SF sheriff says fed program nixes sanctuary policy
By JULIANA BARBASSA Associated Press Writer
Posted: 05/06/2010 08:19:35 AM PDT
Updated: 05/06/2010 06:04:38 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO—San Francisco is set to join a federal program next month that will automatically check the immigration status of anyone arrested or booked for a misdemeanor or felony.

Starting in June, anyone arrested in San Francisco will have their fingerprints checked against a database used by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The program, called Secure Communities, has been deployed in more than 160 local jurisdictions in 20 states, said agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice.

It is up to ICE to chose where to deploy the program, which will be in place nationwide by 2013, Kice said.

San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey said he learned about 10 days ago from federal officials that his department be included in the program next month.

Currently, San Francisco's sanctuary policy requires law enforcement to report to immigration authorities only those who were booked for felonies. Calls to city officials were not immediately returned Thursday.

Hennessey said he was concerned it would increase his department's workload and expense. His department arrests up to 10,000 people a year on misdemeanor charges, and many who would otherwise be released quickly may have to be held while their immigration status is checked with ICE, he said.

He also expressed concern that the federal law does not reflect the attitude of local elected officials and of the city's residents. City officials recently called for a boycott
of the state of Arizona, which passed a law requiring police to question those suspected of being in the country illegally.

"I certainly felt the system that we have currently has served our community well and has been supported by the community," he said of the city's existing sanctuary policy.

Many local law enforcement officials also want to stay clear of federal immigration law, he said, because it may lead undocumented immigrants to be too afraid of police to cooperate with authorities.

Secure Communities is a law enforcement information-sharing tool and won't require any change in the way local authorities to their work, Kice said. She added that the turnaround on fingerprint matches would be short.

Organizations that advocate for the rights of immigrants said the news was unfortunate, as other communities where the program is already in place have reported an increase in racial profiling and in the willingness of immigrants to work with police.

The program also runs counter to the goals of San Francisco's Sanctuary policy, said Titi Liu, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus.

"It's clear that this is not something that our community supports," she said.

End of Article

-------------------------------

Disgusting. And this is coming from Mr "Change we can believe in."
Nader and McKinney wouldn't be doing this shit, but most people didn't have the intelligence or foresight to vote for them....because they didn't/don't have a D or R behind their name. Most of the voters are Suckers...for believing in some slick millionaire politician's simplistic marketing slogans ("Hope" and "Change we can believe in" BS). And then in 2012, most voters will repeat the entire exercise all over again. As usual, they will drag out the so-called "lesser of two evils" card and whine, "you don't want Palin, do you?"....while they completely ignore the progressives who are running (whoever they might be at the time). Instead, the voters pay attention only to the corporate candidates because of their feel-good rhetoric and marketing slogans and how they look on television. The candidates become celebrities because they are on television. And most of the voters will not bother to read the voting record of the candidates or the neocon record of the current White House occupant (Bush3). Most voters will vote as instructed by the corporate media and will remain cemented in the dismal pro-war, neocon D and R corporate rut (Obama or Palin). And I won't be voting for either one. I will be voting for the true progressive again.

As for the ending of the sanctuary city policy, what will the rabid regressives on SFHate (SFGate) have to moan, whine and complain about after the sanctuary city policy is gone? Oh, I'm sure they will come up with something else to hate. They are so filled with the cancer of hate. Of course they will still be hating on "illegal aliens" [sic] as they do 24/7.

"Secure Communities" is bad law
May 3, 2010
By Diana Meija
Daily Record dot com

In Los Angeles, a U.S. citizen was deported to Mexico after the local police and immigration officials misidentified him as an undocumented immigrant. In New York, a longtime lawful permanent resident was torn from his family and held in immigration detention, even after the criminal charges against him were dismissed. And here in Morristown, women in a domestic violence shelter are too afraid to call the police because they fear the police are cooperating with immigration
authorities. All of these people share something in common — they are all victims of programs like "Secure Communities," which use local authorities to enforce federal immigration law, consuming local resources and devastating lives in the process.

