Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Dixie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Texas - Occupied State - The Front Line
    Posts
    35,070

    NJ Middlesex County freeholders vote to end contract w/ ICE

    Middlesex County freeholders vote to end contract with ICE for keeping detainees at jail

    By GENE RACZ • STAFF WRITER • October 1, 2009

    MIDDLESEX COUNTY — The Middlesex County freeholders voted Thursday night to end their contract with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, that allowed federal detainees to be held in the Middlesex County jail in North Brunswick.

    The resolution, recommended by Freeholder Mildred S. Scott, was accepted into Thursday night's agenda and passed.

    At the heart of the county's decision to end its contract with ICE was a federal provision called "Section 287(g),'' which basically gives the federal government the ability to train and deputize local officers as federal agents.

    "As elected officials, it is our duty to serve the people and look out for their best interests,'' said Scott. "By taking on additional responsibility for no additional compensation as well as the increased liability as called for under the federal government's 287(g) program, the county would not be acting in the best interests of Middlesex County's residents. We cannot allow our taxpayers to take on this financial burden.''

    Scott noted that any officers who undergo training and perform ICE duties would be under the direct supervision of the federal government, and this would cause a significant increase in overtime and staffing requirements.

    Under provision 287(g), county personnel assigned to ICE would have to be trained at an out-of-state facility. The federal government would pay for the training, but would not pay the officers' salaries while they were out of state, nor would the federal government pay for any overtime in these officers' absence.

    According to Middlesex County's 2009 operating budget, the county brought in $5.2 million in "INS Detainee Revenue,'' down about $1 million from $6.18 million in revenue in 2008. During periods in 2008, upwards of 180 immigrant detainees were held at the county jail, which was receiving $100 a day per detainee from ICE.

    "More importantly, the county opens itself up to a liability risk while these officers are performing the federal government work,'' added Scott. "Again, the federal government will not cover these potential liability costs.''

    The death of a 72-year-old ICE detainee, Arturo Suarez-Almenares, who was being held at the county jail in 2008 raised concerns among civil rights groups and citizens who questioned the quality of medical care for detainees within the facility.
    Advertisement

    They also questioned the ethical and legal underpinnings of the arrangement between the county and ICE, and protested the arrangement at numerous freeholder meetings.

    "ICE has a management problem; they can't effectively oversee over between 300 and 400 facilities," said Karina Wilkinson, co-founder of the Highland Park-based Middlesex County Coalition for Immigrant Rights. "ICE should reduce the number of detention beds nationwide, end mandatory detention and expand alternatives, such as community-based supervision, which have been proven to be cost-effective, and help solve the problems created by forced detention.''

    The coalition cited a report by the Detention Watch Network, which says that over 10,000 ICE detention beds were added in 2007 and 2008, bringing the total to 33,400 nationally. The report projected a cost for 2009 of ICE custody operations at $1.8 billion.

    "We support the county's decision to end the detention of ICE detainees in the county jail and to not enter into the government's 287(g) program,'' said Wilkinson. "We believe that entering into the 287(g) program could lead to an increase in civil rights violations.''

    http://tinyurl.com/ya2a2jk
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member miguelina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    9,253
    Big mistake, the costs of subsidizing the illegal alien population are much, much higher than the costs of utilizing 287(g).

    But they don't mention that, do they?
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)
    "

  3. #3
    Senior Member SOSADFORUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    IDAHO
    Posts
    19,570
    I feel like we are moving backward all of a sudden...this is from the pressure the special interest groups are putting on trying to stop the 287g program.

    WAKE UP AMERICA...we must fight back in our home towns or we are going to lose this fight.
    Please support ALIPAC's fight to save American Jobs & Lives from illegal immigration by joining our free Activists E-Mail Alerts (CLICK HERE)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •