Documents on Sexual Abuse Complaints in Immigration Detention Centers

Click to go to interactive map of sexual abuse complaints by state and facility

The ACLU released documents obtained through a FOIA request that shows the nearly 200 allegations of sexual abuse in today’s immigration detention centers. It coincided with a federal class action suit filed by the ACLU of Texas on behalf of three immigrant women who were sexually assaulted, while they here held at the controversial T. Don Hutto facility.

According to the ACLU, 185 complaints had been made to DHS since 2007, 56 of which were from facilities in Texas. The defendants in the lawsuit include three ICE officials; Williamson County, Texas; Corrections Corporation of America (CCA); the former facility administrator for Hutto; and Donald Dunn, a guard who pleaded guilty in state court to three counts of official oppression and two counts of unlawful restraint based on his assaults of five women, reported the ACLU. Dunn was also charged with four additional federal counts of criminal violation of civil rights.

The ACLU also reported:

The assaults occurred when Dunn alone was transporting women from the Hutto facility to the airport or bus station in nearby Austin. Log books and other documents obtained by the ACLU of Texas indicate that in addition to the seven known occasions on which Dunn is believed to have assaulted a total of nine women, at least 20 different male guards transported at least 44 female detainees alone between December 2008 and May 2010. The lawsuit alleges that ICE, Williamson County and CCA were deliberately indifferent and willfully blind to the fact that Dunn and other employees regularly violated the rule that detainees not be transported without another escort officer of the same gender present.

“Unfortunately, we believe these complaints are just the tip of the iceberg,” said Mark Whitburn, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Texas. “Immigrants in detention are uniquely vulnerable to abuse, and those holding them in custody know it. Many do not speak English, many – like our plaintiffs – have fled violence in their home countries and are terrified of being returned. They may not be aware of their rights or they may be afraid to exercise them.”

The ACLU also launched a new page on its website devoted to the issue of sexual abuse of immigration detainees and a special blog series examining the consequences of detention. The ACLU’s Blog of Rights will host the series, which will run from Oct. 19 through Nov. 1, and examine ramped up enforcement efforts, deaths in detention, mental disabilities, sexual abuse, prolonged detention and privatization of detention facilities.

Protestors in Chicago. Sarah-ji/Flickr

A task force charged with making recommendations to improve the controversial Secure Communities program, released a critical draft report last week, saying that the Administration continued to create confusion about its enforcement priorities and underestimated the negative impact the program had on immigrant communities and community policing.

Their report now heads to the Homeland Security Advisory Council who will review and finalize the task force’s recommendations before sending it to ICE Director John Morton.

“ICE must recognize that it does not work in a vacuum and that its enforcement actions impact other agencies and the relationships with their communities in what some may conclude is a negative way,” task force members wrote in the report.

The report was released after members held public meetings in Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago and Arlington, VA last month. The emotionally-charged hearings had brought out many who shared personal stories and chanted for the end of the program. Participants also held walk-outs and protests. In Chicago, several demonstrators were arrested after staging a sit-in that blocked traffic.

The task force made several recommendations (click here to read the full report):

• ICE must clarify the goals and objectives of the Secure Communities program, as well as the parameters and functioning of the program, and accurately relay this information to participating jurisdictions, future participating jurisdictions, and the communities they serve. Regardless of whether ICE has legal authority to operate Secure Communities without local agreement, ICE must work to develop good working relationships with states, cities, and communities.
• ICE must improve the transparency of the program.
• There is broad consensus in the nation that persons convicted of serious crimes who are in the United States illegally should be subject to deportation. ICE must build on that consensus by implementing systematic mechanisms to ensure that Secure Communities adheres to its stated enforcement objective of prioritizing those who pose a risk to public safety or national security.
• ICE should clarify that civil immigration law violators and individuals who are convicted of or charged with misdemeanors or other minor offenses are not top enforcement priorities unless there are other indicia that they pose a serious risk to public safety or national security.
• DHS must exercise its prosecutorial discretion, in all its immigration enforcement endeavors, in line with stated enforcement priorities, and take systematic steps to train and monitor field officers and attorneys as they implement Departmental policies on prosecutorial discretion.
• DHS must strengthen accountability mechanisms, including remedies for and prevention of civil rights and civil liberties violations.

However, members could not come to a consensus on whether the program should be suspended until it is improved or terminated altogether.

The report also prompted the resignation of five members including Chris Crane and Monica Beamer of the American Federation of Government Employees and Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto of the AFL-CIO, who resigned because they felt the report did not reflect their concerns or recommendations. Arturo Venegas, a retired police chief of Sacramento and director of the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative, also chose to resign because he felt the report fell short.

“At the Task Force hearing in Los Angeles, I heard testimony from a woman who was arrested for selling popsicles without a license and put into deportation proceedings through the Secure Communities program,” wrote Venegas in a letter to Task Force Chairman Chuck Wexler. “When I look at the recommendations in this report, I think about that woman and the wave of fear her arrest and pending deportation has caused in her community. Had the task force recommendations been in place at the time, I believe she would have had the exact same experience.”

A spokesman for the Administration said that President Obama will meet with those members who resigned.

This week the Obama Administration announced new guidelines to unclog the immigration courts by allowing low-priority immigrant offenders to remain in the country and apply for a work permit. The White House promoted that DHS had for the first time “prioritized the removal of people who have been convicted of crimes in the United States.”

The decision coincided with advocates calling for the termination of the unpopular Secure Communities program. Protests held in Los Angeles and Chicago resulted in walk-outs and arrests as a result of public hearings with members of the Secure Communities Task Force.

Meanwhile, the FOIA war between ICE and an immigrant coalition made up of the Center for Constitutional Rights, National Day Laborer Organizing Network and Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic continued to rage on. A New York judge ordered the reproduction of hundreds of documents, this time unredacted.

OBAMA HALTS DEPORTATION OF LOW PRIORITY OFFENDERS
The government announced Thursday that low priority immigrant offenders will not be targeted for deportation under new guidelines. According to White House officials, the government will launch a case-by-case review of  approximately 300,000 cases of undocumented immigrants in removal proceedings, allowing those who pose no threat to society to remain in the country and apply for a work permit.

