Recent Trends in State and Local Immigration Enforcement. November 8, 2013

Transcription

1 Recent Trends in State and Local Immigration Enforcement November 8, 2013

2 Our Presenters Allison Posner, Director of Advocacy, Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC) Jen Riddle, Advocacy Attorney, CLINIC Mark Fleming, National Litigation Coordinator, National Immigrant Justice Center Alissa Escarce, Policy Associate, Rights Working Group Jill Malone, Volunteer Advocate, Justice for Immigrants Campaign of the Diocese of San Jose 2

3 Our Agenda Overview of ICE ACCESS programs Recent developments in detainer policies and litigation 287(g), Secure Communities and Community Responses through Anti-Detainer Measures Advocacy against ICE/local partnerships (Santa Clara County Ordinance) 3

4 Overview of ICE ACCESS Programs ICE ACCESS (Agreements of Cooperation in Communities to Enhance Safety and Security) Secure Communities (2008) Fingerprints taken at booking checked with FBI and ICE databases to identify individuals with immigration violations 287(g) Program (1996) Over 1,400 local police trained to act as ICE agents Criminal Alien Program (CAP) (1986) Individuals in more than 4,000 jails screened for removability 4

5 Concerns with Local/ICE Partnerships Diversion of scarce police resources Harm to community safety by undermining trust in police Criminalization of immigration Rights violations 5

6 What is a Detainer? A notification from ICE to state/local jails that: ICE purports to have a reason to believe (probable cause) an individual is removable. The person has a prior or outstanding removal order. A request by ICE to state/local jails to detain an individual to enable ICE to take custody (i.e., voluntary). A request that the state/local jail detain the individual for up to 48 hours after local authority has expired. 6

7 7

8 What a Detainer is Not The equivalent of an arrest warrant. A determination that an individual is removable. The equivalent of a criminal detainer. 8

9 Detainers & Immigration Enforcement Detainers are central to ICE ACCESS interior enforcement programs. ICE issues over 250,000 detainers each year against individuals principally in state and local jails. Serves as an ICE force multiplier while pushing significant financial costs and engendering distrust with state and local law enforcement. 9

10 Legal Authority for Detainers No express congressional authority for issuing detainers that permit detention Only one mention in the Immigration and Nationality Act, INA 287(d): Passed in 1986 when detainers in practice did not permit detention. Provides specific instruction to ICE on issuing detainers against individuals with controlled substance offenses. ICE to expeditiously take custody upon release of controlled substance offenders from state or local law enforcement. 10

11 Legal Authority for Detainers ICE detainer regulation: 8 C.F.R Not limited to controlled substance offenses. Grants itself authority to detain an individual for up to 48 hours (excluding weekend and holidays) based on the detainer. Purports to require state and local law enforcement to detain an individual pursuant to an immigration detainer. 11

12 Litigation Challenging Detainers Jimenez Moreno v. Napolitano, (N.D. Ill.) Fourth and Tenth Amendment constitutional challenges Brizuela v. Feliciano (D.Conn.) Encouraged Connecticut to adopt strong anti-detainer policy/law Cacho v. Gusman (E.D. La.) Example of combining litigation with advocacy campaign for court supervised anti-detainer policy Roy v. County of Los Angeles (C.D. Cal.) Example of significant local liability for honoring detainers Makowski v. Holder (N.D. Ill.) Challenge to Secure Communities data sharing 12

13 Detainer Memo & New Form Issued December 2012 Reaction to detainer litigation & Secure Communities advocacy Purports to establish probable cause before issuing detainers Purports to require that individuals meet an enforcement priority Provides no oversight ICE officials have testified that nothing has changed in detainer procedures No discernible positive impact in 2013 (TRAC data): More than 60% of individuals subject had no criminal record (including traffic violations) (approximately 10% worse than before December 2012) Only 10% had serious criminal convictions or posed national security risk (Slightly worse than before December 2012) 13

14 The 287(g) Program Named after Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Added to INA after enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) in 1996 Deputizes state and local law enforcement agents to enforce federal immigration law Task Force Models: Enforcement in the streets Jail Enforcement Models: Enforcement during jail booking 2013: All active 287(g) agreements are Jail Enforcement Models 14

15 287(g) Evolution 1990s: Only one 287(g) agreement (Salt Lake City) negotiated, rejected over racial profiling concerns Implementation began after 9/11; broad expansion in mid-2000s Criticism from the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Homeland Security s Office of Inspector General, and immigrants rights advocates 2009: New agreement template prioritized removing dangerous criminals 2013: Task Force Models eliminated, total number of agreements in decline. 36 agreements renewed or maintained, most in the Southeast. 15