Recently, Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) John Morton wrote a column in the Daily Record claiming that Secure Communities is good because it streamlines the deportation of local residents. But these people are our family members, employers and employees, and longtime community members. Morristown already stood its ground against these types of failed
policies when it opposed the 287(g) program, which would have deputized local police officers to enforce immigration law. Secure Communities is just more of the same, and we will continue to hold the line.

Wind of the Spirit has collected more than 1,000 surveys in Morristown in order to understand how the Latino community perceives their safety. These surveys clearly illustrate that programs like Secure Communities actually make our communities
insecure. Preliminary findings show that Morristown's Latino residents are afraid to report crimes to the police because they fear that involvement with the authorities may put them or others at risk of deportation. Some of the most disturbing data collected so far come from a group of 50 women, 30 of whom were surveyed at a
meeting at a domestic violence shelter. Some 72 percent of this group said that they had not reported crimes in the past. All 50 of the women indicated that they would be more willing to report crimes or serve as witnesses if they were certain that Morristown authorities were not sharing information with federal immigration authorities.

Secure Communities, and programs like it, are a grave threat to Morristown's safety because they discourage victims from reporting crimes committed against them. Moreover, this fear of cooperation between local police and federal immigration
authorities threatens relations between the Morristown Police Department and the Latino community. Morton claims that Secure Communities "is not subject to racial profiling or prejudice." But this statement refers only to post-arrest racial profiling,
not pre-arrest racial profiling. The police still retain the discretion to decide who will be questioned and arrested in the first place. Knowing that all arrestees
will be processed through Secure Communities gives the police an incentive to arrest anyone they think might be deportable. Since arrestees can be deported even if criminal charges are dropped, police can use Secure Communities to
deport innocent people who would be simply sent home by the criminal justice system.

The New Jersey police have a long and troubled history of targeting people for questioning and arrest on the basis of their perceived race or ethnicity. A 2009 Seton Hall University Law School study strongly suggests NJ police officers are
improperly targeting Latino drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and crime victims for questioning about their immigration status for no apparent reason or after minor infractions. Secure Communities threatens to worsen these unconstitutional practices.

As one community member told us, "Secure Communities is a beautiful name for a horrible law."

Diana Mejia is director of Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center in Morristown.

I was wondering when Los Angeles (which is also a sanctuary city) would become part of this so-called "Secure Communities" ICE nonsense. Los Angeles County joined the "program" in late August 2009 according to the article below. After reading these articles, I'm reminded of the title of one of Sarah Phelan's recent articles..."Knocking on Fascism's Door."

Federal program to deport criminal immigrants expands in California
February 17, 2010 | Andrew Becker
California Watch dot com

Police in two more California counties have joined an expanding federal program to identify and deport criminals who are in the country illegally or have committed crimes that makes them subject to deportation, immigration officials announced yesterday.

With the addition of San Joaquin and Stanislaus, 10 of the state's 58 counties have access to the database-driven program, dubbed Secure Communities, and run by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The program gives police agencies that use electronic booking machines to scan fingerprints of arrestees and inmates to access federal crime and immigration databases.

The other participating state counties are mostly in Southern and Central California, including Los Angeles, Ventura, San Diego, Imperial, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. The other Northern California counties are Solano and Sacramento counties. Meanwhile, some counties, like San Francisco, which has a local "sanctuary" ordinance on its books, just aren't interested in joining up. (Sam's comment: Does anyone else find that statement strange? I get the impression a city does not have a choice over the matter based on what is happening in San Francisco. If we do have a choice over the matter, why is this city joining up?)

State and local law enforcement agencies can simultaneously check linked FBI and federal immigration databases to screen a person’s criminal history and immigration record. If there is a fingerprint match, the system immediately notifies immigration officials. Local law enforcement must give ICE officials 48-hour notice before releasing an immigrant who has a match in both systems. ICE determines the appropriate action. In the worst cases ICE officials will move to deport dangerous offenders while for some nonviolent offenders they may try to get them to depart the U.S. voluntarily.

The idea behind Secure Communities, which Congress appropriated $1.4 billion for in fiscal year 2009, is that the program will revolutionize how the government finds and identifies criminals who may be subject to deportation. ICE says the agency’s priority is to remove the most dangerous criminals — those who have committed crimes such as murder, rape or kidnapping — from the United States.

