This week the Occupy Atlanta protesters found a way to protest economic injustice that may build allies within the local law enforcement community.

On Monday about two dozen activists with the group moved their tents to the suburban lawn of a home where a local policeman and his family are facing eviction.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports that the group mobilized after learning that the five-member family may lose their home because the bank that holds their mortgage has decided to foreclose rather than allow them to refinance.

“This family is the perfect example of the fraud going on in the mortgage and banking industries,” said Latron Price, one of Occupy Atlanta’s organizers. “We plan to shed light on the foreclosure issue and we look to make a stand here.” …

Tim Franzen, one of Occupy Atlanta’s organizers, said the group had been seeking a good story to highlight the problems with the mortgage industry. He said Rorey’s husband, a law enforcement officer with DeKalb County, sent Occupy Atlanta an e-mail detailing their plight last week and within a few hours they formulated a plan to bring attention to the foreclosure.

“What I envision is a model of protest coming out of this,” Franzen said. “We plan to develop an occupy community in this neighborhood and maybe create something that can be duplicated nationally.”

Police officers have been pitted against Occupy Wall St. activists in many cities where they have been ordered to enforce rules against camping in public spaces, and in some well-publicized instances they have used force against demonstrators.

By working together to illustrate the problems of the mortgage industry Occupy Atlanta and the Rorey family may help build goodwill and common ground.

According to the group’s Facebook page, Saturday’s meeting would be important: A release was circulated indicating that protesters were looking to begin a more ambitious campaign, requesting cold-weather tents and sleeping bags, gas-powered generators and other materials indicative of a more powerful movement building in the Midwest capital.

So far, Columbus city officials have refused to grant the activists any sort of permit to allow semi-permanent camping. The city is enforcing regular sidewalk and city-park rules, which do not permit tents or overnight camping.

“Those tents are people staying here 24-7, and not going home,” said one Occupant in his 60s.

“That permit in there, that says we have a right to have them there for storage and sleeping quarters,” he continued, gesturing to the main tent. “And, until they tell us to take them down, they’ll stay there.”

He was at least partly right. The permit, issued by the city’s Department of Public Services, says that its purpose is to allow activists to “OCCUPY SIDEWALK WITH 3 TENTS AND TABLES TO PASS OUT FLIERS.”

One of the six or so other protesters clarified.

“We’re not allowed to sleep,” said Miles Coleman, though he acknowledged that “nodding off” was sometimes unavoidable. “We’ve been working in shifts, and you just go home when you are tired.”

Coleman said some strides had been made in working conditions for protesters -– for example, they had a wi-fi Internet hotspot at the Statehouse location –- but, he added, they were still missing some critical supplies, such as additional sleeping bags and blankets. He also noted a generator “would be nice,” although he was uncertain as to the legality of using one at the location.

“At a day-to-day level, it’s always nice to get coffee and food, especially around meal times,” he said. “The coffee could come all the time,” he laughed. “We drink a heck of a lot of it.”

Coleman said although the movement was actively seeking a more permanent place to occupy, he wasn’t sure where they would actually end up.

“All I know right now is that it’s up in the air,” he said. “You could say we already tried to occupy the [Columbus] Commons,” he said, referring to a new park in downtown Columbus owned by a non-profit development corporation. Coleman said they were there for just a short time before security guards told them to leave; when they refused, the police were called.

“When they notified the [Columbus Police Department], it took them 45 minutes to respond,” said Coleman, speculating the cops could be sympathetic to protesters. “They were nice to us, but they told us to leave, and none of us wanted to get arrested, so we evacuated the park,” said Coleman of the short-lived occupation of the Columbus Commons.

Occupy Columbus (Photo: David S. Lewis)

Part of that “sympathetic” attitude could be because police and other safety workers in Ohio are on the defensive after Ohio Republicans took aim at public employees’ ability to bargain collectively with the passage of Senate Bill 5 last March. Unlike similarly controversial laws passed in New Jersey and Wisconsin, Ohio’s provided no exceptions for public safety workers, who are already being laid off from local municipalities across the state. Supporters of the law say layoffs would increase without the legislation, blaming overly generous pensions and health-care packages for costing more than the public can afford, despite evidence of numerous concessions made by the state’s public unions in recent years; opponents of the law say the cuts to local governments at the state level have robbed their coffers, and that state Republicans were blaming public workers for problems they haven’t caused.

Regardless, many Occupy protesters have carried anti-SB5 signs, and are encouraging passersby to vote on Nov. 8 against Issue 2, a referendum by citizens’ veto to repeal the contentious bill. In return for their support, many of the protesters have said the cops were more sympathetic to their protests than they had experienced in other, unrelated activism.

