Illinois pulls out of Secure Communities


As California considers reforming Secure Communities, Illinois announced today that it is terminating its involvement in the controversial federal immigration program. California and Illinois moves come in face of Washington D.C’s decision to opt out of S-Comm and Washington State's refusal to participate. And they test ICE’s claims that the program is mandatory, as other states watch these developments.

(UPDATE: Yesterday, I erroneously reported that New York State had refused to participate in S-Comm.That is not the case. New York State does allow jurisdictions to participate, they have a MOA with ICE, and 8 more counties just joined. I confused NY with Washington State, which has refused to join.)

In a May 4 letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn enclosed a notice from Illinois State Police (ISP) director Hiram Grau, notifying ICE that because of its indiscriminate use of the "Secure Communities" deportation program, Illinois is terminating the November 2009 S-Comm Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between ISP and U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s ICE."

“The stated purpose of the program, as set forth in the MOA, is to “identify, detain and remove from the United States aliens who have been convicted of ¬serious criminal offenses and are subject to removal (emphasis added), ICE’s statistics on the Secure Communities program, compiled through February 28, 2011, reveal that the implementation of the Secure Communities program in Illinois is contrary to the stated purpose of the MOA: more than 30 percent of those deported from the United States, under the program, have never been convicted of ¬any crime, much less a serious one. In fact, by ICE’s own measure, less than 20 percent of those who have been deported from Illinois under the program have ever been convicted of a serious crime.”

Quinn notes that on November 9, 2010, his office directed ISP to suspend S-Comm until a review of the program and its adherence to the MOA could be conducted. “Upon evaluation of data provided by ICE to the State of Illinois, conversations between ICE and members of my administration, and a new, proposed MOA from ICE, it’s clear that the conflict between the MOA as signed by ISP and ICE’s implementation of the program cannot be resolved to the State of Illinois’ satisfaction.”

“With this termination, no new counties in Illinois can be activated and those counties that were previously activated... must be deactivated and removed from the Secure Communities program,” Quinn concludes.

Illinois’ move comes as California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano’s Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools (TRUST) Act passes out of the California Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, next stop appropriations. The TRUST Act would allow local governments to opt out of S-Comm or set standards for jurisdictions that chose to participate. Joining Ammiano as co-sponsors of the TRUST Act are Assemblymembers Gil Cedillo (D-LA) and Bill Monning (D- Carmel) and Sen. Leland Yee (D-SF). Endorsers include 80 organizations, local governments and elected officials, including the Santa Clara and Santa Cruz County Boards, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who blew the whistle on S-Comm in San Francisco a year ago, and has endorsed San Francisco Sup. Ross Mirkarimi in the sheriff’s race this fall, retired Sacramento Police Chief Arturo Venegas, and civil rights and faith groups, including the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the California Labor Federation, the San Bernardino Catholic Diocese and Equality California.

Advocates hope Ammiano’s TRUST Act will restore balance and accountability to the nation’s immigration system. They charge that S-Comm’s misleading focus, over-broad reach and lack of transparency have eroded trust between police and immigrant communities, making victims and witnesses to crimes reluctant to come forward.

The TRUST Act would make S-Comm an “opt-in” program so local governments can tailor their participation based on local needs.The bill would set safeguards for municipalities that do elect to participate in S-Comm to guard against racial profiling and would ensure that children and domestic violence survivors are not swept up by S-Comm. The TRUST act also upholds the right to a day in court by only reporting for deportation individuals convicted - not merely accused - of crimes.

These moves come fresh in the heels of Congressman Luis Gutierrez’s April 27 appearance in San Francisco, where he was joined by San Francisco Sups David Campos and John Avalos, and Board President David Chiu in asking President Obama for administrative relief from rapidly increasing deportations.
“We need to stop deporting parents and ripping apart all families, including same-sex partners, “ wrote Chiu, Campos and mayoral candidate Avalos. “We need to stop deporting students who would have been eligible for the DREAM ACT. Last year, the U.S. deported an estimated 400,000 immigrants, the highest number of deportations per year in the history of our nation. We must allow our counties to opt out of  “S-Comm” (Secure Communities), which is making our communities less secure, and we support Congressman Gutierrez in these courageous requests. Immigrants are part of the fabric of our communities, and we need to fix our immigration system so everyone who lives here can continue to live as a full member of society without constant fear of safety, security, and livelihood being jeopardized at any moment.”




Timely piece,

The elephant in the room here is that SFPD and I'm sure, other cop forces use this program to remove youngsters they see hanging around gang members to prevent them from growing into a law enforcement problem. They bust them on phony charges and get them deported before they get the tattoos. ICE people were quoted as telling a gathering of locals at a State convention that they could get rid of people whom the locals couldn't touch. It's another facet of the 'gang injunction' rubric.

Giants pitchers struck out 17 Mets today!

Where's Brandon? Hitting .471 in Fresno.


Posted by Guest h. brown on May. 04, 2011 @ 11:41 pm

Remember who your Political adversaries are in coming elections, whose main concern is more votes and additional amounts of illegal cheap labor.


