Agenda - 12-15-2009 - 3c - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

CONCLUSION 22 While the Secure Communities program is intended to identify and remove immigrants in local jails with criminal convictions, experience and data from similar ICE enforcement programs indicate that Secure Communities is likely to run into familiar criticisms about prioritization, profiling, community policing, due process, and program management. Research has shown that other ICE programs designed to prioritize violent criminals and threats to the community have resulted in the identification and deportation of more non - criminal immigrants than immigrants with criminal histories. Rather than re -tool the program to truly focus on the most dangerous criminals, ICE has broadened its language to include persons simply charged with crimes of any kind. The mechanism for identifying individual immigrants for ICE action means that every person booked into a local jail will be screened. While this appears to eliminate the possibility of racial and ethnic profiling, experience has demonstrated that once such immigration programs are put into place, the likelihood of pretextual arrests increases, as police seek to expand the universe of individuals to be screened. While Secure Communities aims to transform the relationship between local police and federal authorities (ICE), the fact that Secure Communities does not include an MOA to deputize local police officers does not alleviate the fear and mistrust of the police that immigrant communities experience when immigration- enforcement activity is conducted at local jails. Concerns about pretextual arrests, profiling, and an ICE presence in the jails is likely to result in a community that is hesitant to cooperate with the police, report crimes, or share important information. In this sense, Secure Communities may make the job of local police more difficult. Furthermore, there are serious due - process concerns surrounding the issuance of ICE detainers. The fact that individuals may be unable to seek justice or may be detained for long periods of time should raise red flags in the legal and civil- rights communities, as well as for the general public interested in preserving Constitutional rights. The lack of a functioning complaint mechanism for those who feel they have been wronged only underscores the need to revisit Secure Communities' policies and procedures, as well as ICE's detainer procedures. Finally, ICE's less- than -ideal management and oversight track record poses serious concerns about the agency's ability to oversee Secure Communities. The seeming lack of data collection and transparency only makes it more difficult to evaluate the program, either to confirm or dismiss criticism from advocates and the public. ICE has recently engaged in outreach and communication with immigrant - advocacy groups and others, and has made some key documents and information public. This is a good sign that ICE intends to be open and transparent about Secure Communities. However, the program must still be carefully monitored and evaluated. In light of what is known about Secure Communities — and the experience that immigration attorneys, civil- rights organizations, and other experts have had with similar ICE programs —IPC offers the following policy recommendations. 14