Category: Blog

Can A Person Return To The US After Deportation?

Picture of Can A Person Return To The US After DeportationIn case you have ever wondered if deportation from the US means lifetime inaccessibility to the US. Well, the answer to this question depends on the reason for the deportation.

So, can I return to the US after deportation? The answer is yes you can return to the US after deportation but this depends greatly on the reason why you were deported. In some cases, if the reason is so serious, this might mean a lifetime ban from going to the US. But in other cases, you might be able to return to the US after a set period of time.

How Long After Deportation Can you return to the US?

Depending on the reasons behind your deportation, you have to wait up for some time before you can return to the US. In most cases, you have to wait up 5, 10, or 20 years before you can reapply to be allowed to enter the US. The time varies depending on the reason behind your deportation as shown below:

  • Five-Year Ban: The five-year ban applies if you failed to show up in court for your removal hearing. Also, this ban applies if you were found ineligible upon your arrival in the U.S. which then led to your deportation. Likewise, if after you entered the U.S. you were immediately put into removal proceedings which then led to your removal or deportation, you may not be eligible to re-enter into the U.S. for five years.
  • Ten-Year Ban: This ten-year ban is applicable if an immigration judge also known as an IJ issued your removal order after a removal hearing. Also, if you depart the U.S. while your removal order was still pending, you might not be able to return to the U.S. for ten years.
  • Twenty-Year Ban: the twenty years’ ban is applicable if you have received more than one order of removal. Also, if you were convicted of an aggravated felony you will not be able to return to the U.S. for the period of 20 years. In fact, in some cases if you have committed an aggravated felony, you might be banned permanently from returning to the U.S. Likewise, if you entered to the U.S. illegally after your removal or deportation for more than one year, this might cause you to be permanently barred from returning to the U.S.

Why Do People Get Deported From The U.S.?

Picture Of Can A Person Return To The US After DeportationJust in case you are wondering why people get deported, here are few of the reasons why people get deported from the U.S.:

  • If you fail to obey the terms of your visa. Your visa shows if you are allowed to enter, leave or stay for a specified period of time. Depending on your visa, there are rules you have to follow and failure to do so can lead to a removal order. For example, if you came into the U.S. as a tourist, you are not allowed to work. Doing otherwise attracts implications like deportation.
  • If you don’t inform USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) of a change in address, this might lead to deportation. If you have to change your residential address in the U.S., you have an ultimatum of 10 days to notify the authorities.
  • If you have committed a crime. This is one of the most common reasons why people get deported. If you commit a crime, the immigration authorities decide if you will be deported based on the code of conducts in the immigration law.
  • If you violate the immigration laws such as participating in a fake marriage or smuggling other non-U.S. citizens into the U.S.
  • If you receive public assistance. From the immigration laws, if you have a green card, you cannot receive financial help from the U.S. government. Failure to abide by this law can lead to your deportation.

These are the common reasons why people get deported from the U.S. There a quite a number of other reasons aside this why you might be deported from the U.S.

How Can I Apply For Re-entry Into The U.S. After Deportation?

If you have been deported, there are two ways in which you can re-enter the U.S.

  1. Using form I-212 to request a re-entry after removal. The form I-212 is known as an application for permission to reply for admission into the U.S. after removal or deportation. Along with a supporting document and a fee, you fill the USCIS form I-212 ask for permission to apply for entry into the United States before the required waiting time is complete. For your application to be considered, you might need to state alongside your applications strong reasons why you should be considered such as family ties, family responsibilities and so on.
  2. Using form I-601 to request for a waiver of inadmissibility. This form is known as an application for waiver of grounds of inadmissibility. You will need to submit this form alongside with the 1-212 form if you are separately inadmissible to the U.S. The conditions for obtaining the waiver will vary based on the reason behind your deportation.

Note that submitting the form does not guarantee approval as there are a number of factors the U.S. immigration service would consider before your request would be approved. Some of these factors are: the reason for removal, the moral character of applicants, family responsibilities of applicants, need for applicant’s service in the U.S. and so on.

Application to re-enter the U.S. after deportation is a very complicated process. You are advised to involve an experienced attorney to help you with the process. An attorney will help you to understand the restrictions and save you the frustration and stress of having to do it all by yourself.

How to Avoid Deportation with a Felony

How to Avoid Deportation with a Felony

There are a lot of people with families in the U.S. that have been struggling with the issue of deportation. Many of its citizens come from various nationalities, there are even instances wherein an individual have been in the country as a child and never got in touch with their biological parent. The threat of deportation lingers through the minds of these people and we have to accumulated some guidelines on how to avoid deportation.

Things to Remember

Immigration cannot remove a U.S. citizen. You may be a citizen if:

  • you were born in the U.S.
  • you were born in another country but one parent was a U.S. citizen and lived in the U.S. for certain periods of time prior to your birth
  • you were born in another country but one or both of your parents naturalized and became citizens when you were under 18 and living in the U.S. as a lawful permanent resident (
  • you were found in the U.S. while under the age of 5 and your parents are unknown

Crimes that Lead to Deportation

People who are trying to avoid this issue would need to know what to avoid.

Samples below are crimes that can get a green card holder or non-immigrant deported include the following:

  • Alien Smuggling
  • Document Fraud
  • Domestic Violence
  • Crimes of “Moral Turpitude”
  • Drugs or Controlled substance offences
  • Firearms Trafficking
  • Money Laundering
  • Fraud
  • Espionage
  • Sabotage
  • Terrorism
  • And of course classic crimes such as Rape, Murder, and any “Aggravated Felonies”

How to Avoid Deportation with a Felony

Even if you are a legal permanent resident but an immigrant, you can be deported. There are cases wherein an individual has been deported because of a crime done decades ago. Even if the person underwent rehabilitation process there is still a chance that this occurs due to immigration laws.

Immigration law is quite tricky and their cases can be very unpredictable in a sense. In case this occurs, you would need to find a good and trusted lawyer to back you up with your case. There are a lot of law firms who are very adept when it comes to this endeavour, especially in the U.S. where a lot of immigrants migrate.

The most important thing to consider is that you would need to be very truthful with your lawyer/s for them to fully understand the case and to find loopholes in the accusation related to deportation with felony.

If a felony has been done, may it be recent or occurred years ago, and the threat of deportation has been set in place. The lawyer would need to create a great defence to remanded a case back to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) for reconsideration.

Final Words

Ultimately, if you are an immigrant living in a foreign country, it is always best to know the laws and make sure you abide by them to avoid deportation. If you are an outstanding individual living in a foreign country, you migh actually have a chance to become a full fledged citizen of your beloved new found country.

Is Quit 9 to 5 Academy A Scam? What You NEED To Know

Is Quit 9 to 5 Academy A Scam? What You NEED To Know

If you are one of the many people looking to upgrade their lives, ditch the old standard work until old age plan, then you need to invest in your knowledge. You likely ended up here because you want to make sure that this Quit 9 to 5 Academy review is not a scam.

The idea of a Quit 9 to 5 Academy Scam might seem scary especially considering the brand-new program, set to launch in March, is quite the hefty penny. So, should you trust program creators Mark Ling and Nick Torson? This content was created to do a deep dive behind what Quit 9 to 5 Academy is all about. Should spend your hard-earned money on the course.

The Names Behind Quit 9 to 5 Academy ?

mark ling 9 to 5 academy review

Mark Ling & Nick Torson

Mark Ling is a well know affiliate marking guru who has earned millions through affiliate marketing personally. He is a published author with over 10 years in the affiliate marketing game. Mark Ling has partnered in and created several other affiliate training systems and has won awards for his affiliate marketing skills. This course is the newest program the award winner has worked with. His over $100million worth of generated sales makes him an authority in the field of affiliate marketing.

Nick Torson is a super-affiliate that has personally escaped the 9 to 5 grind making lots of money selling other people’s products. He was previously a hard working regular hard working 9 to 5er. His humble beginnings are what inspire him to help people escape the trap of working hard. He hopes to give them the tools to work smart instead of hard.