Coleman said unions have told Occupy Columbus members they will return to support the movement after the big election, though he would not speak for Occupy Columbus on their relationship with labor groups overall. He added the group had been getting support, mostly in the form of supplies, from individual members.

Senate Bill 5, legislation that strips almost all of Ohio’s public employees of most of their collective bargaining rights, will allow Ohio police and firefighters to nominally negotiate for wages and benefits.

Under the legislation, though, bargaining is more like pleading. If the bill is not repealed in a Nov. 8 statewide referendum, Issue, 2, management will hold all the cards in any negotiation.

“When someone gets to choose their own last best offer anyway, it really doesn’t give someone incentive to bargain,” Director of Governmental Affairs for the Ohio Association of Professional Fire Fighters Jim Carney said. “It’s really collective begging. We can say, ‘This is what we want. This is what we need. This is what we need to protect the public.’ All they have to do, at the end of the day, is say, ‘No. We like our offer better.’”

Jay McDonald, president of the Fraternal Order of Police in Ohio, compared it to negotiating with his children over bedtimes. They can ask to stay up past midnight. But, at the end of the day, they can only ask. He ultimately makes the decision.

The inability to bargain in any meaningful way could affect public safety in Ohio in a myriad of ways, McDonald said.

“It prohibits police officers and firefighters from talking to their employers about staffing,” he said. “It’ll be politicians that are making the decision on how many people are on a fire truck or how many police officers are working through a shift as opposed to the experts that know the needs of their community.”

According to McDonald, if Senate Bill 5 is not repealed, about 51,000 public employees across the state could lose their jobs. He estimates that about two-thirds of those will be public safety employees.

Less police on the beat could mean increased crime rates while fewer firefighters in stations across the state could add to response times in emergencies.

“Without the ability to negotiate for staffing levels, we lose firefighters. When a call comes in, there’s less firefighters available,” said Carney. “When you reduce staffing you reduce the availability of people to be able to respond to emergencies.”

While Senate Bill 5 does provide public safety officials the right to bargain –- or beg, as Carney put it –- for personal safety equipment, nowhere in the legislation is it spelled out exactly what that means.

Public safety officials fear that, too, could be left up to management.

“We have the right to ask for personal safety equipment, but no one can decide what that is. Does that mean bullet resistant vests? Does that mean cruisers? Does that mean radiator detectors? Does that mean Hazmat suits?” McDonald asked. “Even if you have the right to ask for them, in a Senate Bill 5 world, that’s all you get to do is ask. We’re going to be dependent upon the benevolence of our employers when we’re talking about safety equipment.”

Goodwill should not be relied upon when it comes to life and death, though.

In testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 5 in front of the Ohio House’s Commerce and Labor Committee, Elaine N. Silveira, assistant general counsel to the Ohio State Troopers Association, outlined just how fine that line can be.

In 2003, a Missouri officer died in the line of duty after his Crown Victoria Police Interceptor -– the same vehicle used by the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSTA) –- was rammed from behind. Troopers soon learned the safety hazard could be fixed by installing a steel plate over the gas tank, and sought to have them installed.

It was not until two Ohio State troopers died in the same manner as their colleague in Missouri, followed by a lengthy and bitter arbitration process, that the plates were put on OSTA cars.

“You would think that the state of Ohio would say, ‘Absolutely. We want to protect our state troopers.’ But they had to go to arbitration to force the state of Ohio to install the shields to keep the vehicles from exploding,” said McDonald.

Under Senate Bill 5, the task of the third-party arbitrator falls on the elected body that also serves as management.

“If Senate Bill 5 becomes law, safety is going to be limited,” said Chris Weaver, vice president of the Youngstown Professional Fire Fighters Local 312. “We won’t be able to sit down and negotiate proper safety equipment that will protect us and protect the community.

“You’re gambling with your communities’ safety and their lives. There’s a lot at stake here when you’re talking about public safety.”

Democrats could once count on the support of labor unions across the country, but a Republican emphasis on social conservatism in the second half of the last century sent millions of middle and working class union members across party lines. Amid recent evidence that social issues are not a top priority for the vast majority of American conservatives, pro-union voters are now flocking to the party that they feel better represents their economic interests.

Politico reports consternation among public safety union members in Wisconsin and beyond:

[W]hen Walker ordered the Capitol police to arrest Wisconsin demonstrators who refused to obey a curfew, they refused – and instead hundreds of them lined up with the demonstrators to show solidarity.

