Thread: ICE: Secure Communities Not Optional

ICE: Secure Communities Not Optional

Published on January 31, 2011.
By Thomas Francis
Florida Center for Investigative Reporting

In early 2009, when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expanded Secure Communities from its pilot program in Houston to cities nationwide, federal officials told local authorities they could opt out of the information-sharing program. But over the past two years, opting out has proven to be difficult, if not impossible, for local governments.

In fact, in response to a question from the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, ICE spokesperson Nicole Navas said local governments cannot opt out of Secure Communities.

The ICE program is controversial because of the perception among immigrant advocates that Secure Communities invites local police to engage in racial profiling and discourages immigrants from reporting crimes.

Although Secure Communities is marketed as a program targeting violent, convicted criminals living illegally in the United States, the program checks everyone arrested by local police. This, critics allege, may lead police to arrest a Hispanic person on the pretext of crime when the true intent is to learn the person’s residency status and begin the deportation process.

These concerns, as well as an unwillingness to stretch local law enforcement resources, led counties in California and Virginia to opt out of Secure Communities. According to ICE policy, however, a local jurisdiction needs approval from its state government to opt out. This presented an obstacle for Alameda, San Francisco and Santa Clara counties, since California’s attorney general at the time, the recently elected Gov. Jerry Brown, was in favor of Secure Communities.

California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris, a Democrat who was elected in November 2010, has not yet stated whether she will support the counties’ attempts to opt out of Secure Communities.

Arlington County, Va., officials opposed Secure Communities before the program was launched in Virginia in early 2010. Yet ICE enrolled Arlington County in the program, and the county’s local law enforcement agencies share information with ICE despite a unanimous vote by the county board in September 2010 to opt out.

During a November 2010 meeting, ICE officials reportedly told officials from Arlington County that if they opted out of Secure Communities, they would lose access to the FBI database that is crucial to identifying dangerous criminals and which is required by state law.

It’s not clear, however, whether ICE has the authority to force communities to join the program. Adding to the lack of clarity, ICE has not responded to records requests filed in February 2010 by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, which is seeking to learn how communities can opt out of the program. When ICE still hadn’t provided the requested records in December 2010, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in New York said: “I think the government is dragging its feet.â€

This must really piss off San Francisco.............Good news

Originally Posted by TakingBackSoCal

This must really piss off San Francisco.............Good news

And all other sanctuary cites, sanctuary counties and sanctuary states.

Go to your county jail website and start counting heads and watch for repeat offenders.

By 2013, ICE plans to mandate that all local law enforcement agencies enroll in Secure Communities. But there are likely to be legal challenges to that mandate.

That's a lot of time to allow. I expect tricks will be played.

A black attorney general is going to let counties opt out of a program which would give the poorest Americans a shot at a decent job.

California, where politics is the art of the preposterous.

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

By 2013, ICE plans to mandate that all local law enforcement agencies enroll in Secure Communities. But there are likely to be legal challenges to that mandate.

That's a lot of time to allow. I expect tricks will be played.

There is no legit legal challenges. One can simply quote the US Constitution that requires protection of the borders from invasion. Then also argue that one county, city, state stepping out of it isn't available as its not a local issue as those illegals are free to travel to other states do to that one failure to secure a community. Each illegal is a matter of security for all states, not just the local community they are residing in that minute. That right there is enough to throw out any arguement they could make.

Originally Posted by vistalad

A black attorney general is going to let counties opt out of a program which would give the poorest Americans a shot at a decent job.

California, where politics is the art of the preposterous.

"I.C.E.: Secure Communities Not Optional"

The following states have more than 75% of their jurisdictions enrolled in the I.C.E. Secure Community Program.

All other states do NOT
12/28/2010

AZ. - 15 of 15 - 100%

CA. - 46 of 58 - 79%

DE. - 3 of 3 - 100%

DC 1 OF 1 - 100%

FL - 67 of 67 - 100%

HI - 3 of 4 - 75%

N.M. 32 of 33 - 97%

N.C. 85 OF 100 - 85%

TX. - 260 of 260 - 100%

VA. - 129 of 129 - 100%

W.V. 54 of 54 - 100%

www.ice.gov/
1/28/2011