Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (Photo: Flickr/The National Guard)

Former members of a task force on Secure Communities sent a letter this week to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calling on her to suspend the immigration enforcement program.

The letter also expressed their concern that an Arizona law enforcement agency that has committed a “wide range of civil rights violations” still has access to Secure Communities.

Brittney Nystrom of the National Immigration Forum and Andrea Zuniga DiBitetto of the AFL-CIO write in the letter:

As former members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council, Task Force on Secure Communities, we note with concern the multiple findings of racial profiling of Latinos and other civil rights violations by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office released by the Department of Justice (DOJ) on December 15.

The findings of a pattern and practice of racial profiling of Latinos in Maricopa County, Arizona, demonstrate that abuse can occur while the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is actively collaborating with enforcement agencies through both the 287(g) program and the Secure Communities program and through informal collaboration between DHS and law enforcement agencies.

“My understanding is that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is continuing to operate Secure Communities in Maricopa County despite the findings of discriminatory policing by that sheriffs department,” Nystrom tells The Florida Independent.

Secure Communities allows local law enforcement agencies to check the fingerprints of people they detain and match them up with federal immigration and criminal databases, with the stated goal of deporting undocumented immigrant criminals. All 67 Florida jurisdictions participate in Secure Communities.

Napolitano said in October that the termination of Secure Communities “would only weaken public safety, and move the immigration enforcement system back towards the ad hoc approach where non-criminal aliens are more likely to be removed than criminals.”

Opponents of Secure Communities have repeatedly called on the Obama administration to end the fingerprint-sharing program because immigrants who have committed no crime are being detained and deported, leaving behind U.S.-born children and families that, in many cases, will struggle to make ends meet.

Nystrom says that Homeland Security officials said they were “limiting” the Maricopa sheriff’s office’s “access to Secure Communities, but that in [her] thinking and Andrea’s thinking doesn’t go far enough to prevent someone who was picked up in a biased manner from being put into the deportation machine.”

The letter adds that the Secure Communities termination should also include Alabama, “where immigration enforcement laws that have been challenged as unconstitutional by the Department of Justice are in effect.”

Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Photo: Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

Homeland Security writes:

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is troubled by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) findings of discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO). Discrimination undermines law enforcement and erodes the public trust. DHS will not be a party to such practices. Accordingly, and effective immediately, DHS is terminating MCSO’s 287(g) jail model agreement and is restricting the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office access to the Secure Communities program. DHS will utilize federal resources for the purpose of identifying and detaining those individuals who meet U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) immigration enforcement priorities. The Department will continue to enforce federal immigration laws in Maricopa County in smart, effective ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens, recent border crossers, repeat and egregious immigration law violators and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor.

A Department of Justice report released Thursday found that Arpaio, an advocate for controversial immigration enforcement and detention measures, has committed a “wide range of civil rights violations.”

The Department of Justice states that the ongoing civil rights investigation of the Arpaio’s office found “reasonable cause to believe that MCSO, under the leadership of Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, has engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct that violates the Constitution and federal law.”

“We are pleased the Department of Justice report compelled the Department of Homeland Security to take steps today that should have been taken years ago,” said Chris Newman, Legal Director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network in a written statement.

The Network adds:

As the DOJ report implies, DHS was an accomplice in the rights violations caused by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. DHS enabled Sheriff Arpaio to conduct his reign of terror, and expansion of the Maricopa Sheriff’s approach led to SB 1070 and to the potential Arizonification of the country. Today, the Department of Justice again acted to clean up the mess caused by failed DHS policies that enlist local police into the business of enforcing unjust immigration laws. It is time for DHS to stop contributing to the civil rights crisis described in the DOJ report and end the programs that made Arpaio’s crimes possible.”