“We know what’s right from wrong,” one officer shouted into a bullhorn in the packed Capitol building. “We will not be kicking anyone out. In fact, we will be sleeping here with you!”

In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich and his Republican allies decided against giving police and firemen special treatment, opting instead to try to appeal to their conservative instincts and win them over to the cause.

Since then, Mark Sanders, president of the Ohio Association of Professional Fire Fighters, said he’s had Republican members “apologize” for backing Kasich. “They are never voting that way again,” said Sanders, a Cincinnati fire department lieutenant.

Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) experienced the blowback firsthand when he attended a recent event for rising leaders in the New York fire department.

“These are down-the-line conservatives. They fully supported Bush in the Iraq war, in the war against terrorism, and on all the gut issues they were there,” King said. “Some of the guys I talked to said, ‘We stood with Bush on Queens Boulevard. Now, the Republicans have turned on us.’ ”

While the evidence that Politico’s Jeanne Cummings cites regarding party switches among police and firefighters is largely anecdotal, there is at least some hard data suggesting that economic concerns are driving a sea change among independent and right-leaning voters. Cummings reports that a Hart Research poll found that in November, 47 percent of American building trade union members identified as Democrats and 25 percent said they were Republicans. By January, before the Wisconsin collective bargaining meltdown had even begun, “the percentage of trade union members who called themselves Democrats jumped to 63 percent while the self-described Republicans fell to 18 percent.”

Similarly, this isn’t the first evidence of discontent with Republican politicians within the law enforcement community. The Wisconsin Law Enforcement Association (WLEA), a union of state and local officers focused on collective bargaining, voiced opposition to Walker’s insistence that they arrest and perform crowd control on protesters back in February. A WLEA representative contacted by The American Independent at the time said he couldn’t comment on disputes with the governor’s office but stated that the union’s lobbyist was at work at the Capitol.

The problem with the program, according to critics, is that it sometimes nets non-criminal illegal immigrants, including victims of domestic abuse. Police sometimes arrest (and fingerprint) both parties in instances of domestic violence, then later charge the person determined to be the likely perpetrator and release the other(s) without filing charges. In the three counties that wanted to be removed from Secure Communities, police said the program could deter undocumented immigrants from reporting crime and lessen overall public safety.

But when law enforcement officials in San Francisco mentioned this concern to Venturella, he was reportedly confused and said he hadn’t heard of such a concern, according to a lawyer who was briefed on the Tuesday meeting.

“David Venturella was confused by the domestic violence problem,” Angela Chan, a staff attorney with Asian Law Caucus who has been critical of Secure Communities, told TWI. “ICE didn’t have much of a response. I don’t know if they were being disingenuous and they hadn’t heard of it, but it’s a pretty common criticism of the program.”

ICE did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

In general, Chan said she was told community policing concerns were not addressed by ICE officials during the meeting in San Francisco on Tuesday. But such concerns have been a central tenet of why counties asked to be removed from the program in the first place — and have gotten a reasonable amount of media attention.

The Washington Post reported on Nov. 1 about a Hyattsville, Md., woman who called the police after a fight with her partner. The woman, who is in the country illegally, claims the call put her on the radar of a local police officer who later charged her with illegally selling phone cards, an allegation she denies. The charge was thrown out, but her fingerprints had already been shared with immigration authorities under Secure Communities, and she now faces deportation.

ICE officials told the Post the agency has the right to pursue deportation if it discovers someone is in the country illegally:

“ICE cannot and will not turn a blind eye to those who violate federal immigration law,” said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Brian Hale. “While ICE’s enforcement efforts prioritize convicted criminal aliens, ICE maintains the discretion to take action on any alien it encounters.”

In other situations, critics of the Secure Communities program say that police make two arrests and then determine who is the victim of abuse once at the station — but after fingerprints have begun to make their way into the hands of immigration authorities.

The immigration system has some protection for victims of domestic violence: As I mentioned yesterday, foreign-born spouses of Americans can petition for citizenship on their own — bypassing abusive spouses — if they can prove abuse. For undocumented immigrants, U visas are available to victims of certain crimes, including domestic violence. These visas grant victims the right to remain in the United States and work legally, but are granted based on the discretion of law enforcement agencies, which sometimes differ on what crimes merit the visas.

Part of the problem, the inspector general suggests, is that the agency spent almost three times what it needed to on flights, hotels and per diems for federal officials to travel to 287 (g) cities for compliance reviews. ICE reported spending $6,329 per person for 72 people to travel for reviews, but the inspector general’s office found that even in the most expensive locations, costs should not have exceeded $2,300 per person.