What is Quit 9 to 5 Academy – Is It A Scam?

quit 9 to 5 academy review

Now let us take a moment to go over what the Quit 9 to 5 Academy contains. Quit 9 to 5 Academy is a content-rich program that features 20+ hours of content, 50+ hours of videos broken down into 6 modules.

The program starts from the most basic affiliate marketing knowledge then quickly teaches you to upgrade and scale your skill to grow your business. The information is clear cut, easy to follow, and could be used by novice or experienced user. The program more than teaches you it pushes you to act to implement lessons. This program takes learning a step further by allowing users to join a private Facebook Group for support as well as advice.

What is Quit 9 to 5 Academy Price?

The reason that people are concerned about the program being a scam is because of the size of the Quit 9 to 5 Academy price. With a one-time payment of $2,497, you can be enrolled in the program that is full of information.

The amount could be a bit too large for a newbie who is just starting out, which is why the program offers a 6-month payment plan of $499 per month. With the 30-day money back guarantee this course is a full program that might be worth checking out.

Corpus Christi Auto Glass Repair

Corpus Christi Auto Glass Repair

Choosing Corpus Christi Auto Glass Repair Is Simple

Contact us now to see whether you meet the requirements for a windshield repair in Ingleside, TX. Our cellular car glass repair is among our most well-known services, because we work when you do. Terrific Service Quality Workmanship Affordable Prices Our cellular onsite windshield repair is readily available for the total Corpus Christi area and is supplied at no extra charge.

In such situations, windshield replacement is imperative. A windshield replacement in Ingleside, TX may be dealt with by your insurance policy company. Easy Windshield Repair is the very best resource for every one of your Beeville windshield repair and replacement requirements. It is the top source for all of your Kingsville windshield repair and replacement needs. It is the top source for all of your Portland windshield repair and replacement needs. So if you’re searching for an Auto Glass  in Corpus Christi, TX, call us today to find out more about how we can assist you. If you’re looking for honest and reliable Corpus Christi Auto Repair, our group of mechanics are here in order to help!

The Pain of Corpus Christi Auto Glass Repair

From the most recent and best in tire technology to the services necessary to continue to keep your vehicle looking good and running great, Bay automobile Service may get you out on your way quickly and at a manageable price. So long as it is not functioning and is not parked on a public roadway, you are not responsible for maintaining valid registration on the vehicle. It has never been simpler or more convenient to continue to keep your vehicle or truck in prime form. Finally, the driver of the stolen car jumped from the still-moving vehicle to climb one of the numerous port cranes.

A number of available lease and finance options make it simple to find one which best fits the way you live. Buyers in some specific counties must pay late transfer penalties should they wait over 30 days following the sales date to transfer the title. Finding an auto loan has never been easier once you select your car or truck simply complete our secure on-line finance application. One applies for financing and supplies a signature on a promissory note to pay back the loan in a particular period of time. Additionally, there are longer term loans which are fully amortized (principal and interest in every payment) paid over one to five decades or more. An individual can have bad credit for a fast and instant loan. A Merchant Cash Advance is additionally not a loan product. however, it is the selling of assets or charge card receipts at a discount.

Ideas, Formulas and Shortcuts for Corpus Christi Auto Glass Repair

Lithia’s automotive painting technologies are going to have your vehicle or truck looking like new in no moment. In an ordinary transaction the business applies with a Factoring Company and the business appears primarily at the credit of the other company or governmental entity that the business is doing business with. Every company claims to be the very best. To be certain that our customers receive a superior support, we find and choose the ideal autoglass repair providers by thoroughly analyzing a geographical site. There are various services that are provided by professional automobile glass repair and replacement centers. Whichever method you decide on, you will get great automobile glass service and superior workmanship at a reasonable price.

New Report Criticizes 287(g) Program, Warns about Oversight Problems with Secure Communities

Posted by Deport Nation on Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Contractor Says ICE Misled States on Optional Enforcement Program, Fuels Federal Investigation

A letter from a former ICE regional coordinator, who was let go for his role in the opt-out confusion, provides more details on the strategy behind the implementation of the Secure Communities program.

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.

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.”


ICE Says Secure Communities Will Stay Active Even if States Opt-Out

ICE says it has decided to “terminate” contracts with states for its increasingly unpopular Secure Communities program. But that doesn’t mean the data-sharing enforcement program will stop.

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.


Confusion Helped Spread of Secure Communities, Even As Resistance Remains Strong

Newly released records reveal 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.

“Keeping you in the loop as we progress with always changing policy as it relates to [Secure Communities],” reads a May 2010 email update from an unidentified sender about the controversial program.

The message is one of hundreds included in 15,000 pages released only after the National Day Laborers Organizing Network filed suit over a records request with help from the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Cardozo School of Law.

Most of the documents are copies of email correspondence between staff members of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) and public relations advisers. Some of the files are heavily redacted, such as one in which 58 of 65 pages are completely blacked out.

The emails were sent between early 2009 and the present, a time frame that corresponds with when ICE began to deploy Secure Communities at a quicker pace under the Obama administration. Its goal is for every local law enforcement agencies in every state to participate by 2013.

In an email from August 2009 that refers to a “marathon meeting about Interoperability deployment,” agency officials and PR advisers discuss how to ensure the quick deployment of Secure Communities:

Problem Statement:
•    Requiring a Go response from each [Law Enforcement Agency] LEA within a county will grind activations to a crawl or halt. In some SWB counties, there was considerable difficulty getting responses from any LEA.
•    Accepting a Go response from any LEA to activate all LEAs within a county does not ensure that each LEA is aware of their activation.
•    SC, and the improved identification of Criminal Aliens (CAs), is Congressionally mandated
•    It is a DHS ICE initiative to improve the identification of CAs via federal data-sharing
•    LEAs relinquish their authority to control the federal government’s use of prints once they are collected by [Criminal Justice Information Services] CJIS

But less than a year later 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.

One of the emails dated June 23, 2010, indicates some ICE staff were still unclear what to say when putting together answers for counties and journalists asking about opting-out:

“I’m totally confused now. I’ve got so many versions of the opt-out language I don’t know what’s current and what’s not. It seems like we have different language for different purposes and it’s confusing. Can we put this on today’s agenda to talk about?”

Whether the mixed messages on the program’s mandatory nature were due to confusion or other factors, the outcome has been the failure of any state or county to opt-out, other than Washington, D.C. . According to ICE, Secure Communities is now in 38 states, and at least 1,006 counties nationwide.

The rapid spread includes the recent addition of Colorado and New York, two states that had cited concerns with ICE’s failure to use the program to focus on detaining dangerous immigrants. Often people who are arrested for minor traffic infractions end up transferred to ICE custody.

Immigrant advocates in New Jersey, a hold-out state which has the nation’s sixth largest immigrant population, hope Governor Chris Christie will refuse to participate. They point to his comment last June in an interview with Politico, when he said immigration “is a federal problem, it’s gotta have a federal fix… I’m not really comfortable with state law enforcement having a big role.”

Hundreds of New Jersey immigrants and their supporters are expected to protest the program today by walking three miles from the ICE office in Newark to the Essex County Detention Facility. ICE wants the county to contract with a private prison company to expand the center to 2,700 beds in anticipation of demand generated by Secure Communities.

“When local police collaborate with immigration it sends a chilling effect in our communities, it tears families apart and unjustly incarcerates our friends and neighbors,” said Jessica Culley, an organizer with the Comité de Apoyo a Los Trabajadores Agrícolas, a farm workers group in southern Jersey.

The American Friends Service Committee of New Jersey helped organize the walk after members decided “there is enough information out there that shows there are huge problems with this program,” said staff attorney, Amy Gottlieb. “New Jersey has been willing to be different in the past and I have to believe we still have an opportunity to make a really positive statement for immigrants.”

Gottlieb says members have met with state officials to express their concerns and request that the governor refuse to join Secure Communities. They recently delivered more than 2,000 letters from residents who oppose the program.