Los Angeles County, for instance, joined the program in late Aug. 2009. In the first two months Secure Communities was used there, law enforcement agencies made 78,895 submissions, resulting in 8,717 matches. Of those individuals found to have an immigration record, more than 1,100 were level 1 offenders, according to ICE officials.

ICE, which expects to go nationwide with the program by 2013, launched the initiative selectively around the country in Oct. 2008. From Oct. 27, 2008 through December 31, 2009, Secure Communities nationwide received more than 1.3 million submissions, according to an ICE official. Those submissions resulted in 155,521 matches, including 14,796 aliens who had been charged with or convicted of serious criminal offenses. Statewide figures were not immediately available.

But Secure Communities has also raised some controversy and concern, including errors in databases. For instance, of the 155,521 matches, 9,053, or about 6 percent, were U.S. citizens mistakenly matched, according to an ICE official. (The Dallas Morning News reported in November that there were about 119,000 matches, and 5,900, or just about 5 percent, people were U.S. citizens.)

Another potential issue is the housing of illegal immigrants in state prisons and jails. Although the Obama Administration allocated about $330,000 in its 2011 budget request to reimburse states for incarcerating illegal immigrants, that amount is no where near what's spent to house illegal immigrant inmates in state prisons and jails.

The state expects to pay about a $1 billion this year to jail about 19,000 illegal immigrants, according to the Los Angeles Times. Of the $330 million, administered by the federal Justice Department's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), about $90 million will go to California.

In response, Gov. Schwarzenegger floated the idea of exporting illegal immigrant inmates to Mexico, as California's prisons are already overcrowded.The state Prison Industry Board also recently decided that it would no longer allow convicted illegal immigrants to receive job training.

The White House's Office of Management and Budget has determined that because SCAAP reimbursements don't deter crime by illegal immigrants and the program has not shown results, among other reasons, the program should be terminated.

ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said that the Secure Communities program would not financially burden state and local jails with holding more illegal immigrants. It is ICE's responsibility to house the illegal immigrant after the individual is released by local law enforcement, she said.

"As long as a criminal alien remains in local custody on criminal charges...we do not pre-empt that process," Kice wrote in an email. "If a potentially deportable criminal alien is slated for release by local authorities even though the criminal case has not been concluded, we will typically execute the detainer and initiate the removal process."

But Jim Denney, executive director of the California State Sheriff's Association, questions where ICE is going to hold such criminal aliens. He points to the state's overcrowded county jails. More than 30 counties in the state are already under court or self-imposed population caps, which require jails to release inmates to make room for new ones coming through the door, Denney said.

ICE has discussed building new detention facilities, and even begun the bidding process for a new facility in the Los Angeles area, but has faced delays.

Agree with Generic. Repetitive comments which are nothing more than cut-and-pastes of other people's work are boring to read and also present a potential violation of copyright law.

Hopefully someone who has visited this site---whether they write comments on here or not---found the 3 different articles I posted about so-called "Secure Communities" informative. I didn't write the articles, I didn't claim to write them and I put them on here in their entirety for people's information because I didn't think that most people would find them. (I Googled them, that's how I found them). I found the articles very informative.

But as is often the case with dysfunctional people, I see a couple of people whining and moaning about the 3 articles in their constant obsession to go at Sam and not learn a fuking thing. Stupidity is what they strive for these days. Use any excuse to attack the messenger. No one forced you to read those articles (assuming you did) and the people who are whining about them are not moderators nor do they own this site, so they are in no position whatsoever to say anything about them. They just felt the need to troll around and take a stab at Sam, as per usual. They had nothing better to do. If the Guardian doesn't want those 3 articles on here, they are, of course, free to remove them. I won't be offended. It's their site. They can do with it what they want. I had just thought that some people might find the 3 articles informative. I would have just put the links in to the articles, but I've never been able to get links to work on this site. I end up in the spam filter thingy when I put links in for some reason. So that's why I posted the entire article for each of the 3 articles.

I suspect the intelligent and well-adjusted people did find them informative and understood the reason I posted them.