16 Secure Communities (S-Comm) Following an arrest, fingerprints sent to FBI and ICE, for criminal and immigration background checks 2001: Patriot Act increased information-sharing between federal agencies 2008: S-Comm created as a pilot project in 14 jurisdictions. Initially expanded on a voluntary basis. 2011: Revealed to be mandatory, despite state and local opposition. Expansion led by the FBI s Next Generation Identification (NGI) Program 2013: Fully implemented in all jurisdictions nationwide. 16

17 Who is Criminal? ICE claims that both the 287(g) program and Secure Communities prioritize the removal of criminal aliens who threaten public safety 2011 analysis: Almost 1/3 of detainers issued within 287(g) jail models are for immigrants accused of traffic violations. Over ½ of people deported through S-Comm had either no criminal convictions or very minor convictions, like traffic violations. 2013: 62% of detainers issued to individuals with no criminal conviction (specific 287(g) and S-Comm data unavailable). 17

18 Racial Profiling in 287(g) and S-Comm 287(g) Jail Models Participation by state and local law enforcement often motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment No federal oversight over arresting officers. Inadequate data collection on race of those arrested Racial profiling in Maricopa County 287(g) Training Secure Communities In 2010, Latinos made up 77% of the undocumented population, 93% of those deported through S-Comm DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties tasked with developing tool for monitoring jurisdictions to determine if there is racial profiling, however, no information has yet been made publicly available. 18

19 Fear of the Police as Public Safety Threat 2013 Study, Insecure Communities, by University of Illinois at Chicago, confirms concerns about the chilling effect of ICE ACCESS programs 70% of undocumented immigrants less likely to contact police when victims of a crime 45% of Latinos less likely to volunteer information about a crime 62% of Latinos believe police frequently stop Latinos without a good reason Isolation, withdrawal, diminished sense of public safety 19

20 Communities Respond: Organizing Against 287(g) in Tennessee July 2013: Sheriff of Knox County, TN announces he is pursuing a new 287(g) agreement with ICE Community members, local immigrants rights organizations, and allies organize public forums against the agreement ICE declines to sign 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement with Knox County 20

21 Communities Respond: CA & CT TRUST Acts Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools (TRUST) Act Prohibits local law enforcement from complying with ICE detainers, unless an individual has been convicted of a serious crime 2012: Passed California state legislature, vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown June 2013: Signed into law in Connecticut October 2013: Signed into law in California Supported by former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, and LA County Sheriff Lee Baca 21

22 Communities Respond: Local Detainer Ordinances/Policies Chicago, IL Cook County, IL New Orleans, LA (Policy w/ court supervision) New York, NY San Francisco, CA Santa Clara County, CA Washington, D.C. Policies: Champaign, IL; Los Angeles, CA; Milwaukee, WI; Multnomah, OR; Newark, NJ; San Miguel County, NM; Taos County, NM 22

23 Santa Clara County Ordinance Santa Clara will not honor detainer requests from ICE, unless ICE reimburses them for the cost. If there will be reimbursement, then the County has discretion to honor requests if they choose. Santa Clara will not honor any detainer requests on juveniles. ICE shall not be given access to individuals or be allowed to use County facilities for interviews. Santa Clara county personnel shall not spend time or resources responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE. 23

24 Local Detainer Policy Advancement is possible on local level Opportunity for education bridge building Counters the criminalization of immigrants messaging Sheds light on the invisible in the criminal justice system 24

25 Detainer Policy Goals Stop ICE Holds Defend human rights Separate ICE from Local Law Enforcement Protect immigrant communities Keep families out of detention 25

26 Process Form a broad based coalition Start small and grow Core group others show up for support Benefits Shared relationships Diverse knowledge and perspective Shared work load Diverse groups showing up in unity is powerful 26

