September, 01 2010, 03:40pm EDT
New Document Confirms Secure Communities Program Is Voluntary, Rights Groups Say ICE Must Allow Counties Opt Out
Public Officials, Civil Rights Advocates Raise Concerns About Local Autonomy and ICE’s Controversial Police Collaboration Program
SAN FRANCISCO/NEW YORK/WASHINGTON
In a teleconference press briefing today, public officials and
civil rights organizations underscored that nearly two years after its
launch, ICE has finally suggested a procedure for local jurisdictions to
request to opt out of the problematic Secure Communities program
(S-Comm). In response to mounting public pressure and the release of
internal ICE documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act
lawsuit filed in April by the Center for Constitutional Rights,
the National Day Laborer Organizing Network and the Kathryn O. Greenberg
Immigration Justice Clinic at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law,
ICE issued a seven-page document defending the politically sensitive
program. The document described for the first time what appears to be an
opt out process for local jurisdictions.
In today's briefing, San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey and Santa Clara Supervisor George Shirakawa joined
the groups to express concerns about the harm to public safety caused
by the program, which enlists locals police into federal immigration
enforcement through checking the fingerprints of all individuals at the
time of booking and to raise questions about ICE's newly released, yet
somewhat vague procedure for opting out of the program. The groups
demand that ICE follow its own policy by allowing local jurisdiction
that have made this request, such as San Francisco, to opt out.
San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey said,
"Despite ICE's contention that a local jurisdiction may opt out of
Secure Communities by submitting a formal request in writing, my
experience has shown this not to be true." The Sheriff re-submitted a
request to opt out this week citing the new ICE procedure in a letter
addressed to the Department of Homeland Security and the California
Attorney General that states "that the information provided...suggests
there is now a procedure in place to address such requests."
Santa Clara County Supervisor George Shirakawa
added, "The County of Santa Clara has been struggling to understand the
so-called 'voluntary' roll-out of Secure Communities in our jails. Santa
Clara County has a long-standing policy of not entangling immigration
enforcement with local policing. We are not in a position to do ICE's
work."
Earlier this month the Office of the County Counsel of Santa Clara
wrote a letter to the Department of Homeland Security asking for
clarification about the opt out process and never received a response.
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D), Co-chair of the Immigration
Sub-committee, also wrote a letter requesting clarification, noting that
"there appears to be significant confusion about how local law
enforcement agencies may 'opt out' of Secure Communities." To download a
copy of this letter as well as Sheriff Hennessey's letter, click here.
"We have known all along that S-Comm is a voluntary program because
it is a program, not a federal law, and it interferes with local
interests in protecting public safety by destroying any trust immigrant
residents have in the police," said Angela Chan, Staff Attorney at the Asian Law Caucus,
a nonprofit civil rights organization in San Francisco that serves
low-income Asian American immigrants. "It's a promising development that
ICE has finally come out and acknowledged that the program is voluntary
in a written statement. The next step is for ICE to follow through and
allow San Francisco to opt out since both our Sheriff and our Board of
Supervisors have clearly stated our city's request to opt out."
S-Comm now operates in 574 jurisdictions in 30 states. ICE
Assistant Secretary John Morton has declared his intention to deploy
S-Comm nationwide by 2013, and has vigorously defended the program in
the media as an innocuous information-sharing program that does not
require local police to enforce immigration laws. But according to Sarahi Uribe of NDLON and
lead organizer of the "Uncover The Truth Behind ICE and Police
Collaborations" campaign, "Details have been scarce, and frankly there
has been an Orwellian tone to Assistant Secretary Morton's S-Comm
propaganda campaign. Despite clear warning signs from Arizona about the
dangerous consequences of the ICE-police mergers, the Assistant
Secretary has accelerated its expansion. Local governments, law
enforcement and the public demand that ICE immediately amend the S-Comm
agreements to outline a clear and functional opt out process and respect
the requests of jurisdictions like San Francisco to opt out of the
program's implementation."
Groups say that particularly problematic is S-Comm's mechanism that
automatically runs fingerprints through immigration databases for all
people upon arrest, regardless of whether they are ultimately convicted.
Civil rights organizations raised concerns about the potential for
police to use low-level criminal stops as a pretext to trigger
immigration proceedings. Law enforcement officials have expressed
apprehension about the program's effect on community policing and
interference with local criminal investigations.
According to Jazmin Segura at the Services, Immigrant Rights & Education Network,
"Secure Communities is a dangerous program that increases the
collaboration between local law enforcement and ICE. This collaboration,
which makes immigrants reluctant to trust local authorities, can
critically undermine the health and well being of all
residents--including U.S. citizens. We are pleased ICE has taken the
first step in ensuring a clear opt-out process so that counties like
Santa Clara can continue to protect and promote the public safety of our
community."
Visit CCR's Secure Communities FOIA case page
for the text of the April 27th FOIA Complaint, all records obtained
through the FOIA litigation and other relevant analysis and documents.
To download the groups' response to the seven-page ICE document, click here.
The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR is committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.
