Archive | Fact Sheets
New Developments in Secure Communities and the Next Generation Identification Initiative
Advocates Confront FBI about its Role in Massive Deportation Program
In June, advocates traveled to Buffalo, New York to confront the FBI about its role in the Secure Communities deportation Program. Representatives from the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Criminal Defense Immigration Project of the New York State Defenders Association, and the Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, and NYU doctoral candidate Travis Hall attended the semi-annual meeting of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board (APB) and presented to the group about the negative impacts of S-Comm on public safety, community policing, and privacy. They also obtained updates on developments in Secure Communities and the Next Generation Identification initiative, of which S-Comm is one part.
An analysis from the Electronic Frontier Foundation of the privacy concerns raised by these new developments will be available shortly as well.
The APB advises the FBI on how to manage the FBI’s civil and criminal databases. It was the APB that first decided to make Secure Communities a mandatory program. But the APB made this decision without considering any of the public safety and privacy issues that have made S-Comm so controversial. At the June meeting, advocates forced those issues onto the agenda.
The next APB meeting is scheduled for December, in a location to be determined. For more information, or to get involved, contact jkarp at ndlon.org.
THREE OMISSIONS AND AN UNDERSTATEMENT
Inadequacies in the Department of Homeland Security Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Reports on Secure Communities
On April 6, 2012, the OIG issued two reports about the controversial Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) program Secure Communities. The reports were written in response to an April 2011 request from Representative Zoe Lofgren. Unfortunately, despite taking nearly a year in its investigation, the OIG fails to address fundamental problems with S-Comm’s design and roll out.
…Enclosed are three disks containing documents we received through FOIA litigation, which we share as a resource for your investigation. This letter provides a guide to key documents…We have organized the letter and key documents according to topics we believe are essetnial to any thorough review of Secure Communities: (A) racial profiling, (B) the opt-out controversy and the legal authority to compel local participation, (C) the expansion of Secure Communities beyond its stated target of serious criminals, (D) privacy concerns and the role of the FBI, (E) impact on vulnerable populations, (F) costs at the state and local level, (G) the role of sub-contractors, and (H) the significance of modifications announced by ICE on June 17, 2011…”
The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights has created an excellent animated chronology on their website that you can view by clicking here. Below is the timeline in a static format.
|Event Date:||Event Title:||Event Description:|
|06/06/2009||ICE conducts internal pre-deployment briefing in Chicago||ICE conducts internal pre-deployment briefing in Chicago|
|07/23/2009||ICE meets with Illinois State Police about Secure Communities, gets agreement to move forward.||ICE meets with Illinois State Police about Secure Communities, gets agreement to move forward.|
|11/02/2009||Illinois State Police signs Memorandum of Agreement with ICE.||Illinois State Police signs Memorandum of Agreement with ICE.|
|11/24/2009||DuPage and Kane Counties are activated.||DuPage and Kane Counties are activated.|
|01/05/2010||ICE tentatively identifies Chicago/ Cook County as the next target||ICE tentatively identifies Chicago/ Cook County as the next target “for which I should gin up a strategy” to get those locations signed onto SC. This email further notes that “if we adopt the ‘it’s not optional’ point of view, that certainly simplifies life, no?” (page 12676)|
|02/09/2010||ICE distributes an internal memo laying out a proposed strategy for getting Chicago and Cook to participate in Secure Communities||The memo notes that “pro-immigrant nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have a strong voice and presence” in Cook County, and that “pro-immigrant sentiments are also shared by many political leaders” including Congressman Luis Gutierrez. Also discusses how ICE should surround Cook with a “ring of interoperability” by activating counties around it and engaging police departments in suburban Cook and options of approaching White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel|