ICE told The Washington Post that the issue was being resolved:

“We are reviewing the report’s findings and will respond when that review is complete,” said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Gillian Brigham. “That said, ICE has addressed the accounting issue identified in the report.”

The program was criticized in March 2009 by the Government Accountability Office, which issued a report that immigration officials had failed to establish “key internal controls” to ensure local enforcement was run properly. In April, the DHS inspector general criticized the management, organization, information-sharing, training and oversight of the 287 (g) program.

What’s so bad about 287 (g), according to critics and reports? For one thing, local law enforcement agencies in some areas claim the program eats up their resources and time by adding the responsibility of immigration enforcement. The Police Foundation, a nonpartisan research group, said in 2009 that “immigration enforcement by local police undermines their core public safety mission, diverts scarce resources, increases their exposure to liability and litigation, and exacerbates fear in communities already distrustful of police.”

Critics of 287 (g) also argue it nets too many non-criminal illegal immigrants — an argument that has also been leveled against the Secure Communities fingerprint-sharing program. “The OIG report is further evidence that the Administration has yet to distinguish between deporting large numbers of immigrants and making us safe,” Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, said in April after the inspector general criticized the program for lacking focus on dangerous criminals.

A page from the immigrants rights guide by CASA de Maryland. (San Diego Union-Tribune)

The pictures in the pamphlet, which was created by lawyers from the immigrant rights advocacy group CASA de Maryland, are somewhat frightening: In the cover image, large-looking policemen lead visibly upset man out the door in handcuffs. Local police told the Union-Tribune the pictures were inappropriate, particularly coming from public schools. A spokeswoman from Immigration and Custom Enforcement spokesmen disagreed, saying the pamphlet “offers sound and practical information about the enforcement process.”

School district officials said they distributed the pamphlet after receiving reports of students performing poorly in school because they were worried about their immigration status. All children — documented or not — can attend public school as long as they meet state requirements for age and residency.

None of the advice offered in the pamphlet is illegal — it simply helps illegal immigrants avoid making mistakes that could betray their status. Still, some parents argued the information encouraged illegal immigration and the evasion of laws.

Advice from the pamphlet, via the Union-Tribune:

•?Don’t lie. Don’t give false testimony.

•?Don’t give government officials information about your immigration status.

•?Don’t say anything, or say only: “I need to speak to my lawyer.”

•?Don’t carry papers from another country because the government can use this material in a deportation proceeding.

•?Stay calm and don’t run. These actions may be viewed as an admission that you have something to hide.

•?Government officials may try to intimidate you or trick you into signing documents. You may be signing away your right to a hearing before an immigration judge.

•?You have the right to see a search warrant. Don’t open the door; ask authorities to slip the document underneath the door.

Elliot Madison, who counsels seriously mentally ill patients, first came under suspicion when, at the G-20 gathering of world leaders in Pittsburgh in September, he was arrested for allegedly listening to a police scanner and then sending out the information on Twitter to help protesters avoid the heavily armed police. Wired notes that the State Department applauded the same activity when protesters did it in Iran.

But in Madison’s case, the following week the Joint Terrorism Task Force got a warrant and raided the 41-year-old social worker’s home, where he lives with his wife and some roommates. The feds seized his computers, books, camera memory cards, air-filtration masks, bumper stickers and political posters. These were all supposedly evidence of his breaking the federal anti-rioting law. If found guilty, he could spend up to five years in prison.

Among his possessions taken were an electronic manuscript of a book he was working on. His first book, written with the “Curious George Brigade,” is called “Anarchy in the Age of Dinosaurs.”

Madison and his lawyer are now claiming that the search and seizure were unconstitutional.

Wired reporter Ryan Singel is decidedly sympathetic, suggesting that Madison is “yet another casualty of the government’s nasty, post-9/11 habit of considering political dissidents as threats to national security.”

The House Judiciary Committee is actually holding a hearing on a related subject this afternoon — the case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in which one of the thousands of Muslims rounded up, treated harshly and detained in the United States just after 9/11 sued the government for wrongful imprisonment and violation of his constitutional rights. In May, the Supreme Court dismissed Iqbal’s claims.

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.

Two DeKalb County police officers have been placed on paid administrative leave after an investigation revealed they ran a background check on President Barack Obama.

A representative for the DeKalb County CEO’s office identified the officers as Ryan White and C.M. Route.

Officials said Obama’s name was typed into a computer inside a DeKalb County police car on July 20 and ran through the National Crime Information Center.

Is this the wages of “birtherism”? It’s hard to say until we know more, but it’s not the sort of thing that regularly happens to presidents.