The National Immigration Forum writes that the “Justice Department findings confirm what the American public had already suspected: Sheriff Arpaio has been more concerned with headlines than the Constitution and the law,” adding that they “also hail Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s prompt termination of the MCSO’s 287g agreement, which delegates authority for immigration enforcement to local officials, and restriction of the MCSO’s access to the Secure Communities program.”

Immigrant advocates across the U.S. have denounced Secure Communities, a highly controversial federal immigration enforcement program critics say contributes to racial profiling, demanding that the Obama administration terminate the program immediately.

Photo: Sheriff Joe Arpaio (Flickr/Gage Skidmore)

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), who is expected to run the House Judiciary Committee, has spoken out against these cities, claiming they violate a 1996 law that expanded the government’s reach on illegal immigration. After the Justice Department decided to sue Arizona for taking on immigration enforcement with SB 1070, conservatives argued there should be a similar crackdown on sanctuary cities.

“For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law — who fail to comply with the law — is absurd,” Smith, the chief author of the 1996 immigration law, told The Washington Times in July. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”

The 1996 law, the Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act, requires local governments to cooperate with immigration enforcement authorities. Most lawmakers in sanctuary cities — San Francisco being one notable exception — deny that the label applies to their city’s policies because they do not prevent immigration authorities from policing immigration in their areas. They claim their policies are meant to enhance public safety by making undocumented immigrants feel comfortable about reporting crime to the police or seeking help from health officials.

As immigration enforcement programs expand, the “sanctuary cities” title is beginning to mean less and less. The Secure Communities program, which shares fingerprint data taken after arrests with federal immigration enforcement, is mandatory even in cities such as San Francisco that oppose turning the data over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The 287 (g) program, which was established under the 1996 law, has also led to expanded cooperation between local law enforcement and immigration officials as police are trained and deputized to perform immigration enforcement duties in some areas.

Still, it’s possible Smith will attempt a bill explicitly banning sanctuary-style policies. Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the pro-enforcement Federation for American Immigration Reform, told TWI that his organization hopes to see the Republicans in the House take a tough stand against sanctuary policies.

Such a measure could conceivably gain traction among Democrats, given the fact that “sanctuary” was used as a dirty word in several campaigns this year. The Obama administration’s eagerness to spread Secure Communities nationwide and continuation of the 287 (g) program seem to indicate at least some support for local police assistance with immigration enforcement. And although Obama and the Justice Department came down hard on Arizona for SB 1070, Obama’s arguments against a “patchwork of policies” could be — and have been — used by others against sanctuary cities.

GOP House members might also try to pass legislation specifically giving states the right to crack down on immigration, said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates stricter enforcement. “They might propose a bill to specifically assert states’ authority to participate in immigration enforcement,” he said. “I could see that passing the House relatively easily.”

That type of law, though, is far less likely to gain support from Democrats. Krikorian said he was almost certain such a bill would be vetoed by Obama, if it were able to get past Senate at all.

“I’m sending you his picture, Mr. Mayor,” the man says to Hickenlooper. “Try to sleep at night knowing your policies contributed to his death.”

Ouch.

But there are some major problems with this message. For one, “sanctuary city” is a misnomer — no city in the U.S. prevents Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from enforcing immigration laws. In truth, the name delineates the extent to which police officers are instructed to get involved in immigration enforcement. While some cities have joined the 287 (g) program, which deputizes local officers to identify illegal immigrants, Denver has not. It also has yet to join Secure Communities, a fingerprint-sharing program between local law enforcements and federal immigration officials. These programs are not mandated by federal law, so Denver officials are within their rights to stay out of them. And they have reasons not to: Advocates of so-called sanctuary policies argue they increase public safety by expanding trust in police.

As for criminals: Denver’s police guidelines require officers to refer arrested illegal immigrants to ICE, which has promised to prioritize illegal immigrants considered dangerous. While backlogs have led ICE to release some detainees in recent months, it only does so if the illegal immigrant has a potential path to legal residency — disqualifying those with criminal records.