|03/04/2010||David Venturella meets with CCSO Chief of Staff Bill Cunningham, who “indicates that CCSO is interested in participating in the SC program||SC Executive Director David Venturella meets with CCSO Chief of Staff Bill Cunningham, who “indicates that CCSO is interested in participating in the SC program….” The agenda for the meeting lists “sanctuary ordinances” for both Chicago and Cook County as a point of discussion|
|03/11/2010||ICIRR executive director Joshua Hoyt meeting with President Obama, communicates concerns that local enforcement and cruel deportations are destroying families.||ICIRR executive director Joshua Hoyt meeting with President Obama, communicates concerns that local enforcement and cruel deportations are destroying families.|
|03/24/2010||250,000 people rally on the National Mall in Washington, DC, for the “Reform Immigration for America: March for America.”||More than 250,000 people rally on the National Mall in Washington, DC, for the “Reform Immigration for America: March for America.”|
|04/01/2010||ICE: Activation of Cook “huge accomplishment”||ICE emails indicate the agency’s intention to activate Cook (without CPD) on April 13, refer to this activation as a “huge accomplishment.”|
|04/04/2010||Secure Communities and Criminal Justice Information Service discuss activating Cook minus Chicago Police Department.||Secure Communities and Criminal Justice Information Service discuss activating Cook minus Chicago Police Department. Criminal Justice Information Service has doubts and requests meeting with ICE and Illinoins State Police.|
|04/08/2010||An ICE email refers to “political sensitivities” and using a personal relationship to get Cook activated||“Our request to partially deploy in Cook County is based on political sensitivities in that jurisdiction. We were able to leverage a personal/professional relationship that exists with the Sheriff that has cleared the way for us to proceed…. We continue to work toward full activation of Cook by continuing our outreach activities. We feel strongly that once we activate as requested, this will aid us in removing the remaining obstacles to full activation.”|
|04/13/2010||Six additional Illinois counties are activated, including Lake, McHenry, Will, and Winnebago.||Six additional Illinois counties are activated, including Lake, McHenry, Will, and Winnebago. Cook is not activated; however, every county immediately surrounding Cook is now activated—just as the February 9 memo envisioned.|
|04/14/2010||ICE, CJIS, and ISP conduct a conference call to discuss activating Cook minus CPD. ISP does not want to move forward until further consultation with superiors||“The ISP stated that they were not concerned with how we activated as long as we kept them informed. CJIS team lead repeatedly makes reference to the sensitivities. During the course of the conference call, the ISP representative becomes increasingly reticent to make a commitment to moving forward in Cook and indicates that he must consult his superiors before any further steps are taken toward activation.”|
|04/14/2010||“All law enforcement agencies are expected to be part of Secure Communities by 2013 in accordance with Congressional mandate.”||An ICE draft statement regarding Cook states that “All law enforcement agencies are expected to be part of Secure Communities by 2013 in accordance with Congressional mandate.” (page 9928)|
|04/20/2010||“I am fairly certain that my command will not approve activation… without written notification from Cook County.”||ISP states CCSO is “neutral” on SC, but insists on written notice from CCSO. “I am fairly certain that my command will not approve activation… without written notification from Cook County.” (page 13101)|
|04/22/2010||it may constitute an impediment to a fairly sizable number of police departments within the County||RC emails ISP, states that “if activation of Cook County doesn’t go forward, it may constitute an impediment to a fairly sizable number of police departments within the County…which have evinced an interest in going forward but which rely on CCSO for their booking and jailing.” (page 13391)|
|04/28/2010||Twenty-two Chicago-area community leaders, including ICIRR’s Hoyt, stage a civil disobedience action at the ICE Broadview detention facility||April 28, 2010 – Twenty-two Chicago-area community leaders, including ICIRR’s Hoyt, stage a civil disobedience action at the ICE Broadview detention facility.|
|04/28/2010||if CCSO responds positively to a go/ no-go message, that would be sufficient for activation to move forward.”||ICE RC communicates to ISP about Cook activation. ISP says it will conduct a legal review of whether “if CCSO responds positively to a go/ no-go message, that would be sufficient for activation to move forward.” (page 5199)|