The announcement follows up on a June memo that laid out priorities for the Immigration Customs and Enforcement agency across the board that addressed enforcement activity, detention decisions, budget requests and prosecutorial discretion. The memo also prioritized three tiers of high priority immigrants including those that pose a danger, recent border entrants, and repeat violators.

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano informed lawmakers including Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) about the new guidelines responding to congressional inquiries about the agency’s enforcement priorities and the DREAM Act.

“From a law enforcement and public safety perspective, DHS enforcement resources must continue to be focused on our highest priorities,” wrote Napolitano in a letter to Reid. “Doing otherwise hinders our public safety mission – clogging immigration court dockets and diverting DHS enforcement resources away from individuals who pose a threat to public safety.”

According to Napolitano and officials, over 50 percent of individuals removed by ICE in a fiscal year were convicted criminals, thanks to the expansion of the Secure Communities program. Meanwhile, of those removed with no criminal convictions, two-thirds were apprehended at the border or repeat immigration violators, she wrote.

Last year, the Administration reported that it deported nearly 400,000 and almost a million people have been deported since Obama took office. Critics of the Administration’s enforcement and deportation policies have looked to ICE’s own data to argue that many of those deported have been non-criminals or low-priority offenders.

Officials said they don’t expect to see a dramatic change in the number of people deported but rather a dramatic change in the composition of the deportation population.

While advocates say this is a positive step in the right direction, many remain cautious.

“Many questions as to what the specific criteria will be and how these priorities will be implemented remain unanswered,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “We remain particularly concerned about how the administration will apply these priorities to immigrants still being detained for low-level offenses and minor traffic violations as a result of the infamous Secure Communities program, and how it will ensure relief for immigrants who do not qualify for prosecutorial discretion.”

ADVOCATES CALL FOR TERMINATION OF SECURE COMMUNITIES AT PUBLIC HEARINGS
Hundreds of advocates in Los Angeles and Chicago turned out for public hearings with members of the Secure Communities task force to persuade them to terminate the program.

The emotionally-charged hearings brought out many who chanted for the end the program and called for members to resign, groups also walked out of hearings in protest. In Chicago, several demonstrators were arrested after staging a sit-in that blocked traffic, while others marched on. Advocates also dropped off petitions in several cities at local Democratic Party headquarters to demand the termination of the program.

“The statement was to make it very clear that we are angry, that we are tired of having programs such as Secure Communities,” said Fanny Martinez in an interview with Democracy Now. “And in reality, doing the civil disobedience, we knew that we were taking the risk of possibly getting arrested, but under programs like Secure Communities, we are running the risk every day anyway, so really, this wasn’t a big difference.”

Martinez, an undocumented student and activist with the Immigrant Youth Justice League, was one of the individuals arrested and later released.

The hearings, which are being held in several cities, are aimed at collecting recommendations on how to improve the Secure Communities program. Upcoming hearings are set in Boston and Arlington, Va.

“It’s obvious to the world why DHS created the Secure Communities Task Force,” Chris Newman told Deportation Nation. “It’s a political ploy to respond to governors who opted out of Secure Communities. It’s also equally obvious, that DHS is not taking an earnest review of the program. Basically, the consensus is that DHS can’t be trusted to review itself.”

A Legal Director for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Newman debated Secure Communities task force member Adrian Garcia on Democracy Now last Thursday about the hearings and whether the program should be terminated.

Garcia is one of 20 task force members who include current and former law enforcement officers, advocates, lawyers, and scholars. His county was also one of the first to participate in the Secure Communities program.

In the interview, Garcia said that the task force recommendations would also help Congress reform the immigration system and promoted the successes of the program.

“One hundred percent of the people go through this process,” Garcia said. “And as a result, we’re finding a variety of folks of interest with questionable immigration status, and those individuals are then referred over to ICE for their ultimate determination. But it’s working here, and we believe that we have a model program here.”

Still advocates like Newman disagree that the program is doing its job.

“I think the entanglement of local police in the enforcement of unjust federal immigration laws has diverted their attention,” Newman said. “It’s certainly contributed to a fear of immigrants and conflated immigrants with criminals. It’s contributed to a fear, within the immigrant community, of police, which makes it, I think, more difficult for police and sheriffs to protect our communities.”

JUDGE ORDERS AGENCY TO SPEED UP FOIA DOCUMENT PRODUCTION
Hundreds of previously redacted documents were reproduced this week unredacted by court order. The documents detail the administration’s changing stance on participation in the Secure Communities program and is part of on-going FOIA litigation by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

In one document, an angry email exchanged dated August 6, 2010 painted a picture of frustration among ICE officials over the changing participation policy:

“We never address whether or not it is mandatory – the answer is written to sound like it is but doesn’t state it. It’s very convoluted – or is that the point? I’m all about shades of grey but this really is a black and white question… Is it mandatory? Yes or No. Ok, so not such an easy question to answer.”

Last month, federal Judge Shira A. Scheindlin ordered the agency to release withheld information on how localities may “opt-out” or limit participation in the Secure Communities — even if it may be embarrassing to the agency. “The purpose of FOIA is to shed light on the operation of government, not to shield it from embarrassment,” she said.

The coalition of advocates are now seeking documents pertinent to the agency’s legal basis on imposing Secure Communities in unwilling states like Massachusetts, Illinois, and New York, who sought to suspend or terminate their participation in the program. They except more documents to be released to them this month.

“The previously redacted portions of these documents—now public for the first time—reveal the extent of ICE’s deceit and political game-playing in its communications with states and localities,” said Sunita Patel, staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “Perhaps more disconcerting, though, is the confusion and flip-flopping within the agency about their own policies and plans for deployment of such a high-impact and unprecedented program.”

The announcement came in a letter to state governors that seeks to “clarify an issue that has been the subject of substantial confusion” as ICE continues its plan to implement the program nationwide by 2013.

“Once a state or local law enforcement agency voluntarily submits fingerprint data to the federal government, no agreement with the state is legally necessary for one part of the federal government to share it with another part,” reads the letter.

Currently 1,508 jurisdictions are activated in 44 states and territories – including Puerto Rico.

In recent months Illinois, New York and Massachusetts have all tried to suspend or cancel their agreements to share arrest data from local jails with ICE, citing fear within immigrant communities that any contact with police could lead to deportation, along with concerns about racial profiling and unjust deportations.