(212) 614-6464LATEST NEWS
Budget Proposal Shows GOP 'Is the Party of Cutting Social Security and Medicare'
"Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts," said the head of Social Security Works. "This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him."
Mar 20, 2024
Defenders of Social Security and Medicare on Wednesday swiftly criticized the biggest caucus of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives for putting out a budget proposal for fiscal year 2025 that takes aim at the crucial programs.
The 180-page "Fiscal Sanity to Save America" plan from the Republican Study Committee (RSC) follows the release of proposals from Democratic President Joe Biden and U.S. House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas)—who is leading the fight to create a fiscal commission for the programs that critics call a "death panel" designed to force through cuts.
The RSC document features full sections on "Saving Medicare" and "Preventing Biden's Cuts to Social Security," which both push back on the president's recent comments calling out Republican attacks on the programs that serve seniors.
The caucus plan promotes premium support for Medicare Advantage plans administered by private health insurance providers as well as changes to payments made to teaching hospitals. For Social Security, the proposal calls for tying retirement age to rising life expectancy and cutting benefits for younger workers over certain income levels, including phasing out auxiliary benefits.
The document also claims that the caucus budget "would promote trust fund solvency by increasing payroll tax revenues through pro-growth tax reform, pro-growth energy policy that lifts wages, work requirements that move Americans from welfare to work, and regulatory reforms that increase economic growth."
In a lengthy Wednesday statement blasting the RSC budget, Social Security Works president Nancy Altman pointed out that last week, former President Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden in the November election, "toldCNBC that 'there's a lot you can do' to cut Social Security."
"Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November."
"Now, congressional Republicans are confirming the party's support for cuts—to the tune of $1.5 trillion. They are also laying out some of those cuts," Altman said. "This budget would raise the retirement age, in line with prominent Republican influencer Ben Shapiro's recent comments that 'retirement itself is a stupid idea.' It would make annual cost-of-living increases stingier, so that benefits erode over time. It would slash middle-class benefits."
"Perhaps most insultingly, given the Republicans' claim to be the party of 'family values,' this budget would eliminate Social Security spousal benefits, as well as children's benefits, for middle-class families. That would punish women who take time out of the workforce to care for children and other loved ones," she continued. "This coming from a party that wants to take away women's reproductive rights!"
The caucus, chaired by Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), included 285 bills and initiatives from 192 members in its budget plan—among them are various proposals threatening abortion care, birth control, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) nationwide.
"The RSC budget would also take away Medicare's new power to negotiate lower prices on prescription drugs, putting more money into the pockets of the GOP's Big Pharma donors," Altman warned. "And it accelerates the privatization of Medicare, handing it over to private insurance companies who have a long history of ripping off the government and delaying and denying care to those who need it."
"In recent days, Trump has tried to walk back his support for Social Security and Medicare cuts," she noted. "This budget is one of many reasons why no one should believe him. The Republican Party is the party of cutting Social Security and Medicare, while giving tax handouts to billionaires."
"The Democratic Party is the party of expanding Social Security and Medicare, paid for by requiring the ultrawealthy to contribute their fair share," Altman added. "Everyone who cares about the future of these vital earned benefits should vote accordingly in November."
Biden campaign communications director Michael Tyler also targeted the Republican presidential candidate while slamming the RSC plan, saying that "Donald Trump's MAGA allies in Congress made it clear today: A vote for Trump is a vote to make the MAGA 2025 agenda of cutting Social Security, ripping away access to IVF, and banning abortion nationwide a hellish reality."
"While Trump and his allies push forward their extreme agenda, the American people are watching," Tyler added, suggesting that the RSC proposal will help motivate voters to give Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris four more years in the White House.
Keep ReadingShow Less
While Mulling Israel Claims, Biden Urged to 'Stop Weapons Sales Now'
"After over half a million uncommitted votes and counting, it's time Biden administration officials finally listen," said one campaigner. "We need concrete action to stop weapons aid immediately."
Mar 20, 2024
As the Biden administration wrestles with whether to certify that Israel is complying with a presidential directive requiring human rights assurances from governments receiving American weapons, Palestine defenders on Wednesday renewed calls for a suspension of U.S. arms sales to Israel's genocidal government and military.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken has until March 25 to certify to Congress that Israel is adhering to President Joe Biden's February 2023 memo stating that "no arms transfer will be authorized where the United States assesses that it is more likely than not that the arms to be transferred will be used by the recipient to commit... genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949... or other serious violations of international humanitarian or human rights law."
If Israel fails to provide written assurance that it is using U.S.-supplied weapons in accordance with international law, arms sales would automatically be suspended. According toHuffPost, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Jack Lew on Tuesday privately claimed to the State Department that Israel is in compliance with domestic and international law.
However, the Israeli daily Haartezreported Wednesday that officials from three State Department bureaus—Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor; Population, Refugees, and Migration; and the Office of Global Criminal Justice—as well as the United States Agency for International Development are deeply skepitcal of Lew's claim.
"America should follow in Canada's steps and stop weapons sales now."