Our lawmakers must be persuaded by the threat of being voted out of office, that they must mandate such logical laws as mandating E-Verify, Secure communities and the 287 G. These people are not just the Senators or Congressmen-Women in Washington, but it’s also a mixed bag of Governors, Mayors, Police Chiefs and a wide range of city managers. Many of these Liberal-Democrats are in Congress to feather their own nests from special interest groups; there are no mitigating circumstances for hard line, wealthy Republicans either. Good Righteous Americans have come to the end of their tether, that's why "THE PEOPLE'S" TEA PARTY was born?

The Obama government of today and yesteryear administration has seen fit, to cater to the illegal immigration invaders, and now years of disgusting failures and complete incompetence is driving federal and State treasuries into bankruptcy. How many Trillions of dollars could America have packed into infrastructure, welfare nets, balancing federal State and local government, if that deceased Lib-Democrat Ted Kennedy hadn't rescinded the nationality "Quota System?." If the previous President LBJ' Immigration law had remained steadfast? But today with have nothing but economic illegal aliens threading their way across a poorly funded border; undermanned with no troops present to stop this incursion. Now America is going through a huge crime wave, as the sewers of South America have opened spilling there offal and bringing with it unfettered death and destruction to the American people.

To ensure America's future and your children, we must bring to a halt this invasion of our sovereign nation. The Liberal progressives and their philosophy have no respect for people’s freedom and self determination. We cannot afford to feed the world or allow activist judges to supersede laws such as illegal alien schooling or free health care. Our only real choice is to unseat the factions of "Tax and Spend" We have massive US deficit through entitlement programs that is partially caused by the 300.000 annual Birthright baby citizenship law illegal parents to settle with expenditures in the billions of taxpayer dollars. The TEA PARTY has an unparalleled growth membership that is threatening the two party system of government, which is totally destroying this country through partisan economics. But the TEA PARTY is rapidly moving ahead with the assurance, that the illegal immigration occupation will be halted.

All new members are welcome as long as you entered this country legally, without any prejudiced to your previous skin color, religion or allegiance to a foreign nation. This is a firm commitment to honest legal immigrants, who have assimilated into the American culture. America can no longer support the impoverished peoples in our country or across the Earth. COME! Join us today! Join your local chapter or national TEA PARTY, and make your single voice join tens of millions more against the corruption in Washington. Call and raise hell with your local and federal lawmaker at Senate—202-224–3121/ House—202-225–3121 or locate the in your phone directory blue pages. Learn the immigration grades of those amongst lawmakers at NumbersUSA.

Posted by Guest Dave Francis on May. 05, 2011 @ 12:08 pm

Myth: The nation spends billions of dollars on welfare for undocumented immigrants.

Fact: Undocumented immigrants are INELIGIBLE for federal public assistance programs~

"As the Congressional Research Service points out in a 2007 report, undocumented immigrants, who comprise nearly one-third of all immigrants in the country, are not eligible to receive public "welfare" benefits-EVER. Legal permanent residents (LPRs) must pay into the Social Security and Medicare systems for approximately 10 years before they are eligible to receive benefits when they retire. In most cases, LPRs cannot receive SSI, which is available only to U.S. citizens, and are not eligible for means-tested public benefits until 5 years after receiving their green cards.

"A 2007 analysis of welfare data by researchers at the Urban Institute reveals that less than 1 percent of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5 percent of households headed by native-born U.S. citizens."

According to the Migration Policy Institute, "the labor-force participation of male undocumented immigrants is 94%, exceeding the rate of both native-born and work-authorized immigrant men." Moreover, a recent UCLA study reveals that legalizing undocumented immigrants would help the economy~

Posted by Lisa on May. 06, 2011 @ 6:08 pm

Undocumented immigrants paid $11.2B in taxes last year, unlike GE, which paid zero~

Posted by Lisa on May. 06, 2011 @ 6:01 pm

I have to explain this all the time to liberals at work, so don't feel bad. Every company that employees people pays taxes on them, when you get a paycheck, if you had a job, the company is also paying taxes. I'm not talking about the money they with hold from you, and give to the government, but money they give along with yours. So they do pay taxes, along with the sales tax and property taxes already mentioned. It's interesting how you howl about people not being informed, or too stupid to agree with you.

Posted by meatlock on May. 07, 2011 @ 5:54 am

Linking anything from the NY Daily News is usually a bad idea, but let me help you out here.

Yes...GE paid $0 in Corporate taxes, but surely paid both property and sales taxes. So to compare GE's corporate taxes with immigrants income, sales AND property taxes isn't a valid premise for an article obviously written to promote an agenda.

It took a quick glance over to catch the idiotic discrepancy. Read closer next time.