These states have yet to respond to the announcement but advocates there have been quick to condemn it. ICE is “rogue agency” that “is trying to rule by fiat,” said Fred Tsao of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights policy director.

Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said ICE had wasted the time of both willing and resistant officials with”protracted negotiations–at substantial cost to the American public–for what it now claims are sham contracts.”

In its letter, ICE tried to “highlight recent improvements” to Secure Communities and noted it has appointed a task force to review the program. A nationwide series of public hearings is set to begin next week in Dallas, Texas. But now some advocates wonder whether ICE really wants feedback.

“I hope this announcement will show to people who are on the task force that ICE’s efforts to say they want to hear from the public are really just a sham and they should resign,” said Sunita Patel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights.

Patel is part of a team that is locked in a legal battle with ICE over the release of documents originally requested in 2009 through the Freedom of Information Act.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin has ordered ICE to hand over the public records. “The purpose of FOIA is to shed light on the operation of government, not to shield it from embarrassment,” she said in July.

ICE until August 15 to release the public records – a decision it may appeal after she already granted two extensions.

Some advocates say ICE’s announcement is an an attempt to preempt what the documents will reveal.

Here is an excerpt from the FAQ included in the letter Morton sent today to state governors:

12. Will the Secure Communities MOAs that have already been executed remain in effect?
What is the effect of a termination of a Secure Communities MOA?

Because ICE has determined that an MOA with a state is not necessary to activate or operate
Secure Communities for jurisdictions within that state, ICE has decided to terminate all
existing MOAs. For states that already terminated their MOAs, ICE will honor the state’s
desire to no longer receive information regarding the immigration status of an individual
whose fingerprint information is submitted to the federal government via the FBI, and will
cease providing the immigration status information generated through Secure Communities
to the state.

The termination of the MOAs will have no effect on the operation of Secure Communities
for any state. ICE will continue to operate Secure Communities for jurisdictions where it is
already deployed and, over the next two years, will activate the program for the remaining
jurisdictions. ICE will fully deploy Secure Communities for all jurisdictions by the end of
2013. Prior to the activation of new jurisdictions within a state, ICE will provide advance
notice to both the state and local governments.

Courtesy: NYT

A New York judge has ordered the Immigration Customs and Enforcement agency to produce withheld information on how localities may “opt-out” or limit participation in the Secure Communities — even if it may be embarrassing to the agency.

The decision was based on on-going FOIA litigation by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the Cardozo Law School Immigration Justice Clinic, who first sued the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, the Department of Homeland Security, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the FBI, and the Office of Legal Counsel back in April 2010.

Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York granted several of the group’s requests to remove redactions from documents hiding inconsistent public statements. “The purpose of FOIA is to shed light on the operation of government, not to shield it from embarrassment,” Scheindlin wrote.

Scheindlin’s opinion discussed the validity of FOIA exemptions claimed by the government as well as a closed review of 49 documents, which included a completely redacted memo from Acting Assistant Director of Secure Communities Marc Rapp, an email exchange among staff responding to a state’s inquiry regarding opt-out, and an email from a deputy press secretary regarding what the agency’s message to the public about opt-out should be.

In one instance, Scheindlin writes, “…I am troubled, however, by defendants’ somewhat haphazard redactions and assertions of exemptions. For instance, hundreds of withheld pages are simply slightly different versions of two memoranda – one dated October 2, 2010 and entitled ‘Secure Communities – Mandatory in 2013,’ and the other contained within an email dated October 1, 2010 and entitled ‘SC language: Predecisional Draft for Review and Comment.’”

Earlier this year, plaintiffs were in court seeking assistance from the court when documents provided to them were unusable. According to Scheindlin’s Feb. opinion, the records were “produced in an unsearchable PDF format,” “electronic records were stripped of all metadata,” and “paper and electronic records were indiscriminately merged together in one PDF file.”

ICE will need to produce new documents by August 1, 2011 and appear in court for a conference on August 11, 2011.

“The court refused to allow the government to withhold documents that merely discuss how to spin an agency policy for the public, especially when the agency’s messaging is purposefully misleading,” said Sunita Patel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The release of the information improperly withheld from the public will only help public officials and community members in the on-going Secure Communities debate.”

Click here to the read the full opinion.

The new findings also reaffirm the federal government’s stance on implementing the immigration enforcement program even if states like Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York decline to participate and that the FBI played a larger role in making the program mandatory.

According to the documents, obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), and the Cardozo Law School Immigration Justice Clinic, the FBI supported a mandatory Secure Communities program as early as 2009.

In one document, the FBI Advisory Policy Board passed a motion in June 2009, recommending that ICE convert the Secure Communities program from a voluntary to a mandatory program, while ICE was publicly wavering on its mandatory vs. voluntary stance.  (FBI-SC-1312-1313; FBI-SC-1336)

Another document provided details on the reasoning behind the FBI’s decision, which was not driven by any legal mandate, but for “record-linking/maintenance purposes” in creating full interoperability between the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification (IAFIS) and DHS’ Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT) databases for the NGI project. (FBI SC-1313)

The NGI project expands on the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division’s current IAFIS database system, which is primarily operated and maintained in Clarksburg, W. Va. Currently, Lockheed Martin has a billion dollar contract consisting of a base year and one-to-nine option years to develop the technology. The company also developed and deployed IAFIS for the FBI back in 1999.

The connection between the Secure Communities program and the FBI’s NGI project is stirring up concern among advocates who say it expands the federal government’s Big Brother role.

“These revelations should disturb us on multiple levels: the lies, the shadowy role of the FBI, the threats to citizens and non-citizens alike, and the rampant potential violations of civil liberties,” said Gitanjali Gutierez, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights. “This goes far beyond the irreparable S-Comm program and opens a window onto the dystopian future our government has planned. With so much at stake, this process must at all costs be transparent going forward.”

John Morton, ICE Assistant Director

Late Friday afternoon in a conference call with reporters, ICE unveiled a list of reforms to its controversial “Secure Communities” program.

“We are listening to what people have said, what various state officials and community officials have raised, and we’re tyring to address those concerns head on,” said John Morton, ICE Assistant Secretary. “The announcements we are making today are on the whole effective immediately.”