But then you have those who have a constant chip on both shoulders, who are constantly whining, moaning and complaining no matter what the topic and they come with the nastiest of disposition 24/7.... no, I wouldn't expect them to find them informative whatsoever. They don't have the ability to find them informative.

To those who did, you're welcome.

Newsom changed the city's sanctuary policy in July 2008, when he was running for governor. The change meant that juveniles accused of felonies get referred to ICE when they are booked. In other words, befor they have their day in court.

Sup. David Campos amended Newsom's policy in fall 2009, and a super majority of the Board supported his amendment, overriding Newsom's veto.

But Newsom ignored the Board's will. So, this latest development isn't proof that Newsom has changed his image. It merely reinforces what folks already know. But which local agencies suggested and/or agreed to join the new federal initiative? And is their a funding incentive involved?

About the US DOJ letter:

You can find a copy here: But in a nutshell, US DOJ says that the US Attorney's Office"has not threatened to arrest any City employee in connection with these discussions."

Hmm. That must be a relief to  the city's juvenile probation departmen. JPD Chief William Siffermann told a Board hearing in March that there is a prohibition against "transporting and harboring any person known to be undocumented," a position, Siffermann said, that leaves JPD officers feeling vulnerable given that the department has received three federal Grand Jury subpoenas related to JPD's previous policy towards juveniles.

ICE's Virginia Kice just told me that, "All law enforcement agencies are expected to be part of Secure Communities by 2013 in accordance with Congressional mandate."

I'd asked her if local jurisdictions chose to join the plan...and given that participation is expected by 2013, its seem to have jumped in 3 years earlier than needed ...but it also looks like our only option would be not to receive information about individuals, even as that info gets forwarded to ICE anyways:

"ICE continues to work with jurisdictions to provide information, explain the benefits, and address any concerns local law enforcement agencies may have about Secure Communities," Kice told me. " Once a Memorandum of Agreement is signed with the state bureau of identification, ICE continues to work with all jurisdictions to implement Secure Communities within that state. A jurisdiction can choose not to receive the immigration-related information on an individual who is fingerprinted, but that information will still be provided to ICE."

I also asked Kice if there was a "funding incentive" involved."

I’m not sure what you mean by 'funding incentives," Kice replied. "The costs associated with the deployment of this interoperability capability are being born by the federal government, which is another benefit of this initiative – it imposes virtually no burden on local law enforcement. "

Unfortunately, there's more. It appears that the state identification bureau (SIB) which is part of  California Attorney General Jerry Brown's Department of Justice signed a memorandum of agreement on April 19 (when Arizona legislators passed SB 1070) in which SIB agreed "to coordinate with ICE regarding information to be released to the media regarding actions taken under this MOA."

"The SIB may, at its discretion, communicate the substance of this MOA to law enforcement professional expressing an interest in the law enforcement activities to be engaged in under this MOA," the MOA states.

"You can review a copy of that agreement in the “reading room” on the ICE Web site," ICE's Virginia Kice said.
 
"As for the Secure Communities’ activation schedule," Kice continued, "you are correct, the deployment was dictated by a variety of factors, including a jurisdiction’s estimated criminal alien population and the availability of ICE resources to respond the additional workload."

"...including a jurisdiction’s estimated criminal alien [sic] population..."----Ms Kice

----------------------

"Alien" population? Jesus fuking christ! Where are these "aliens?" Where is their ship? What planet do they come from? What do they look like? Do they have antennas coming out of their head?

So this government---the "Hope" and "Change we can believe in" government---is using THAT language? (Sigh....not that I'm surprised.)

I'm still waiting for a photo of one single space ship. One would think that with all these "aliens," there would be ships all over the place...that we'd be saturated with ships. Or do they all have cloaking devices?

I support a bill allowing non-documented people to get drivers licenses. I was kind of surprised that when I moved to CA I had to show proof of citizenship to get one, because in Washington State you're not required to show that.

And no, I don't think US citizens are going to be required to be "electronically finger printed and otherwise biometrically assessed" when getting a passport or DL. I think the current requirements for getting a US passport are quite satisfactory.

Good luck in getting Jerry Brown to return the call. . .