Posted by Sambo on May. 06, 2011 @ 7:11 pm

"Measured as a share of family income, California’s LOWEST-INCOME FAMILIES PAY THE MOST IN TAXES. The poorest fi fth of the state’s non-elderly families, with an average income of $13,200, spent 11.1 percent of their income on state taxes.1 In comparison, the wealthiest 1 percent, with an average income of $2.2 million, spent 7.8 percent of their income on state taxes." [...] (caps are mine)

"The share of income California’s families spend on state and local taxes is a function of the state’s relatively progressive personal income tax and regressive sales and excise taxes. Higher-income families pay a larger share of their income in income taxes. LOWER-INCOME FAMILIES PAY A GREATER SHARE OF THEIR INCOME IN SALES AND PROPERTY TAXES." Families also indirectly pay a portion of the taxes imposed on business through higher prices and reduced corporate earnings. Higher-income families pay a greater share of the corporate income tax, whereas LOWER-INCOME FAMILIES PAY A GREATER SHARE OF THE SALES AND EXCISE TAXES PAID BY BY BUSINESSES." --California Budget Project

Posted by Lisa on May. 08, 2011 @ 4:35 pm

from all levels of government.

Low income people with children will never pay off the burden of all the services the various levels of government provide for their children.

The people with the greatest amount of subsidies are the richest corporations and the poorest people who breed. There will never be enough tax money to finance the democrats pleading for individuals who make poor choices or the republicans who are servile to big business.

You just chose to have studied outrage around one group.

Posted by maltlock on May. 08, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our social services.

FACT: By paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants contribute far more to government coffers than they use in social services.

In its landmark report published in 1997—arguably the most thorough national study to date of immigration’s fiscal impacts—the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that on average, immigrants generate public revenue that exceeds their public costs over time—approximately $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in state, federal and local benefits over their life times. This same conclusion was reached in 2007 by the Council of Economic Advisers in their report to the Executive Office of the President where they state that “the long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive,” and agree with the NRC report’s view that “only a forward-looking projection of taxes and government spending can offer an accurate picture of the long-run fiscal consequences of admitting new immigrants.”

Indeed, most non-citizens are not even eligible for the majority of welfare programs unless they are legal permanent residents and have resided in the United States legally for at least five years. This includes benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Moreover, according to government reports, non citizens are much less likely than citizens to use the benefits for which they are eligible. For example, immigrants, especially the undocumented, tend to use medical services much less than the average American. In fact, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services as the average native-born citizen. Moreover, the claim that immigrants account for high rates of emergency room (ER) visits is refuted by research; in fact, communities with high rates of ER usage tend to have relatively small percentages of immigrant residents.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2011 @ 5:08 pm

Those people have children. Those children are citizens of the USA as long as they are born here. Also we are by law required to put those kids in school even if they were not born here.

I'm not a classist like many liberals here so I respect anyone who does any job. But working a $20,000 a year job, illegal alien or not, those people will never be able to pay in taxes what it costs the state to help raise, and take a stab at educating that child to adulthood. Foodstamps, public education, prisons, etc... and that was my point.

The mixing and matching of immigrant/undocumented immigrant also makes me suspect a conflation of the two in your little study, thus worthless.

Posted by maltlock on May. 09, 2011 @ 6:06 pm

"The Internal Revenue Service issues an annual report on the 400 highest income-tax payers. In 1961, there were 398 taxpayers who made $1 million or more, so I compared their income tax burdens from that year to 2007.

"Despite skyrocketing incomes, the federal tax burden on the richest 400 has been slashed, thanks for a variety of loopholes, allowable deductions and other tools. The actual share of their income paid in taxes, according to the IRS, is 16.6 percent. Adding payroll taxes barely nudges that number.

"Compare that to the vast majority of Americans, whose share of their income going to federal taxes increased from 13.1 percent in 1961 to 22.5 percent in 2007." --David Cay Johnson,0

Posted by Lisa on May. 08, 2011 @ 3:32 pm

reported that the top 1% of taxpayers pay nearly 50% of the total tax take.

The problem with all these statistics is that they can be manipulated to "sound" like they support whatever position you wish to take.

But more generally, you can ultimately only tax those who have the ability to pay, so the rich always pay more tax than the poor. It could never be any other way.

The rest is just petty envy.

Posted by Frank on May. 08, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

I just want them to pay up. Nearly half of the uber wealthy don't pay ANY taxes whatever! Then perhaps we can stop scapegoating immigrants for the economic woes inflicted on us by these robber barons. End "wealth care" for the rich!

Posted by Lisa on May. 08, 2011 @ 4:51 pm

any tax either. You seem far more concerned about those who don't pay tax than you are about those who do pay tax.

Most of those who do pay tax are wealthier than most of those who do not. That's why our tax system is called "progressive", to use what is obviously one of your favorite words.

Posted by Frank on May. 08, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

You claim that the poor pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes because they pay things like sales tax which you consider regressive.

But then here you claim that some people don't pay any taxes at all, apparently not even sales tax according to you.

There really is no wrong answer to you is there, just doctrinaire "what works for me today."

Posted by 9/11 truther on May. 09, 2011 @ 10:36 am

Oh, I'm sorry, was that too taxing for you to wrap your brain around? Well, let's see if I can simplify this for you: The rich are being taxed too little, the poor too much. Many corporations pay NO taxes due to loopholes, deferrals, tax dodges and shelters. This means that the tax burden is (increasingly) being shouldered by the poor and middle class. So... "When will obscenely rich a**holes stop crying about taxes?" I'm with Bill Maher on this one~

Posted by Lisa on May. 09, 2011 @ 6:13 pm