But immigrant rights advocates called the changes “lipstick” and continued to call for a moratorium.

“The Secure Communities program is a Frankenstein,” said Pablo Alvarado, Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “It doesn’t need make-up or cosmetic changes. It needs to be stopped immediately.”

We’ve summarized the new developments below and linked to the reforms ICE has posted online.

New reforms announced by ICE Director John Morton and DHS Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Margo Schlanger announced new reforms to Secure Communities:

1. New agency policy is not to begin deportation proceedings against victims and witnesses of crimes, and individuals pursuing legitimate civil liberties lawsuits. An emphasis will be placed on domestic violence victims. (Click to see more.)

2. New agency policy will grant authority for prosecutorial discretion to ICE attorneys in immigration court, independent of ICE charging officers who initiate deportation proceedings.

3. ICE will issue a new detainer form with several changes. It will make clear that person can be detained for limit of 48 hours, and mandate a detainee receive a copy of the form, which will be in 7 languages and provide a phone number to call with concerns. The detainer will also be able to indicate it should only go into effect upon conviction. (Click to see the new detainer form.)

4. ICE is creating an advisory committee of a broad coalition of stakeholders including law enforcement and immigrant advocates that will report to Morton. It will look at how ICE should deal with deporting people who are charged with minor traffic offenses, such as no operators license, and consider whether they should only be deportable upon conviction.

5. ICE will also create a program to protect civil rights and civil liberties. One of its first projects is a “Secure Communities 101″ video to train state and local police in their responsibilities to protect civil rights. (Click to see the training plan.) It will launch a quarterly statistical oversight tool to look for signs something may be discriminatory with how the program is being implemented and will encourage police to tell ICE if someone is a crime victim or witness. (Click to see the new complaint protocol and an overview of CRCL/ICE Quarterly Statistical Monitoring of Secure Communities or the video.)

Additional comments from ICE:

Morton: “What this is really about is who we remove from the country. This is about how do we prioritize use of the limited resources that we have and making sure we focus on those people it makes the most sense to remove under a program of smart and effective enforcement.”

Despite repeated references to ICE’s intention to use the program to deport serious criminal offenders, Morton said ICE also prioritizes the deportation of people who have recently come across the border illegally, people who are egregious immigration violators, and people who have final order of removal.

Morton: “This year, for the first time in the agency’s history we’re going to remove more criminals from the country than non-criminals.”

Twitter was abuzz with reactions during and after the conference call on reforms to the Secure Communities program.

Can someone ask this of Morton: why turn SCOMM on in Georgia? their Arizona copycat law is scheduled to start 7/1

Predictions: ‘my bad, f- you.’

Holy smokes! “DHS Secure Communities Civil Rights Training”? That’s like 4 oxymorons combined into one.

More doublespeak from ICE on “Secure Communities.”

2 years later DHS gonna do training of law enforcement to avoid racial profiling. 2yrs too late! Moratorium now!!

“Training” on civil rights but no discipline or monitoring to find out if rights are actually violated!

Remember when ICE announced reforms on 287g? Joe Arpaio announced ‘nothing changed’ Can we expect different with S-Comm?

New Game: Go to DHS.gov. First one who can find their way to the civil right complaint form wins #scomm #altopolimigra #ri4a

*Deportation Nation reported on the press conference with live tweets from @DeportNation.

Advocates were stunned by today’s announcement, many had hoped the program would be suspended until the Office of Inspector General had completed its examination.

Pablo Alvarado, Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network:
“The Secure Communities program is a Frankenstein. It doesn’t need make-up or cosmetic changes. It needs to be stopped immediately.”

Ali Noorani, Executive Director of the National Immigration Forum:
“We are pleased that DHS had decided to clarify the criteria they will use to exercise prosecutorial discretion. However, individuals affected by our obsolete immigration laws need a system through which discretion can be sought and applied.“

Andrea Black, Executive Director of Detention Watch Network:
“These changes are nowhere near sufficient to address the well-documented problems with the Secure Communities program that has thus far torn apart countless families across the country by funneling people into a detention and deportation system rife with abuse.”

Paromita Shah, Associate Director of the National Immigration Project:
“ICE should listen to our elected leaders rather than ramming this federal program down the throats of localities that want nothing to do with it.”

Retired Chief of the Sacramento Police Department and Current Project Director of the Law Enforcement Engagement Initiative Arturo Venegas:
“Advice given is not required to be taken! You have three governors and umpteen chiefs of police and sheriffs telling you there are major problems with the program and that they want out. How much heavyweight advice do you need?”

Sunita Patel, Center for Constitutional Rights staff attorney:
“ICE is simply putting lipstick on a pig. The civil rights and privacy issues triggered by the implementation of Secure Communities are just the tip of the iceberg.”

Margaret Huang, Executive Director of Rights Working Group:
“By continuing to support the program it is sanctioning racial profiling, eroding the trust local law enforcement agencies have built with communities of color and signaling to the international community that our immigration system does not respect the basic human rights of all persons in our country.”

Chung-Wha Hong, Executive Director of New York Immigration Coalition:
“In response to mounting criticism, the Department of Homeland Security announced superficial changes to its “Secure Communities” deportation program today. By making the announcement, DHS has acknowledged the program’s failures and yet the agency falls short of tackling these problems through real reforms.”

Take a look at how Secure Communities has evolved over the last three years and the growing resistance towards it.

First The New York Times ran an editorial titled “Resistance Grows” that supported Massachusetts for joining Illinois and New York in rejecting Secure Communities. “We welcome the votes of no-confidence in Secure Communities,” read the NYT op-ed. “The message is clear and growing louder: Mr. Obama and the homeland security secretary, Janet Napolitano, need to try something else.”

Then in California, the Los Angeles City Council voted 11-1 to pass a resolution supporting a state bill known as the TRUST Act, which will ensure “local governments may unilaterally opt-out of the Secure Communities program at the discretion of their local legislative bodies.”

Click on the image to view the timeline.

