Agenda - 01-21-2010 - 3b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

20 Rather than changing the program to focus strictly on convicted criminals, ICE has since changed the Secure Communities Fact Sheet, which now reflects a broader definition of those being targeted. The September 1, 2009, fact sheet, as well as other press releases and documents, states that "ICE is focusing efforts first and foremost on the most dangerous criminal aliens currently charged with, or previously convicted of, the most serious criminal offenses.i38 Thus it appears that ICE has changed the stated objectives of the program and is no longer targeting only convicted criminals. Immigrants who are booked in jails, regardless of the outcome of the predicate charges, can and will be identified through Secure Communities and moved into ICE custody. Obstacles to Community Policing Similar to the 287(g) program, Secure Communities raises questions about local police authorities' ability to build strong, trusting relationships with their communities. If a police agency cannot assure its immigrant community that there will be no immigration consequences to providing information or cooperating with police, immigrants will be less likely to come forward to report crimes, making the job of police more difficult. Many localities and police agencies have determined that it is in their best interest to provide such assurances to immigrant communities .39 But like the 287(g) program, Secure Communities has the potential to erode the ability of police to make these kinds of assurances to their communities. Unlike the 287(g) program, Secure Communities does not require an MCA between ICE and the local jail, sheriff, or police department. Nonetheless, many of the concerns voiced by police associations regarding the potential reluctance of immigrant communities to cooperate with the police remain. If ICE maintains a presence —even a technological presence —in a local jail, the public will likely associate the local law- enforcement agency with immigration enforcement. Furthermore, it is unclear exactly how ICE has approached local authorities to participate in the program, and whether any localities have declined. The Secure Communities MCA is between DHS and the state identification bureaus, which act as a conduit through which information from local law - enforcement agencies is sent to federal agencies. According to the Secure Communities Standard Operating Procedures, local law- enforcement agencies submit the fingerprints to the state identification bureau, which then forwards the prints to the Department of Justice (DO1), which then sends the fingerprints to both the FBI crime databases and immigration databases.40 This raises questions about whether local law- enforcement agencies may be unknowingly submitting fingerprints to Secure Communities through the state agency. It is also unclear whether a local law- enforcement agency in a state with a Secure Communities MCA could opt out of Secure Communities. Theoretically, to opt out, a locality would have to enter into a separate agreement with the state to separate out its fingerprint batches and initiate a separate process for them to be sent to the DO1 and forwarded only to non - immigration crime databases to search for matches. There is certainly more to be learned about the relationship between the state identification bureaus and local law- enforcement agencies and the process by which they submit data to federal databases. Given ICE's stated intention to eventually install the system in all state and local detention facilities nationwide, it is unclear whether the program will be mandatory or optional for all law- enforcement agencies, or if there are penalties for law- enforcement agencies that opt not to participate. Thus Secure Communities raises serious questions about the relationship between federal and local law - enforcement agencies, and about a local community's ability to weigh in on important decisions affecting the community. 11