Adam Serwer writes about a new report on DHS’ Secure Communities program, showing that it harms law enforcement efforts:
The law enforcement argument against Secure Communities goes something like this: Because the program is automatic, undocumented immigrants are discouraged from talking to police because of the possibility that they might end up getting deported. “When immigrants perceive the local police force as merely an arm of the federalimmigration authority,” Morgenthau writes, “they become reluctant to report criminal activity for fear of being turned over to federal officials.” [...]
What that means is the program retains a number of the problems caused by Arizona’s draconian SB-1070 law: It incentivizes racial profiling and as the report documents, discourages undocumented immigrants from talking to police. Several immigrant-friendly states have tried to opt-out of the program, but DHS reversed itself months ago and said that the program wasn’t optional.
And they should be afraid of this. In the Los Angeles task force hearing, a number of people relayed stories of undocumented immigrants being sent to ICE after reporting crimes. One woman found a dead body and was sent to ICE after getting a subpoena from the District Attorney. There are other examples of victims of domestic violence reaching out to the cops and getting deported as a result.
ICE is using the biometric data that local law enforcement routinely sends to the FBI to check immigration status. So they feel they have no reason to allow communities to opt out. As a result, law enforcement’s job gets harder.
A report from local sheriffs put out by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network in Los Angeles had similar concerns about the program.
“The perspective that I and others are trying to express is that (the program) should be used to deport serious and dangerous felons who are here illegally, and not people who are driving without a license or drinking a beer on someone’s front steps,” said Mike Hennessey, sheriff of San Francisco. “When local law enforcement is involved in enforcing immigration laws, it harms the trust with regard to the local community.”
Hennessey and others quoted in the report fear members of the community are less likely to come forward to report crimes because they are afraid they could be deported. The report also documents concerns that the Secure Communities program contributes to racial profiling, strains local resources and contributes to jail overcrowding.
It’s just a statistical fact that the immigrants being rounded up by Secure Communities are increasingly low-level offenders or even people never convicted of a crime.
A few people asked me why the Obama Administration is so dead-set on deporting hundreds of thousands of immigrants, when they have no hope of attracting the anti-immigrant crowd from a political standpoint. Rep. Luis Gutierrez explained that to me at Netroots Nation, and I think if more people understood this rationale you’d see even more outcry than you do now:
So why have there been so many deportations, more than under the Bush Administration? Gutierrez suggested that the White House feels they have a mandate from Congress to deport 400,000 people a year. Which means they’re literally breaking up families to fulfill a budgetary authority. Congress has expanded deportation systems and given DHS more money to deport. So the contractors have been paid, and now they have to be used. That’s how Secure Communities, a real cash cow for the contractors, was created. And that’s why they don’t want states dropping out. “The fastest-growing airline in the country is the one that flies around undocumented immigrants,” said Gutierrez. In the end, it comes down to money, for detention, information sharing and the mechanics of deportation.
This is especially craven in the context of harming local law enforcement efforts and breaking the trust of an entire subset of the community.





11 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I think I got it.
If you are a law-abiding illegal alien you can stay.
If you are a serious, dangerous felon, we will send you back to Mexico and make you sneak across the border again. Until, we catch you again, and send you back again, and make you sneak acrioss the bornder again, until………………….
No, even if you are a good illegal alien worked hard own a home may be have been here 40yrs you are in jail and deported.
This is more of the hopey changey thing, we just can’t make enough people hate Amerika in bombing them in their own countries to save them but for people here the officer says thank you for the info but you aren’t a citizen so your under arrest. I’ve read were the Sherriff in SF, Calif won’t help ice or hls because of this problem. Racing to the bottom
You can bet that the bads guys understand the implications of this policy. Expect to hear about an increase of violent crime against this community.
Every time there’s a fork in the road we take the wrong one.
According to data obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests from the Department of Justice, federal prosecutors brought 15,173 new cases nationwide in April. Of these, a full 55.4% were related to immigration activities. TRAC, Prosecutions for April 2011. The leading immigration offense was unlawful entry, INA § 275, 8 U.S.C. § 1325. TRAC, Immigration Prosecutions for April 2011 (July 19, 2011).
http://crimmigration.com/2011/07/26/report-55-of-fed-crim-prosecutions-in-april-were-immigration-related.aspx
Most of the prosecutions are for unlawful reentry after removal, so there is no longer a policy of “catch and throw back”.
The government has chosen to prioritize immigration prosecutions over prosecutions for dangerous or violent crimes.
http://immigrationimpact.com/2011/06/30/new-data-shows-government-prioritizes-immigration-prosecutions-over-dangerous-crime/
Because of the likelihood of ICE imprisoning and deporting LEGAL immigrants, and natural born citizens who may “look Hispanic”, in all probability local law enforcement has probably been cut off from a much larger group of law-abiding folks than just those who are undocumented. Criminalizing skin tones and accents ends up being a bad idea in pretty much every instance that it is attempted.
In Massachusetts this is a hot potato. There’s been a supposed “test bed” going on here and now the pols are getting cold feet. The discomfort serves them right.
So now, can a jurisdiction “secede” even temporarily, be it a whole state or a jurisdiction such as Boston? The media here doesn’t dig that deeply into the issue. If there are any answers they are on close hold from the public, yet to come, and they will be solely politically driven.
I can’t imagine why any jurisdiction up here would have given this the time of day from the gitgo, aside from Fed seed money, and I do recall there was some up front. Now the piper is demanding something in return.
It has been said Secure Communities is ultimately a Fed mandate within a couple of years; however, what does that mean exactly?
Does that mean a jurisdiction such as Massachusetts (or just Boston) can secede now, during the interim, if it had already joined but then changed it’s mind? The purpose doing so seems logical: aim some political leverage to modify the program during the interim if possible. It would probably take more than a single jurisdiction to accomplish that.
Then, what happens in 2013? Suppose Secure Communities is still too repugnant for a jurisdiction to comply with? If it’s still a Fed mandate, however, then the question would be what sanctions could be levied upon a non-compliant jurisdiction, and by whom? A large number of jurisdictions refusing to comply would present a robust problem regardless of what was on the books, no?
Two possible answers come to mind. The hard way might be DOJ seizing some control with enforcement action to boot, which seems doubtful; otherwise, it might be merely a more symbolic forfeiture of linked Fed money — still a bad deal for any locality.
What’s likely to become of this?
And ICE has, in fact, removed US citizens (when they are not too busy denying medical care to detainees).
http://stateswithoutnations.blogspot.com/2011/07/how-ice-deported-another-us-citizen.html
More than 100 ICE detainees have died in custody over the past few years, often due to withholding of necessary medical care.
http://immigration-lawyer.typepad.com/phileichorn/2010/01/really-107-ice-detainees-died-in-the-past-6-years.html
It does appear that the Obama admin and DHS are oknwith det,aining and deporting low level offenders. Shades of Rudy Giuliani’s broken window theory I guess. And the public has completely stopped tolerating any level of crime from undocumented immigrants.
Got linky proof with stats?
Cuz that just sounds like a dog whistle to me . . .
Sabe?
Finally. An Obama policy I agree with.
The government isn’t breaking up families. The people who enter or stay in this country illegally are responsible for what they’ve done to their own family. Jeez. Hey, let’s stop convicting criminals because it might mean they can’t hang out with their families anymore.
Maybe the government is deporting people because that’s their job. Maybe they’re doing it because it’s the right thing to do, even if it doesn’t win them any votes.
Has it occurred to you that promoting illegal aliens over legal immigrants is unfair to those who abide by the rules and wait their turn to immigrate?