To keep track of these latest developments Deportation Nation has launched an interactive timeline of Secure Communities that will be regularly updated. It starts when Congress first allocated funds for the program and it went into effect in 2008 in Boston, MA, and six North Carolina and Texas counties. Promoted as a technological solution for sharing local arrest data with federal immigration agents looking for dangerous criminals, it has functioned as a much broader dragnet.

We encourage you to share this tool and leave comments about what you would like to see added. View the timeline in Dipity to get the embed code that allows you to adjust its size, and choose to view it alternatively as a flip book or an easily printable list.

Secure Communities first went into effect in 2008 as a pilot program in Boston, MA, and six North Carolina and Texas counties. Promoted as a technological solution for sharing local arrest data with federal immigration agents looking for dangerous criminals, it has functioned as a much broader dragnet. Scroll through our timeline to track the development of this controversial program that the Obama administration wants to impose nationally by 2013. Check back regularly for updates.

In a letter written by Massachusetts Public Safety Secretary Mary Beth Heffernan on behalf of Gov. Patrick, Heffernan wrote that the Secure Communities program does not meets its objectives of targeting serious criminals, stating that only 1 in 4 of those deported in Boston’s pilot participation of the program were convicted of a serious crime. More than half of those deported were identified as non-criminal, she said.

“The Governor and I are dubious of the Commonwealth taking on the federal role of immigration enforcement,” Heffernan wrote. “We are even more skeptical of the potential impact that Secure Communities could have on the residents of the Commonwealth.”

The governor’s decision comes after a series of public meetings were held by the state’s Executive Office of Public Safety and Security to compile concerns that residents had with the program.

Among those concerns Heffernan offered included the deterioration of police-community relations, affect on victims of violence, and racial profiling.

Heffernan also commented on the Immigration Customs and Enforcement’s conflicting mandatory versus voluntary message over the last year.

“We are reluctant to participate if the program is mandatory and unwilling to participate if it is voluntary,” she wrote.

Now the state follows in the path of New York, Illinois, and Washington DC which has either suspended the program or opted out of the program.

Last week, Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced that New York would suspend the program

“There are concerns about the implementation of [Secure Communities] as well as its impact on families, immigrant communities and law enforcement in New York,” Cuomo said in a press release. “As a result, New York is suspending its participation in the program.”

“There are concerns about the implementation of [Secure Communities] as well as its impact on families, immigrant communities and law enforcement in New York,” Cuomo said in a press release. “As a result, New York is suspending its participation in the program.”

Cuomo also sent a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), alerting them of the suspension. It noted his administration had “received numerous complaints and questions about the purpose and implementation” of the program and said the “greatest concern is that instead of targeting dangerous criminals it is “compromising public safety by deterring witnesses to crime and others from working with law enforcement.”

Thirty-five counties in New York joined the program when New York quietly opted-in last May. Now they will no longer automatically allow ICE to access fingerprint and other arrest data from their local jails. New York City and the rest of the state’s 62 counties have yet to participate in Secure Communities.

Just last December, NYPD Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly raised his concerns with the program. “We want people to feel free to contact the police, to walk into police stations; communicate with the police. To the extent that [Secure Communities] may have some effect on that, that’s problematic.”

The move could be a major blow to ICE’s plan to implement Secure Communities nationwide by next year, a spread that some New York lawmakers said they hope to stop. Congressmember Nydia Velásquez (D-NY) said Cuomo had, “done the right thing. I look forward to working with him to address this issue at the national level.”

New York is the third jurisdiction to stop Secure Communities after it was activated. It joins Washington, D.C. and Illinois. Two states – Washington and Minnesota – have declined to join the program.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has asked Obama to freeze the program while a federal investigation is pending. ICE Inspector General Charles Edwards said he is planning a review “to determine the extent to which ICE uses the program to identify and remove dangerous criminal aliens from the United States.”

Since 2008 Congress has spent millions for Secure Communities to target dangerous “criminal aliens.” Deportations are at a record high, but most of those removed are innocent or low-level offenders who have served their time.

A spokesperson for DHS said that “ICE regularly analyzes the effectiveness of its enforcement programs, as it is currently doing with Secure Communities” and will share with New York its analysis.

Feel free to repost this infographic. We simply request that you credit Deportation Nation and link to our website. Please do not edit our content or repackage it for sale. Email questions to deportationnation at gmail dot com.

Feel free to repost this infographic. We simply request that you credit Deportation Nation and link to our website. Please do not edit our content or repackage it for sale. Email questions to deportationnation at gmail dot com.

It was included in a series of letters sent by California Rep. Zoe Lofgren to Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General as evidence for an immediate investigation into the misconduct of immigration officials.

ICE contractor Dan Cadman sent a letter to California Rep. Zoe Lofgren hoping to set the record straight following his termination with the agency after a New York Times article revealed that immigration officials launched an aggressive campaign to obtain participation from counties refusing to join, and questioned Rahm Emmanuel’s involvement with that campaign.

“Mr. Morton would have you believe that the government never indicated that the program was voluntary, and this impression only gained currency because of me,” wrote Cadman to Lofgren. “That is ironic and untrue.”

Cadman’s letter to Lofgren was prompted after ICE head John Morton sent a letter to Lofgren expressing his regret over the confusion and that the agency was taking steps to address the issue including the termination of a contractor for authoring several unacceptable e-mails.

“It comes down to this: ICE painted itself into a corner and needed someone to blame,” Cadman wrote. “While my views over the nature of voluntary participation in the program may not accord with yours, I think you will agree after reading my letter that confusion over opting out of Secure Communities has arisen not because of me, but because of the government’s own vacillation, policy shifts, and inconsistent public stances.”

Moreover, Cadman attached a separate letter to Lofgren that he sent to Secure Communities Acting Assistant Director Marc Rapp, regarding his work on opt out policies and the expansion of the program, including activation in politically sensitive states. It also reveals a network of government contractors.

Excerpt from letter:

Cadman had worked on the program since December 2008 and became a regional coordinator in April 2010 overseeing activation in 30 of 50 states including Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, until two more coordinators were hired, one in Sept. 2010 and the other in mid-January 2011. He was let go on March 25.

Cadman’s letter further fuels concerns about the Secure Communities program, which relies on local police to enter arrest data into a joint FBI and Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) database. In recent months, local officials have voiced concerns that the program is identifying too many non-criminals and straying from its mandate of targeting dangerous criminal offenders at the expense of public safety.