It’s tough to say why the man described in the ad was not deported. But to claim Denver shields criminals from federal immigration enforcement is simply untrue.

Here’s the ad:

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Arizona voters finds Arpaio, famed for his crackdowns on illegal immigrants, leading Goddard, the state’s current attorney general, by 12 points – 51% to 39%. Seven percent (7%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

According to the survey, Goddard leads Republican Gov. Jan Brewer by a comfortable nine-point margin, and Goddard is virtually tied with State Treasurer Dean Martin. Brewer is the only one of the possible candidates who is officially in the race.

With numbers like this, could Arpaio be enticed to run for governor? And could he win?

Rumors have been swirling in Arizona for the past few months that Arpaio is mulling a gubernatorial bid, fueled by his antipathy for Goddard. The 77-year-old Arpaio was first elected in 1992, and he won re-election in 2008 by a commanding 13-point margin, with 55 percent of the vote. During that race, Arpaio raised more than $600,000 — an eye-popping sum for a countywide election. Effectively a modern-day political boss, “Sheriff Joe” is well-known for his heavy-handed tactics to combat illegal immigration and bragging about the harsh conditions in county detention facilities. He has launched investigations of numerous political opponents, including Goddard, Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, the Phoenix New Times and the Maricopa County Superior Court.

While Arpaio remains extremely popular in Maricopa County — the home of Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe accounts for approximately 61 percent of Arizona’s population — Goddard has already proven himself in statewide races, having been elected attorney general in 2002, and re-elected in 2006 with 60 percent of the vote (pdf). A poll released last month by the ASU Cronkite School of Journalism and KAET found Arpaio had a 61 percent approval rating among Maricopa County voters, while the same survey found 55 percent of Arizona voters approve of Goddard’s performance. Arizona has been trending Democratic in recent years, but a Gallup poll from January found party identification in the state was essentially a dead heat, and one would be hard-pressed to find anybody in Arizona without a strong opinion about Arpaio.

All of this seems to confirm Rasmussen’s findings: If Arpaio got into the race against Goddard, he would stand a pretty good chance of winning. It’s also a safe bet that Arpaio would raise a lot of money from out-of-state illegal immigration opponents.

The Obama administration has already clashed with Arpaio on a couple of occasions. In March, the Justice Department announced it was opening an investigation into allegations of racial profiling and unlawful searches and seizures, and last month Arpaio was stripped of his authority to enforce federal immigration laws under the controversial 287(g) program.

But if the Justice Department thought Arpaio was a handful as sheriff of Maricopa County, just imagine what he could do with control of the state’s Department of Public Safety, and Republicans in control of both houses of the state legislature.

(Via Eric Kleefeld)

This post has been updated.

It seems Dallas police were confused when, after pulling drivers over for other suspected violations, the police checked their in-car computers and a pull-down menu listed the “non-English speaking driver” charge as an option. The violation actually referred to a federal law governing commercial drivers that the Dallas police now say they don’t even enforce. However, at least 39 non-commercial drivers were fined $204 for their limited language skills.

Dallas Police Chief David Kunkle said on Friday that they would be reimbursed.

Although Dallas police don’t seem to have been attempting to enforce any immigration laws in these incidents, there’s a parallel to the ongoing controversy over a federal program that allows local police around the country who stop Latinos for minor traffic violations to check their legal status, then turn them over to federal immigration authorities for deportation if they can’t prove they’re in the United States legally.

The federal program, known as 287(g), deputizes some local police to enforce federal immigration law. But abuse of that power, often due to similar misunderstandings by local police officers, has at times led to the deportation of legal U.S. residents and even citizens, and prompted angry complaints from immigrants’ advocates.

Ultimately, much of the problem — in Dallas and beyond — seems to come from a lack of training of local police. The revelation that non-English speakers were getting fined in Dallas therefore could end up casting more attention on the 287(g) program, to the extent that local officials are wrongly arresting immigrants due to a lack of training on immigrants’ rights, local law enforcement authority, and what actually constitutes a crime.