|04/28/2010||ICE notifies CCSO that SC will be activated on May 5,||ICE notifies Cook County Sheriff’s Office that Secure Communities will be activated on May 5, asks CCSO for confirmation. (page 13105)|
|04/29/2010||Cunningham responds to the April 28 activation message:||“..we are aware of your agency’s plan to activate the IDENT/IAFIS [SC] on May 5, 2010…. [CCSO] believes a local ordinance may forbid us from signing any official agreement with ICE related to the IDENT/IAFIS system. However, we are also mindful of federal law (8 USCS 1373) which, in part, prohibits local and state governments from blocking ICE’s ability to obtain information regarding the immigration status of any individual, and al, and as such, the system can be activated without our approval|
|05/01/2010||tens of thousands of marchers for immigration reform in downtown Chicago; Rep. Gutierrez, ICIRR’s Hoyt, and other immigrant rights leaders are arrested while protesting in front of the White House.||Days after enactment of Arizona’s SB 1070, ICIRR and others organize tens of thousands of marchers for immigration reform in downtown Chicago; Rep. Gutierrez, ICIRR’s Hoyt, and other immigrant rights leaders are arrested while protesting in front of the White House.|
|05/11/2010||“I was hoping we could go for a double-whammy today, by having both NYS [New York State] MOA and Cook County”||ICE continues internal communication about the status of Cook County. “I was hoping we could go for a double-whammy today, by having both NYS [New York State] MOA and Cook County” (page 7176)|
|05/18/2010||Cunningham e-mails the ICE Chicago Field Office Director to ask if Secure Communities is activated.||Cunningham e-mails the ICE Chicago Field Office Director to ask if Secure Communities is activated. (page 12867)|
|05/19/2010||ICE Director John Morton visits Chicago||ICE Director John Morton visits Chicago, meets with Sheriff Dart and Mayor Daley for a tour of Chicago Detention and Removal Operations, also meets with Chicago Tribune editorial board.|
|05/19/2010||E-mail noting that FBI will not activate Secure Communities in Cook until Illinois State Police confirms and approves.||E-mail noting that FBI will not activate Secure Communities in Cook until Illinois State Police confirms and approves. “As you know, FBI CJIS will not go forward with interoperability activation in Cook County until the Illinois State Police, acting as the designated SIB, confirms.” (page 13107)|
|05/22/2010||“a fairly twisted comparison between Secure Communities and the Arizona law. Still, it’s likely to make getting Cook County onboard that much harder, and that was probably their intent.”||ICIRR and local leaders organize a march to the McHenry County Jail to protest ICE enforcement and detention policies, including Secure Communities. Two days later ICE circulates a Chicago Tribune article regarding the march, with one ICE staffer commenting “a fairly twisted comparison between SC and the Arizona law. Still, it’s likely to make getting Cook County onboard that much harder, and that was probably their intent.”|
|05/27/2010||Full court press? Illinois State Police informs does not allow Cook activation.||“[T]he e-mail …from [Cunningham] does not constitute a request to be included or to participate in the Secure Communities program…. [Cunningham’s] acknowledgement that ‘the system can be activated without our approval’ evidences CCSO’s position that they have in factff not given approval… my recommendation is that the ISP not take part in the activation of Cook County.” (pages 13108-9) RC responds: “This is not good, not good at all. Time perhaps for a full-court press?” (pages 5205-6)|
|08/24/2010||ICE revisits Cook activation.||“In order to accommodate political considerations in the city of Chicago, the SC PMO bypassed the Chicago PD [Police Department], which was unresponsive, and reached out to the Cook County Sheriff’s Office (CCSO)…. CCSO showed promise until, at CJIS’s request, SC, CJIS, and the ISP met to discuss the situation.” (page 7508)|
|08/30/2010||FBI sends a message to ISP attempting to see if Cook County could be activated.||FBI sends a message to ISP attempting to see if Cook County could be activated. “I believe Cook County PD [Police Department] and the Sheriff’s Office wanted to participate but the Chicago PD [Police Department] did not.” (page 7572)|
|09/01/2010||ISP responds to FBI: “To my knowledge neither the Cook County Sheriff nor CPD has stated in writing that they would like to participate.”||ISP responds to FBI: “To my knowledge neither the Cook County Sheriff nor CPD has stated in writing that they would like to participate.” (page 7689)|