Lofgren’s letter to DHS OIG is the second within a month. Lofgren first requested an investigation in late April after internal documents documented ICE’s public relations campaign to implement Secure Communities in resisting counties in California. DHS OIG Charles Edwards informed Lofgren that the OIG has planned to review the program in the first quarter of FY2012.

“Mr. Cadman’s makes it clear that further investigation is needed to determine whether other DHS and ICE personnel or contract staff were responsible for any misleading statements that were made,” Lofgren wrote  Edwards.

At the same time, advocates continue to circulate a petition calling for a moratorium on the Secure Communities expansion following inquiries from Lofgren, Illinois Senator Menendez, and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“ICE’s behavior is looking dangerously more like Arizona’s Sheriff Arpaio which perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised by since its Arizona’s former governor leading the agency,” said B. Loewe, spokesperson for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. “Cadman’s explosive accusations are just one more layer of deceit making an immediate investigation all the more urgent and a moratorium on the program all the more necessary.”

Illinois: DHS overrules Illinois’ decision to terminate the program in the state

On May 4, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn informed the Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) agency that the state would terminate its Secure Communities agreement. The decision prompted DHS to overrule the termination and ICE head John Morton met with state officials last Friday.

Quinn’s decision to quit the program stemmed from its failure to target people convicted of serious criminal offenses. He told officials that “more than 30 percent of those deported from the United States, under the program, have never been convicted of any crime” based on federal statistical data compiled through Feb. 28, 2011.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) praised Quinn’s decision to terminate the state’s agreement.

“Leadership on issues such as these is made all the more difficult because of the vitriolic and political nature of the ongoing debate on immigration.” Gutierrez wrote. “You, however, recognize that it is not in Illinois best interest to play politics with public safety.”

Moreover, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has asked President Obama to suspend the program because of Illinois’ stand. According to the LA Times, the letter noted that “evidence reveals not only a striking dissonance between the program’s stated purpose of removing dangerous criminals and its actual effect; it also suggests that [Secure Communities] may endanger the public, particularly among communities of color.”

The Illinois House also passed the Smart Enforcement Act two days after Quinn’s letter was sent. The Act would allow counties to opt-out of the program, account the program’s impact and costs, and require the program to only identify and deport convicted criminals.

Credit: SFgate.com

California: SF Sheriff Defies Agreement, Congresswoman Demands Investigation

San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessy announced last week that he will release undocumented immigrants arrested for low-level crimes, even if ICE places a detainer is placed on them.

According to the San Francisco Examiner, this new policy will begin June 1, and is meant to uphold the city’s sanctuary ordinance which “prohibits local officials from assisting ICE unless it involves a felony.”

Hennessy has continued to be outspoken about the Secure Communities program since it was implemented in the state and had tried to opt out twice.

In addition, the San Francisco Chronicle reported May 10 that Mayor Ed Lee said the city would also no longer report juveniles suspected of being undocumented and arrested on a felony charge “if they can they have family ties to the Bay Area, are enrolled in school and are not repeat offender.”

Internal documents released last month by Uncover the Truth revealed local frustration in the state with ICE’s fast-track expansion of the program. Many of the 500 documents released via litigation include email correspondence between officials with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) that document its public relations campaign to implement the program in resistant cities and counties such as San Francisco.

These documents prompted Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) t0 demand an investigation into the actions of ICE actions, saying that officials were not truthful about whether jurisdictions and states could opt-out of the controversial program – the issue at the heart of the debate.

California also has a bill that would limit the program. Introduced by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) in February, the Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools (TRUST) Act would modify current agreements between ICE and counties in the state, making it an opt-in program with safeguards including preventing racial profiling.

Some counties have weighed in like Santa Cruz whose Council voted not to support the TRUST Act in a 4-3 vote, suggesting some jurisdictions are feeling wary of ICE.

According to Bill Ong Hing, a law professor at the University of San Francisco, the Tenth Amendment would prohibit ICE from forcing states to participate in Secure Communities with respect to public safety:

“The central teaching of the Tenth Amendment cases is that ‘even where Congress has the authority under the Constitution to pass laws requiring or prohibiting certain acts, it lacks the power directly to compel the States to require or prohibit those acts.’ Congress may not, therefore, directly compel states or localities to enact or to administer policies or programs adopted by the federal government. It may not directly shift to the states enforcement and administrative responsibilities allocated to the federal government by the Constitution. Such a reallocation would not only diminish the political accountability of both state and federal officers, but it would also ‘compromise the structural framework of dual sovereignty,’ and separation of powers. Thus, Congress may not directly force states to assume enforcement or administrative responsibilities constitutionally vested in the federal government.”

Hing also added that the current Secure Communities MOA between ICE and California provides that it can be mofied at any time by mutual written consent of both parties.

“The implication of this provision is clear: the terms of the MOA are negotiable,” Hing said. Hing is one of three legal scholars to release statements to weigh in on Secure Communities, along with law professor Hiroshi Motomura and Aarti Kohli, director of immigration policy at the Warren Institute on Law & Social Policy at UC Berkeley’s law school.

Credit: channelsixnewsonline.com

New York: Several NY Lawmakers Want Out of Program

On Monday, the NYT reported that 38 state lawmakers had sent a letter to Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo asking him to cancel New York’s Secure Communities agreement with ICE. According to the Times, this is the second letter sent by elected officials within two months. A spokesman for Cuomo’s office said Cuomo’s team was still reviewing the program.

Currently, 24 of 62 New York jurisdictions are enrolled in Secure Communities including Monroe, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester. Putnam and Rockland were the first counties to enroll on Jan. 11, 2011.

Prior to Cuomo taking office, Gov. David Paterson had renegotiated the memorandum of agreement with ICE in December, much to the displease of advocates who argued that the revised partnership was similar to the old one.

Credit: whitehouse.gov

Texas: Obama Talks Immigration Reform, State Legislature Debates Ban on So-called Sanctuary Cities

On Tuesday, President Obama laid out a new blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform in El Paso, in hopes of rekindling talks in Congress.

The Texas House also passed a bill that would prohibit policies that stop local police from asking about immigration status and could affect sanctuary cities. It now heads to the Texas Senate.