27 Santa Clara Co - FIRE Forum for Immigrant Rights and Empowerment ACLU Berkeley North East Bay Chapter, ACLU North Peninsula Chapter, Asian Law Alliance, Asian Law Caucus, Black Alliance for Just Immigration, California Immigrant Policy Center, CARAS, Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County, Causa Justa: Just Cause, Center for Constitutional Rights, Center for Popular Democracy, Central Valley Dream Team, CET Immigration and Citizenship Program, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Coalition for Justice and Accountability, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Congregations Building Community, Contra Costa Interfaith Supporting Community Organization, Council on American-Islamic Relations, San Francisco Bay Area Office, Democratic Activists for Women Now, Domestic Violence Advocacy Consortium of Santa Clara County, DRUM - Desis Rising Up & Moving, Green Party of Santa Clara County, Filipino Advocates for Justice, Human Agenda, Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, Immigrant Defense Project, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Jobs with Justice (National), Judson Memorial Church, Justice For Immigrants San Jose, Justice for Palestinians, Justice Review Committee, Human Relations Commission of Santa Clara County, Laborers Local 270, La Fuente, MAIZ-Cihuatl Tlatocan, Mid-Peninsula Chapter of the ACLU, Mountain View Dreamers, Mujeres Unidas y Activas, National Day Laborer Organizing Network, National Immigrant Justice Center, National Immigration Law Center, National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, National Lawyers Guild San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, New Orleans Workers' Center for Racial Justice, New Sanctuary Movement New York City, New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City, Northern Manhattan Coalition for Immigrant Rights, Pax Christi East San Jose, People Acting in Community Together, Peninsula Interfaith Action, People Improving Communities through Organizing California, People Improving Communities through Organizing National Network, Pilipino Association of Workers and Immigrants, Silicon Valley, Rights Working Group, Sacred Heart Community Service San Jose, San Jose Peace and Justice Center, Santa Clara County Forum for Immigrant Rights and Empowerment (FIRE) Coalition, Santa Cruz Immigration Action Group, Service Employee International Union (SEIU) 521, Services Immigrant Rights and Education Network, Silicon Valley Alliance for Immigration Reform, Silicon Valley De-Bug, Silicon Valley Latino Democratic Forum, Silicon Valley Young Democrats, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA, Washington Defender Association's Immigration Project, Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Youth United for Community Action, YWCA of Silicon Valley 27

28 Coalition Members Direct Service Providers Criminal Justice System Advocates Immigration Attorneys ACLU Religious Social Justice Groups Interfaith Organizations Peace and Justice Organizations Labor 28

29 Agree on Messaging 1. Community impact: separates families 2. Public Safety: creates mistrust within the community, criminalizes immigrant communities, endangers victims of crimes 3. Fiscal Impact: Drains resources & no reimbursement 4. Faith Perspective: Respect the dignity & humanity of all residents 5. Racial Profiling: Assumes the criminal justice system is fair when we know there are instances of racial biases 6. Due Process: Undermines Constitutional right to due process 29

30 Research How does ICE interact with local law enforcement and jails? Research meetings Police, Sheriff, Jail System, Database Elected officials - County and City Government Legal Counsel Verify everything Educate the people involved Determine who has the authority to change the process ICE has no accountability to local government ICE will start putting counter pressure 30

31 Investigation What are local practices regarding collaboration with ICE? Who will be your allies inside government? What laws might already exist that affect this issue? What financial incentives are at play? What kind of policy would be most effective? 31

32 Well Organized Meeting Purpose Information Personal Perspective Moral Persuasion Strategy Advice Testimonies if appropriate Assign roles Chair Assign Questions 32

33 Public Actions Community Meetings Education Powerful Testimonies Decision Makers agree to support changes Press Conferences Education Testimonies Public Support 33

34 Additional Resources CLINIC s Toolkit for Community Advocacy Against ICE/Local Partnerships: State and Local Police Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws: A Toolkit for Advocates (by NCLR): Detainer campaign toolkit developed by NIP, ILRC, NILC, IDP: NIP page with immigration enforcement information, appendices to the detainer toolkit, and the toolkit in Spanish: NIJC updates on the detainer class action Jimenez Moreno v. Napolitano: Rights Working Group issue brief on 287(g) Jail Models and Racial Profiling: 0Brief.pdf Criminal Alien Program Advocacy Guide by NIP, WDA, and ILRC: 34

35 Additional Resources (cont.) American Immigration Council Resources on CAP: Resource on Revised 2012 ICE Detainer Guidance by ILRC and NIP: University of Chicago Report on Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in Immigration Enforcement: June 2013 coalition letter to ICE regarding 287(g): ICE response to June 2013 coalition letter: Information and FOIA documents related to Secure Communities expansion: Coverage of protests against 287(g) in Knox County, TN: 35

36 Upcoming Free Friday Webinars November 15 & 22 (2-3:30 pm EST) Immigration Detention: Perspectives from D.C. and the Field State & Local Immigration Laws: Recap of 2013 and Outlook for

37 Questions? 3211 Fourth Street NE Washington DC Georgia Ave., Suite 850 Silver Spring, MD twitter.com/cliniclegal facebook.com/cliniclegal 37