|09/21/2010||concerns over 10th Amendment issues regarding “whether Secure Communities can force the state to participate.”||An internal ICE email refers to communications with ISP counsel regarding Cook, cites concerns over 10th Amendment issues regarding “whether SC can force the state to participate.” (page 11848)|
|10/12/2010||“Chicago and Cook County IL have in fact opted out.”||Responding to an Associated Press article on SC, “No Opt-Out Policy for Program Checking Legal Status,” an ICE staffer notes: “Chicago and Cook County IL have in fact opted out.” (page 2395)|
|01/14/2011||ICIRR releases its report “Immigration Enforcement: The Dangerous Reality Behind ‘Secure Communities.’”||January 14, 2011 – Joined by Rep. Gutierrez and other elected officials, ICIRR releases its report “Immigration Enforcement: The Dangerous Reality Behind ‘Secure Communities.’” The report highlights the high rates of noncriminals arrested by ICE in Illinois under the program. (link to report)|
|Timespan Dates:||Timespan Title:||Timespan Description:|
|ICE attempts to make contact with Illinois State Police||ICE attempts to make contact with Illinois State Police regarding activating Cook, without success. Secure Communities Regional Coordinator finds out that the matter is still under review.|
|ICE prepares chronologies of its interactions with CCSO, claims that “they never expressed any opposition.”||ICE prepares chronologies of its interactions with CCSO, claims that “The Cook County concern was the political dynamics of the community it serves as opposed to a lack of law enforcement interest. “Bottom line was Cook County was favorable toward the SC as a law enforcement tool and wanted to just maintain a public position of the ‘feds made us do it,’ while at the same time they were supportive of the initiative, they never expressed any opposition.” (page 4016)|
|Eighteen additional Illinois counties are activated.||Eighteen additional Illinois counties are activated.|
|Cunningham exchanges email with ICE Chicago field office director Ricardo Wong.||Cunningham exchanges email with ICE Chicago field office director Ricardo Wong. Cunningham states that he has learned that Cook had not been activated. Wong responds that Cunningham’s April 29 email was “not accepted as a full acknowledgement” by ISP, and offers to help CCSO and ISP “in crafting an acceptable written statement that both parties can accept.” (page 4342)|
Campaign Against Secure Communities in New Jersey
Support the campaign against secure communities in New Jersey! Please find the template petition letter to Governor Christie and fact sheets for your information below.
Download the petition letter and fact sheets here:
PETITION LETTER TEMPLATE TO GOVERNOR CHRISTIE
Dear Governor Christie,
I am writing to express my opposition to having the Secure Communities program in New Jersey.
Secure Communities is an initiative of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the Department of Homeland Security to obtain fingerprinting information from local police and the FBI. Although it is promoted as a program that will make our communities safer, the program will instead break up families and communities through deportation. It is well documented that deportations can create severe hardship on families, leading in many cases to less secure and fragmented communities. In addition to damaging our communities, the program only serves to annihilate trust in law enforcement. If Secure Communities were implemented in New Jersey, it would encourage racial profiling, create a two-tiered system of justice and lead to automatic deportation for immigrants who have criminal violations. Programs such as Secure Communities, the Criminal Alien Program, and 287(g) are used as a dragnet to expand deportation and undermine our notions of fairness and justice.
As a resident in the state of New Jersey, I embrace and value our diversity. Secure Communities only seeks to destroy the rich community of immigrants from all corners of the world. It will not reach its stated goal of “securing the community by removing criminal aliens” by allowing the immigration agency to take action against anyone who is fingerprinted by the police. Instead it will impede immigrants from reporting crimes or interacting with law enforcement in fear of arrest, detention and deportation of themselves or their loved ones. Detaining immigrants will not fix our broken immigration law.
I am writing to urge you not to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to implement Secure Communities in New Jersey. I believe that this program and other similar immigration and law enforcement collaborations will harm public safety and community trust, and must be rejected.
Thank you for your attention.
Name_____________Date _____________Township, NJ + Zip code_____________