Category Archives: Organizing Resources

Organizing Resources

Chronology: Secure Communities and Cook County

Chronology: Secure Communities and Cook County

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:
05/03/2010 

to 05/05/2010

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.
06/02/2010 

to 06/06/2010

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)
09/01/2010 

to 11/30/2010

Eighteen additional Illinois counties are activated. Eighteen additional Illinois counties are activated.
07/21/2011 

to 07/22/2011

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)

New Numbers Demonstrate Persisting Problems with ICE’s Secure Communities Program (PR)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: B. Loewe, NDLON, 773.791.4668

New Numbers Demonstrate Persisting Problems with ICE’s Secure Communities Program
Large Numbers of Deportees with No Criminal Convictions in a Range of Localities Raise Troubling Questions Say Advocates

3.28.2011 A new analysis of the latest data reported by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency under the controversial Secure Communities program demonstrates persisting problems with ICE’s claim that the program’s focus is on high-level dangerous criminals.

The agency began issuing quarterly reports as a result of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit by the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Center for Constitutional Rights and the Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law.

Those advocates released a new analysis today of the latest data that contradicts the agency’s claim that the program pursues those convicted of dangerous crimes and prevents opportunities for racial profiling on the part of local law enforcement.

“Nationally, 1 in 4 people deported under S-Comm haven’t been convicted of any crime. That ratio jumps to over 50% in Boston, certain areas of California, and in multiple examples across the country.” Explained Bridget Kessler of Benjamin Cardozo School of Law.  “Those numbers raise questions about how S-Comm may allow local police to cover up profiling and circumvent due process.”

When questioned during a recent House Appropriations Committee Hearing on March 11th, Director of ICE John Morton admitted, “we do in fact remove non-criminals through Secure Communities.”

Sarahi Uribe of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network added, “The most recent numbers demonstrate that Secure Communities makes us less safe. The Obama administration pushed an aggressive deportation dragnet onto counties with no oversight and no protections for the innocent people who would be affected.”

Sunita Patel, attorney for the Center for Constitutional Rights, concluded, “Secure Communities walls off victims of domestic violence and other crimes from accessing police protection in their time of need. It’s time to end the program in order to restore real safety in our neighborhoods.”

Statistical Documents Below:

ICE Secure Communities IDENT/IAFIS Interoperability Monthly Statistics through February 28, 2011

Top 38 Counties with Highest Level of Non-Criminal Removals

Nationwide Secure Communities Removals by State and County

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. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change. Visit www.ccrjustice.org

The mission of the National Day Laborer Organization Network is to improve the lives of day laborers in the U.S. by unifying and strengthening its member organizations to be more strategic and effective in their efforts to develop leadership, mobilize day laborers in order to protect and expand their civil, labor and human rights. Visit www.ndlon.org

The Kathryn O. Greenberg Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law was founded in 2008 to provide quality pro bono legal representation to indigent immigrants facing deportation. Under the supervision of experienced practitioners, law students in the Clinic represent individuals facing deportation and community-based organizations in public advocacy, media and litigation projects. Visit www.cardozo.yu.edu/immigrationjustice