Critics argue that the bill will further burden police department workloads, break down communications between the community and police, and slow 911 responses. Others say that it will lead to racial profiling.

“I want my officers to focus on the violent crime that’s happening in our community and the property crime that’s occurring in our community and not necessarily on the illegal immigrant that might be looking for a day labor job at the home depot,” said Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo, reported the Austin News KXAN.

Interestingly, El Paso’s Sheriff Richard Wiles became an example for putting restrictions on the program, by being one of the first police departments to place limits on the fingerprints it sends by only sharing fingerprints from Class B misdemeanors and above.

Elsewhere

DC: On May 3, the Washington Post reported local and federal officials saying that the District of Columbia will eventually enroll in the program. The District is the only jurisdiction to successfully opt out of Secure Communities.

Pennsylvania: The LA Times reported May 4 that U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, former mayor of Hazelton, has announced that he is working on a national bill that would withhold all federal funding from sanctuary cities that do not enforce federal immigration laws.

Maryland: The Washington Examiner reported May 3 that Montgomery County officials will reluctantly allow Secure Communities to be implemented in the Maryland county, saying “they are powerless to block the program that leads to more deportations of those in the country illegally.”

Massachusetts: Fox News Latino reported May 5 that Massachusetts officials have held community meetings to gather concerns residents have with the program before its implemented in the state. Suffolk County, which includes Boston, is currently the only county enrolled in the program.

Mary Elizabeth Heffernan, secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, told Fox, “Our understanding from ICE is that it will be implemented nationally, whether the state signs on or not.”

Meanwhile, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus has asked President Obama to suspend the program. According to the LA Times, the letter addressed concerns saying that “evidence reveals not only a striking dissonance between the program’s stated purpose of removing dangerous criminals and its actual effect; it also suggests that [Secure Communities] may endanger the public, particularly among communities of color.”

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn informed officials with  Immigration Customs and Enforcement (ICE) on Wednesday that state police will no longer participate in the federal government’s fingerprint sharing program called Secure Communities. His decision to terminate the state’s memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the agency marks the first time a state has withdrawn from the program and comes on the heels of growing frustration from local officials over its implementation.

“With this termination of the MOA, ISP (Illinois State Police) will play no role in Secure Communities, either actively or as a pass-through for information,” Quinn stated. “As ISP is a necessary party under the current Secure Communities process, with this termination, no new counties Illinois can be activated and those counties that were previously activated, for their information to pass through ISP to ICE, must be deactivated and removed from the Secure Communities program.”

According to his letter to Acting Assistant Secure Communities Director Marc Rapp, Quinn had suspended the program in the state on Nov. 9, 2010, pending a review – only a year after it was implemented. Neither Illinois nor federal officials were able to resolve the state’s concerns, even when ICE proposed a new MOA.

Quinn also stated that Secure Communities was not on target with its mandate of identifying individuals who have been “convicted” of “serious criminal offenses,” adding that in Illinois “more than 30 percent of those deported from the United States, under the program, have never been convicted of any crime” based on federal statistical data compiled through Feb. 28, 2011.

Quinn’s letter was sent to ICE, the same day that the Illinois State Legislature was to debate the Smart Enforcement Act, which would allow counties to opt-out of the program.

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) praised Quinn’s decision to terminate the state’s agreement.

“Leadership on issues such as these is made all the more difficult because of the vitriolic and political nature of the ongoing debate on immigration.” Gutierrez wrote. “You, however, recognize that it is not in Illinois best interest to play politics with public safety.”

ICE IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability Stats: 10/27/08 to 2/28/11

Despite Illinois’ termination, ICE continues to defend Secure Communities, which is implemented in nearly 1,300 counties and is suppose to be implemented nationwide by 2013. Twenty-six of Illinois’ 102 counties are enrolled in the program.

“ICE’s goal is to enhance public safety by removing those illegally in our country who are also breaking criminal laws,” said ICE Spokesperson Nicole Navas. “ICE will work with the State of Illinois to meet that goal.”

This isn’t the first time Illinois has been in the news regarding the program. In March, the Chicago Tribune released a study suggesting that McHenry County Sheriff deputies under-reported Hispanics subjected to traffic stops by mislabeling their race, raising concerns about racial profiling. Meanwhile, the Chicago News Cooperative reported that federal immigration officials pressed reluctant local officials such as Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley and Cooky County Sheriff Tom Dart to participate in the Secure Communities program. This was even after officials cited sanctuary ordinances that restrict local police from carrying out immigration-related enforcement.

According to one email in April 26, 2010:

“Due to the lack of response from IL SIB, I phoned Capt [redacted] today. She informed me that Cook Co. PO and SO would like to be activated (the Chicago PD did not want to participate), however; there is a county ordinates that prevents them from participating. According to Capt.[redacted] the County choice not to respond in writing, therefore, lllinois legal has advised the state not respond in writing either. We need to discuss the lack of response from the counties in the future. After review Vincent’s email I wonder if the lack of response being considered a GO is the way to move forward!”

(Click to view a chronological timeline of ICE-Cook County discussions on Secure Communities implementation.)

These correspondences are based on internal documents via litigation from the  v National Day Laborer Organization, and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Thousands of pages, many of them correspondences between ICE officials, reveal the government’s national public relations campaign to implement the program in resistant counties like in Illinois and California and as well as changing statements on whether the program jurisdictions or states could opt-out out of the program.

As a result, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) has asked the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate misconduct of immigration officials who she says misled the public with dishonest information on Secure Communities. In addition

It is unclear what ICE’s next step will be, but advocates like Sunita Patel of the Center for Constitutional Rights say that ICE should honor decisions made by states who decide not to participate rather than render MOA’s meaningless. This is a leap from individual local counties seeking to opt out.

“This shows that state officials can stand up to the federal government,” Patel said. “They can decide what’s best for their constituents, not what’s best for the federal authorities. It’s very courageous.”

ImmigrationImpact.com

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) has written to the Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility asking for an investigation into the misconduct of immigration officials who she says misled the public with dishonest information on Secure Communities.

At the heart of the debate is whether local jurisdictions and states can opt-out of the controversial program that relies on police in local jails to share arrest data with a joint FBI and Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) database. Secure Communities is currently implemented in nearly 1,300 jurisdictions and is set to be fully implemented by 2013.