Although Arpaio hasn’t exactly forbidden the women from getting abortion care, he has imposed a new requirement that the women pre-pay for transportation and security costs before being allowed to get medical care. The ACLU claims in its brief to the Arizona Superior Court that the requirement is unconstitutional, and violates a 2005 court order that Arpaio provide inmates access to abortions.

ACLU lawyers will be in an Arizona court on Tuesday asking the court to stop Arpaio from charging the women up to $600 before accessing abortion services.

Under the controversial 287(g) program, Arpaio had been allowed to check a suspect’s immigration status on the street as well as in jail after an arrest, and turn illegal immigrants over to federal authorities for deportation. But given that he’s faced a slew of lawsuits for abuse of that power, plus a civil rights investigation by the federal government, DHS recently revoked part of Arpaio’s authority.

Last week at a news conference, he distributed a document that cited a law that doesn’t exist and included a legal interpretation of federal law that came from a restrictionist group that’s been called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. The Center for Immigration Studies had posted on its web site in 1999 a legal interpretation that said “state and local law-enforcement officials have the general power to investigate and arrest violators of federal immigration statutes without prior INS knowledge or approval, as long as they are authorized to do so by state law,” and that “evasive, nervous, or erratic behavior; dress or speech indicating foreign citizenship; and presence in an area known to contain a concentration of illegal aliens” is enough to constitute reasonable suspicion to authorize law police action. Arpaio used that language to justify continuing to arrest people he suspected of being illegal immigrants but who were not violating state criminal laws.

Arpaio had originally said he got the legal interpretation from a Cornell University Website, but a Cornell law professor told The Arizona Republic that the school’s Website contains no such thing, and that there actually is no law that says what Arpaio claimed in the document he distributed.

“The ACLU is encouraged by the willingness of congressional leaders to lay out details of immigration reform, but we strongly oppose any reforms that would unnecessarily violate the privacy of Americans,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, Acting Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, in a statement issued today. “We urge lawmakers to reject any proposed immigration reform measures that include a biometric national worker ID system or a universal compulsory electronic employment verification system. These systems come at enormous cost to the American public and do little to prevent the hiring of undocumented workers. It is unacceptable to force Americans to be fingerprinted and photographed in order to work.”

The idea of a national ID and employment verification system is something immigration reform advocates often include as a way to appease critics of a comprehensive bill that would legalize some currently illegal immigrants. But the ACLU and other civil liberties groups have long opposed it.

Today the ACLU also criticized the controversial portion of the immigration laws that allow, under section 287(g), local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law, which has led to “racial and ethnic profiling across the country” and discouraged immigrants from cooperating with police, as I’ve discussed in previous posts. The Department of Homeland Security under Janet Napolitano has actually expanded the 287(g) program, despite the documented problems.

Congress should also end the prolonged detention of illegal immigrants who pose no risks, allow immigration judges to consider U.S. citizen children and spouses when deciding deportation cases, and allow the courts to ensure fair immigration hearings, the ACLU said today. DHS recently announced some reforms to immigration detention, which included a promise to consider alternatives to detention for illegal immigrants who aren’t considered dangerous. Those who advocate cracking down on illegal immigrants, however, strongly oppose letting them go free until their deportation hearings, arguing that there’s little incentive for them to show up to immigration court if they might be deported.

As for what the ACLU wants to see in a comprehensive immigration reform bill, here’s the group’s statement on that.

Even if the sheriff and his deputies can’t arrest anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant on the street, they can still check the immigration status of everyone in Maricopa County’s jails and turn them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation. The Department of Justice is separately investigating Arpaio for allegedly abusing his authority by conducting unconstitutional searches and engaging in racial profiling.

DHS has promised to review all 287(g) agreements with individual counties, even as it has expanded the number of those agreements in effect.