Top 38 Jurisdictions with Highest Level of Non-Criminal Deportations
State
County
Activation Date
Total REMOVALS
% of Non-Criminal in Total
% of non-crim & level 3 removals in Total
LA
Jefferson Parish
11/17/09
325
72.00%
89.54%
MD
Prince George’s
12/22/09
223
65.02%
82.51%
CA
Merced
8/10/10
182
64.29%
82.42%
NV
Clark
7/27/10
461
63.56%
78.96%
PA
Philadelphia
7/21/09
164
61.59%
81.71%
FL
Palm Beach
4/6/10
273
61.17%
78.02%
TX
Webb
6/16/09
545
60.00%
85.69%
CA
Fresno
3/23/10
486
59.88%
73.46%
FL
Orange
4/6/10
169
59.17%
75.74%
CA
Tulare
7/27/10
283
58.66%
78.80%
FL
Broward
8/25/09
488
56.76%
76.02%
SC
Charleston
9/8/10
304
55.59%
90.13%
MA
Suffolk
11/5/08
313
53.99%
69.01%
MI
Wayne
10/27/09
217
53.46%
76.96%
NC
Gaston
11/17/08
141
53.19%
86.52%
OK
Oklahoma
11/3/09
452
51.77%
75.22%
OH
Franklin
1/19/10
240
51.25%
86.25%
FL
Miami‐Dade
2/24/09
1,978
50.76%
68.40%
CA
Solano
1/12/10
186
50.00%
68.28%
FL
St. Lucie
2/18/09
176
48.86%
75.57%
NM
Bernalillo
9/28/09
252
48.81%
79.76%
CA
Monterey
4/6/10
529
47.64%
70.13%
TX
El Paso
6/17/09
1,205
47.22%
82.07%
CA
Kern
9/14/10
317
47.00%
69.40%
CA
San Luis Obispo
1/5/10
170
46.47%
71.18%
CA
San Francisco
6/8/10
241
46.06%
77.59%
CA
San Joaquin
2/16/10
610
45.41%
68.20%
AZ
Yavapai
1/16/09
251
45.02%
72.51%
OR
Marion
5/4/10
167
44.91%
67.66%
CA
Contra Costa
4/6/10
731
44.46%
69.36%

Providence City Council Passes Resolution Against Secure Communities

On March 3, 2011 the full Providence City Council passed an Anti-Secure Communities resolution recommended by the Providence City Council’s Committee on Ordinances. Providence City Councilor Seth Yurdin, who is the Chairman of the Committee on Ordinances, brought the resolution through the committee on ordinances raised it tonight. Rhode Island Jobs with Justice and the RI ACLU testified at the Committee on Ordinances hearing and tonight RI JwJ mobilized our members from UNITE HERE Local 217, Direct Action for Rights and Equality, Laborers Local 271 and the RI Unemployed Workers Council.

See item # 35

http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/omdocs/notices/4798/2011/104158.pdf

“COMMITTEE ON ORDINANCES
COUNCILMAN SETH YURDIN, Chairman
Transmits the Following with Recommendation the Same be Approved,
As Amended:
35. Resolution Expressing Concern with the “Secure Communities” Initiative
being implemented by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Division of the Department of Homeland Security, and requesting a review
of the program by the Providence Public Safety Commissioner, and the
Chief of the Providence Police Department.”

Letter from Steven Pare, Public Safety Commissioner of Providence, Rhode Island, requesting information about not participating in Secure Communities

Letter from Steven Pare, Public Safety Commissioner of Providence, Rhode Island, requesting information about not participating in Secure Communities from David Venturella, Assistant Director of Secure Communities.

Click here to download the PDF of the letter. Text below.

Dear Mr. Venturella,

I am writing pursuant to the directive contained in the September 7, 2010 communication between the Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), then chairwoman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Citizenship, Refugees, Immigration, and Border Security.

The City of Providence, Rhode Island does not wish to particiapte in the Secure Communities program, but as there have been conflicting reports about this program, I would request additional information from your office on how to exercise the options of nto participation. The City o fo Providence has historically enjoyed a population of great ethnic diversity and I am greatly concerned of the adverse impact that this program will have on our residents and visitors. The success of our city’s community policing program has been based on the trust developed between law enforcement and the community – especially the immigrant community. The Secure Communiteis program will create fear and mistrust between the ocmmunity and law enforcemnt – thus undermining our community opliceing model and riskign the public safety of our capital city.

The City looks forward to working together to ensure that immigration violators with dangerous criminal backgrounds are apprehended. However, Secure Communities goes well beyond this public safety mission and will make policing and public safety efforts more difficult for the City of Providence.

Tahnk you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Steven M. Pare

Campaign Against Secure Communities in New Jersey

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:

Secure Communities Petition Letter to Governor Christie

Secure Communities Fact Sheets

PETITION LETTER TEMPLATE TO GOVERNOR CHRISTIE

December 2010

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.

Sincerely,

Name_____________Date _____________Township, NJ + Zip code_____________

FACT SHEETS