Meanwhile, Sarahi Uribe of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, a plaintiff in the FOIA lawsuit that led to the release of the newly released Secure Communities documents, says they show that, “[c]ontrary to the current ICE official position, local opt-outs appear to be possible.”


Secure Communities to Play Role in Massive FBI-Biometric Database System

New documents released Wednesday assert that ICE’s controversial Secure Communities program is just a small part of a bigger effort by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to create the “world’s largest crime-fighting computer database of biometric information, including fingerprints, palm prints, iris patterns and face images” called Next Generation Identification (NGI) project.

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.”


Police Chiefs Frustrated over Local Immigration Enforcement

Immigration enforcement by local police is having a chilling effect on how residents interact with them, warns a report from the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF).

“The last thing we need is for laws to undermine the trust that police departments have built up with the community,” said Jerry Murphy, PERF’s Director of Homeland Security and Development, during a conference call with reporters.

Police and Immigration: How Chiefs are Leading their Communities through the Challenges explores six case-studies conducted between December 2008 and September 2009 in New Haven, CT; Prince William County,VA; Montgomery County, MD; Phoenix, AZ; Mesa, AZ; and Minneapolis, MN.

It finds these local law enforcement agencies are struggling with a political atmosphere that limits the “discretion of police to deal with immigration enforcement in ways they consider best. Officers are concerned about the reluctance among immigrants to contact police to report crimes even if they are victims or witnesses.

“In many places, police chiefs and police departments have become the public face of the immigration debate,” Murphy added. “There are a significant number of police departments that have been pulled into the debate and ask the question ‘what is our designated role in enforcing immigration law?’”

While the report provides immigration reform recommendations to Congress, it also offers suggestions to local police where federal and state education, oversight, and outreach regarding enforcement fall short:

  • Officers should be prohibited from arresting or detaining persons for the sole purpose of investigating their immigration status.
  • Officers should monitor indicators of racial profiling, investigate violations, and sanctions offenders.
  • Local police agencies should become knowledgeable about programs such as 287(g), Secure Communities, and state or local initiatives to ensure that the programs meet the agency’s specified goals for participation.
  • Local police should develop comprehensive written policies and procedure regarding handling of undocumented immigrants.
  • Local police agencies should educate their communities about their role in immigration enforcement, especially the legal authorities and responsibilities of local police and federal law enforcement and engage immigrant communities in dialogue about department policies.

Back in August, Deportation Nation reported on a conference convened by the Consortium for Policy Leadership in Equality (CPLE), where police chiefs from 27 major cities expressed concerns about the extra burdens created by federal programs like Secure Communities and 287(g) as well as Arizona copycat bills pending in dozens of states.

A June 2010 by the CPLE pointed to the negative effects created when police officers doubled as immigrant agents. It found that 1 in 3 Salt Lake City, Utah, residents are unwilling to report drug-related crimes when law enforcement can detain someone based on their immigration status. Undocumented immigrants, as well as Latino and White citizens, were more likely to leave drug crimes unreported.

Meanwhile, at the July 2009 Summit on Immigration Enforcement of more than 100 police chiefs and other local stakeholders, participants expressed frustration with the lack of response from ICE to police concerns.

During Wednesday’s call, Chief Christopher Moore of the San Jose Police Department in California said it was “troubling” that crimes went unreported in his community because people were afraid of police, who now play a role in immigration enforcement.

“We’re looking to strengthen our relationship [with the community],” said Moore, who in his first big policy move last month as police chief, announced plans to broaden the definition of racial profiling and investigate more claims of biased behavior by officers.

Chief Victor Rodriguez of the McAllen Police Department in Texas, echoed Moore’s concerns. Earlier this month, Rodriguez was one of several police chiefs and sheriffs that met at the Texas Capitol to denounce proposals that would give local police more immigration enforcement responsibilities.

“It’s my position that if we continue to go down this path, we’ll make our communities more dangerous,” Rodriguez said.

We’d like to know your thoughts on the PERF’s findings. Click this link to mark up the report with your comments.