Documents released by advocates on April 14 provide a glimpse into the government’s public relations campaign to implement the program in resistant counties as well as changing statements on whether the program had an opt-out option.

In response to these documents, Lofgren wrote to the OIG and OPR, that “some of these false and misleading statements have been made intentionally, while others were made recklessly, knowing that the statements were ambiguous and likely to create confusion.”

Lofgren, also a member of the subcommittee on immigration policy and enforcement, has kept an eye on the Secure Communities program. Back in July 2010, she wrote DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to clarify confusion on the opt-out process.

In a Sept. 7 letter, Napolitano acknowledged an opt-out procedure:

However, on Monday, Napolitano clarified that local governments cannot opt out of the program.

“This whole opt-in, opt-out thing was a misunderstanding from the get-go … and we have tried to correct that,” Napolitano told The San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. She also said that the ICE correspondences were “subject to misinterpretation.”

Lofgren has also sent a letter to Napolitano and ICE head John Morton, informing them of her investigation request.

“It is unacceptable for government officials to essentially lie to local governments, Members of Congress, and the public,” Lofgren said.

*Update: Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) has demanded an investigation into the actions of the Immigration Customs and Enforcement agency, saying that officials were not truthful about whether jurisdictions could opt-out of the Secure Communities program.

“You can’t have a government department essentially lying to local government and to members of Congress,” Lofgren told the Los Angeles Times.“This is not OK.”

Documents released by advocates on April 14 confirmed local frustration with the federal government’s fast-track expansion of the Secure Communities program – this time in California.

Many of the 500 documents released via litigation include email correspondence between officials with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) that document its public relations campaign to implement the program in resistant counties such as San Francisco.

San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessey sent two letters to ICE last year requesting withdrawal from the program. His second request was in response to ICE’s August 2010 “Setting the Record Straight” which outlined an opt-out process. It was initially declined by then Attorney General Jerry Brown Jr..

Several emails address Hennessey’s letters and setting up meetings with AG Brown to discuss legal authority for the program and withdrawal concerns.

In an email dated Sept. 1, 2010, ICE’s Western Regional Communications Spokesperson Virgina Rice wrote,”I spoke
with the AG’s Special Asst. and they are not comfortable with us placing this decision squarely at their feet.”

In another Sept. 1 email from an undisclosed official, they wrote, “I’ve spoken with Virginia twice today as she’s been feeling very nervous about how the Henessey issue is breaking …  She reached out to the CA AG to discuss as she was feeling like she was throwing them under the bus. Virginia spoke with Special Assistant, who pointedly did not want ICE publicly saying they would defer to the state and reference the AG’s letter to Sheriff [Hennessey].

Emails also show how ICE officials provided mixed messages to local officials on the program’s voluntary and mandatory nature, and crafted new language to describe their shift from the voluntary formula to a deferral to 2013 formula.

In a May 25, 2010 email to undisclosed persons, one official wrote, “the domino effect is starting.” The email also lists concerns from officials in San Mateo and Marin County Juvenile Probation.

“I also spoke with Marin County Juvenile Probation yesterday and they were quite agitated about the program being “forced” on them and why the Chief Probation Officers were not invited to the outreach,” wrote the official in the email. “I told him I would be happy to come speak to him so I will work on arranging it. I’m guessing this is just the tip of the iceberg as the SF Sheriff has a strong voice in the Bay area.”

In another Sept. 1, 2010 email, ICE Director John Morton wrote that AG Brown called to inquire about San Francisco’s latest request to opt out of Secure Communities. “Apparently, our local [public affairs officer] told the media, San Francisco could opt anytime if the AG would authorize it. That was a surprise to the AG, and he would like to discuss further,” Morton wrote.

Another email dated Sept. 29, 2010 from an FBI official, wrote that the Secure Communities message is inconsistent. “I don’t agree with Vince and it amazes me that we were all in the same room and he thinks this message is consistent,” he or she wrote. “Feel free to correct me but it is my understanding that opt-out for now does NOT mean the agency doesn’t get the second response. Opt-out for now means the agency is not turned on and ICE will not continue to receive the leads. I haven’t lost my mind (and my understanding is right) we need to get this message to Vince before they start talking to the states.”

All of California’s 58 counties have been enrolled in the Secure Communities program since last October, despite resistance from several counties like San Francisco and Santa Clara.

The disclosed documents comes on the heels of a meeting between newly elected California Attorney General Kamala Harris and Assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) to talk about limiting the program in the state. Ammiano introduced in February the Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools (TRUST) Act that would do just that by modifying current agreements between ICE and counties in the state, and making it an opt-in program with safeguards including preventing racial profiling.

“The program is ruining trust between immigrant communities and the police. But here in California, we can do better,” Ammiano said last month. “This bill is a practical solution that lets local governments have a say and restores some balance to this dysfunctional system.”

This isn’t the first set of documents to reveal frustration and confusion from state and local officials over the Secure Communities program. Last month, the New York Times reported internal documents showed that immigration officials launched an aggressive campaign to obtain participation from two Illinois counties after officials in those counties refused to join.

Deportation Nation also reported in February that another set of documents revealed how federal authorities kept altering their stance on whether local police are required to share arrest data with immigration agents, even if they ask not to. Those documents showed that ICE gave several counties in California instructions on how to formally request to opt-out of Secure Communities, only to then activate them against their will.

The documents were obtained through Freedom of Information Request (FOIA) litigation by the National Day Laborers Organizing Network, Center for Constitutional Rights and the Cardozo School of Law, who have disclosed the full list of documents can be viewed here.

Texas is fully enrolled in Secure Communities, which is a program that relies on police in local jails to enter arrest data into a joint FBI and Immigration and Customs and Enforcement (ICE) database.

Excerpt: Jason Cato gained eye-opening access to police enforcing Secure Communities in Austin, Texas.

As an Activist Anthropology student at the University of Texas Cato studies the Travis County Sheriff’s Department. His research includes ride alongs and jail visits, focus groups with officers and immigrants, and individual interviews. He shared some unanticipated findings and moving stories with Deportation Nation.

Click here to view.