The Uncommitted National Movement—a coalition of pro-Palestine, peace, and progressive groups urging people to vote "uncommitted" in U.S. Democratic primaries in a bid to pressure Biden to push Israel for a Gaza cease-fire—led demands for a suspension of arms transfers to Israel.
"After over half a million uncommitted votes and counting, it's time Biden administration officials finally listen," Uncommitted National Movement co-chair Layla Elabedsaid in a statement Wednesday. "We need concrete action to stop weapons aid immediately. America should follow in Canada's steps and stop weapons sales now."
The Canadian Parliament on Monday approved a nonbinding resolution calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to cut off arms exports to Israel. Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly subsequently said that the government would cease future weapons sales to the country.
Other countries including Japan, Spain, the Netherlands, and Belgium have suspended or restricted weapons sales to Israel, whose military forces have killed or wounded more than 113,000 Palestinians since the October 7 attacks while forcibly displacing around 90% of Gaza's 2.3 million people and fueling famine and disease by besieging the embattled strip. Most of those killed have been women and children.
On January 26, the
International Criminal Court ordered Israel to prevent genocidal acts. Both the ICJ and a U.S. federal judge have found that Israel is "plausibly" committing genocide in Gaza. Palestinians, human rights groups, and legal experts have accused Israel of ignoring the World Court's directive.
Common Dreamsreported Tuesday that Human Rights Watch and Oxfam called Israeli assurances that U.S.-supplied weapons are not being used in violation of international law "not credible." The groups also dismissed false Israeli claims that the country is not blocking humanitarian aid from reaching starving Gazans.
The U.S. gives Israel approximately $4 billion in annual military aid. Since October 7, the Biden administration has requested an additional $14.3 billion in armed assistance for Israel, while repeatedly circumventing Congress to fast-track emergency weapons transfers.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Despite WSJ Reporting, Julian Assange Lawyer Says 'No Indication' of Plea Deal
"The United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition," said an attorney for the jailed WikiLeaks journalist.
Mar 20, 2024
As the world awaits a U.K. court ruling on Julian Assange's potential extradition to the United States, The Wall Street Journalreported Wednesday that the WikiLeaks founder's attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice officials "have had preliminary discussions" about allowing him to plead guilty to a reduced charge to end the lengthy legal battle.
"If prosecutors allow Assange to plead to a U.S. charge of mishandling classified documents—something his lawyers have floated as a possibility—it would be a misdemeanor offense," the Journal detailed, citing unnamed sources. "Under such a deal, Assange potentially could enter that plea remotely, without setting foot in the U.S."
"The time he has spent behind bars in London would count toward any U.S. sentence, and he would likely be free to leave prison shortly after any deal was concluded," according to the report—on which a Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
The 52-year-old Australian has been imprisoned at London's Belmarsh Prison since British authorities dragged him out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in 2019, after the South American nation's president terminated the diplomatic asylum granted to him in 2012. In the United States, he faces Espionage Act and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act charges for publishing material that includes the "Collateral Murder" video, the Afghan War Diary, and the Iraq War Logs.
Assange attorney Barry Pollack said in a statement Wednesday that "it is inappropriate for Mr. Assange's lawyers to comment while his case is before the U.K. High Court other than to say we have been given no indication that the Department of Justice intends to resolve the case and the United States is continuing with as much determination as ever to seek his extradition on all 18 charges, exposing him to 175 years in prison."
Human rights and press freedom advocates worldwide and even some U.S. lawmakers have warned of the broader impacts of a conviction. Kathleen McClellan and Jesselyn Radack wrote Saturday in Salon that the precedent set by the cases of Assange, Timothy Burke, and Catherine Herridge "will apply in future to anyone engaging in such entirely normative journalistic activities as cultivating sources while protecting their anonymity, and seeking to publish information in the public interest that governments or other powerful forces seek to control."
Focusing specifically on Assange's case, Croatian philosopher and Belmarsh Tribunal co-founder Srećko Horvat similarly said in December that "more than one man's life is at stake, but the First Amendment and freedom of the press itself. As long as the Espionage Act is deployed to imprison those who expose war crimes, no publisher and no journalist will be safe."
Ahead of a U.K. High Court hearing on extradition last month, Stella Assange, Julian's wife and the mother of two of his two children, pointed to her husband's physical and mental health problems, and warned that "this case will determine if he lives or dies, essentially."
The Journal noted Wednesday that the court "is expected to decide within weeks whether to grant Assange a further right to appeal his extradition" and the United States has pledged that "he could be transferred to his native Australia to serve any sentence."
Australia's government "could shorten any sentence once he landed on Australian soil," the paper added. Nick Vamos, a partner at London law firm Peters & Peters and a former head of extradition for England and Wales' Crown Prosecution Service, said that "I honestly think as soon as he arrived in Australia he would be released."
Shortly before the February hearing, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese joined 85 members of Australia's Parliament in voting for a motion demanding that the U.S. and U.K. drop the extradition effort and allow Assange to return to his home country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular