|
Immigration Enforcement by State & Local
Authorities
|
Resources for
Advocates |
|
|
More information about immigration enforcement
programs, including "Secure Communities," is available on the
"Arrest
and Detention" page. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FROM NILC |
RE: "SECURE COMMUNITIES," 287(g), & RELATED FEDERAL PROGRAMS |
|
|
|
Restoring Community: A National Community Advisory Report on ICE’s
Failed “Secure Communities” Program. Prepared by a commission
made up of national and community-based organizations that have
witnessed the impacts of S-Comm on their members and communities. (8/11) (PDF)
More information at
http://altopolimigra.com/s-comm-shadow-report/. |
|
|
|
|
|
Letter to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John Morton
from civil rights and policy groups expressing
concerns about the newly established advisory committee that will
advise on ways to improve the Secure Communities
program, July 20, 2011. (7/11) (PDF) |
|
|
DHS Proposes Fantasy Remedies to Cure Fundamental Flaws in the Secure
Communities Program. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
has felt the heat of criticism from Capitol Hill and beyond about how
Secure Communities has operated since its inception. On June 17, 2011,
ICE director John Morton and Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
director Margo Schlanger announced “reforms” to the program. This
document analyzes and critiques the memos issued to implement the
announced reforms. (7/11) (PDF) |
|
|
NILC statement submitted to the House Committee on Homeland
Security Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security, hearing on “Border
Security and Enforcement – Department of Homeland Security’s Cooperation
with State and Local Law Enforcement Stakeholders,” May 3, 2011. (PDF) |
|
|
NILC Letter to Dept. of Homeland Security Officer for Civil Rights and
Civil Liberties Demanding Moratorium on Secure Communities (PDF)
(4/6/11) |
|
|
|
DHS’s “Secure Communities”: No Rules of the Road (PDF). |
|
|
● DHS is imposing Secure Communities on localities nationwide
despite earlier insistence that the program was voluntary. ●
SCOMM is an unfunded mandate that local communities enforce
federal immigration law. ● SCOMM targets everyone who has ever
had any dealings with the immigration system — not a prioritized
set of dangerous criminals. ● SCOMM operates in a rule-free
environment. (3/4/11) |
|
|
The following memo,
which no longer is available on the ICE website, is cited in the
above analysis:
Setting the Record Straight (Secure Communities, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Aug. 17, 2010). |
|
|
|
Victimizing the Victims. "Victims
and witnesses are at particular risk as a result of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) programs, such as
287(g), Secure Communities, and the
Criminal Alien Program, that involve state
and local law enforcement in federal immigration enforcement. . . .
[T]hese programs are an attack on all people who look or sound foreign,
regardless of whether they have been convicted of the offense in
question and regardless of their immigration status." (2/15/11) |
|
|
Comments on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Draft Detainer
Policy. "The undersigned organizations welcome . . . [ICE's]
recognition of the need to issue
formal guidance regarding the use of detainers. . . .
Detainers are a request that [law enforcement agencies] notify ICE when
. . . arrested noncitizens will be released from custody, so that ICE
may assume custody within a . . . 48-hour period during which the
[agencies] may continue to detain them. Detainers are the linchpin
of programs such as 287(g), Secure Communities, and the Criminal Alien
Program, which increasingly intertwine the state criminal justice
systems with federal immigration enforcement." (Posted 10/6/10) |
|
|
Letter to President Obama Demanding End to Merger of Immigration &
Criminal Justice Systems. NILC joined 500-plus organizations in drafting
and signing a letter demanding that President Obama end the merger of
immigration enforcement with criminal justice. The Sept. 29 letter
presents proof that the administration's increased reliance on local law
enforcement to arrest, detain, and deport immigrants has exacerbated
existing problems in the criminal justice system. (9/29/10) |
|
|
S-COMM: A Toolkit for Advocates. Prepared for a July 8,
2010, California statewide teach-in cosponsored by California civil and
immigrants' rights groups. It is designed to
help California advocates fight to prevent continued expansion of the
federal Secure Communities (S-COMM) program in California and,
ultimately, to push for statewide disenrollment from the program. (7/10) |
|
|
TOOLKIT:
Uncovering the Truth Behind Police & ICE Collaboration.
Developed for a May 2010 "teach-in" whose goal was to empower local
communities new to the issues to gain information and generate a public
discourse about programs that threaten public safety, systemize racial
profiling, and destroy communities. A joint publication of the
National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, the National
Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and NILC. (5/10) |
|
|
Statement of the National Immigration Law Center, Hearing on "Racial
Profiling and the Use of Suspect, Classifications in Law Enforcement
Policy" before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, submitted by Tyler
Moran, Federal Policy Director, and Elizabeth Mauldin, Policy Attorney,
June 24, 2010. |
|
|
DHS Office of Inspector General Report: ICE Reforms Fail to Solve
Fundamental 287(g) Problems. Based on interviews, direct
observations, and a review of documents related to the 287(g) program,
the OIG report juxtaposes evidence of serious problems with
recommendations for change and ICE’s response to those recommendations.
Of the 33 recommendations the OIG makes, ICE itself concurs with 32. The
OIG report confirms issues raised by advocates since implementation of
INA section 287(g) began in 2002 and provides damning evidence that the
program is fundamentally flawed. (4/10) |
|
|
|
Civil Rights Violations Complaint Campaign |
|
|
NILC, the
ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, the
National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and the
Rights Working Group have developed
a sample civil rights violations complaint form and instructions
to document abuses occurring under the
various immigration enforcement programs, not just by
federal officials but also by local law enforcement officers.
This form is for use by groups and individuals interested in
documenting such abuses and lodging complaints with the U.S.
Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Dept. of Justice's
Civil Rights Division. Detailed instructions on how to
fill out the complaint form and where to send copies are
included in the packet. More information is available
HERE. |
|
|
|
Secure Communities? A Dangerous Merger: ICE Enforcement Programs in the
Criminal Justice System (a PowerPoint presentation accompanying
a Mar. 4, 2010, webinar presented by: Detention Watch Network, Immigrant
Defense Project, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, Washington Defender
Association’s Immigration Project, National Immigration Project of NLG,
National Immigration Law Center, and Rights Working Group). (Posted
3/22/10) |
|
|
Overview of the Key ICE ACCESS Programs: 287(g), the Criminal Alien
Program, and Secure Communities. ICE has grouped the major
programs that merge immigration enforcement with the criminal justice
system under an umbrella scheme called Agreements of Cooperation in
Communities to Enhance Safety and Security (ICE ACCESS). (11/5/09) |
|
|
More Questions Than Answers about the Secure Communities Program.
"Secure Communities" applies to immigrants regardless of their guilt or
innocence, how or why they were arrested, and whether or not their
arrests were based on racial or ethnic profiling or were just a pretext
for checking immigration status. ICE fact sheets and press
releases leave many critical questions unanswered. (3/09) |
|
|
Administration
Announces Harsh New Immigration Measures (article) and
List of announced measures:
"Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law"
(Depts. of Homeland Security & Commerce, 8/10/07)
|
|
|
|
FROM NILC | RE: STATE & LOCAL LAWS &
POLICIES |
|
|
|
|
Alabama: Information (and hotline) about
the Sept. 28, 2011, federal district court decision
Alabama passed its extreme anti-immigrant law, HB 56, on June 2,
2011. Three groups — a coalition of civil rights organizations,
the federal government, and churches — filed lawsuits
challenging HB 56. On Sept. 28, 2011, a federal district court
issued three decisions saying certain parts of the law may be
enforced and other parts will be enjoined for now. (10/5/11) |
|
|
Court Decision: Alabama’s Immigration Law, HB 56
(2-pg. information sheet, PDF, revised 10/14/11) |
|
|
Decisión de la Corte: Ley de Inmigración de Alabama HB 56 (2
páginas, PDF, revisado 14 oct. 2011) |
|
|
|
See Utah: Going Down
Arizona’s Unconstitutional Path, below. |
|
|
Congress Should Oppose Attempts to Require or Authorize States to
Regulate Immigration (PDF)
● Federal proposals to authorize state regulation of immigration law have
repeatedly failed. ● State attempts to regulate immigration law are
time-consuming, expensive, and unconstitutional. ● State and local laws
attempting to regulate immigration are bad for communities. ● Many state
and local police chiefs oppose local enforcement of immigration laws. ●
Congress should continue to reject bills that would give police the
authority to regulate immigration or authorize state and local
immigration legislation. (3/11) |
|
|
Facts About Federal Preemption:
How to analyze whether state and local initiatives are an unlawful
attempt to enforce federal immigration law or regulate immigration (PDF)
(6/28/07) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FROM
ENTITIES OTHER THAN NILC |
|
|
|
The State Immigration Project of the
Progressive States Network ("Working with allied labor, civil
rights, religious, and community organizations, the . . . State
Immigration Project . . . will support state legislative leaders and
advocates in challenging the rising anti-immigrant movement at the state
level.") |
|
|
State and Local Police Enforcement
of Federal Immigration Laws: A Toolkit for Advocates (AILA,
MALDEF, NCLR, NIF, NILC, 3/06) |
|
|
Police Chiefs Guide to Immigration
Issues (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 7/07) |
|
|
Major Cities [Law Enforcement]
Chiefs' statement on enforcement of immigration law by local agencies
(From the 6/8/06 news release accompanying the statement: "Members
of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, comprised of the largest police
agencies in America, are the first responders to over fifty million
residents. We are very concerned that the public policy [currently]
under consideration [in the U.S. Congress] does not take into full
account the realities of local law enforcement in dealing with this
issue on the ground.") |
|
|
|
State & Local |
|
|
|
LITIGATION (STATE & LOCAL) |
|
| |
Two Louisiana cases: "Driving Without Lawful Presence" (posted 4/24/07)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
LEGISLATION & RESOLUTIONS (STATE & LOCAL) |
|
|
|
MAP:
Current Status of Arizona-inspired Legislation (PDF) (formerly
titled "Threat Assessment for Arizona SB 1070-inspired Bills." A
map showing states in which: Arizona-inspired copycat laws have
been passed; such state laws have been blocked by lawsuits filed by NILC
and partners; or legislation has been introduced and is moving through
committee(s), or has encountered setbacks at the committee level, or has
been defeated. (As of 11/15/11) |
|
|
Utah: Going Down Arizona’s Unconstitutional Path (PDF). Utah’s
“Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act” (H.B. 497) is an enforcement-only
bill that copies several provisions from Arizona’s controversial SB 1070
and includes others that lead to the same result — of driving immigrants
from the state. The “Utah Immigration Accountability and
Enforcement Act” (H.B. 116) attempts to establish a state immigrant
worker permit while also imposing numerous requirements on applicants
for the proposed status and heightening employment eligibility
verification requirements. This is an overview of some of these bills’
most dangerous provisions. (3/9/11) |
|
|
The Anti-Immigrant Movement that
Failed: Positive Integration Policies by States Still Far Outweigh
Punitive Policies Aimed at New Immigrants (Progressive States
Network, 9/08) |
|
|
TABLE:
Laws, Resolutions, and Policies
Instituted Across the U.S. Limiting Enforcement of Immigration Laws by
State and Local Authorities (updated 12/3/08) |
|
|
TABLE:
2005 State
Legislation Restricting Benefits for Immigrants or Promoting State and
Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws (posted under
"State-Funded
Benefit Programs")
|
Federal |
|
|
|
AGAINST SOUTH CAROLINA'S SB20
Lowcountry
Immigration Coalition, et al. v. Haley, et al.
|
|
|
|
AGAINST ALABAMA'S HB 56
Hispanic
Interest Coalition of Alabama, et al. v. Bentley, et al.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Information sheets
(2 pp., English & Spanish) about the federal district court's decision
of Sept. 28, 2011 (see
above)
|
AGAINST ALABAMA'S HB 56
United
States v. Alabama
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGAINST GEORGIA'S HB 87
Georgia
Latino Alliance for Human Rights, et al. v. Deal, et al.
|
|
|
|
AGAINST INDIANA'S SB 590 & HB 1402
Buquer, et
al. v. City of Indianapolis, et al.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGAINST UTAH'S HB 497
Utah
Coalition of La Raza, et al. v. Herbert, et al.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGAINST the orleans Parish sheriff for illegal immigration holds
Cacho v. Gusman
|
|
|
|
Briefs and Orders Filed with/Issued by the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana (from latest to earliest): |
|
■ |
Plaintiffs’
Original Complaint (filed
2/2/11)
"Mr. Mario Cacho and Mr. Antonio Ocampo, New Orleans
reconstruction workers, hereby file this civil rights complaint
against Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin N. Gusman because of his
policy and practice of holding them and other New Orleans
residents for indefinite periods in his jail without any legal
authority and in violation of the United States Constitution and
Louisiana law." |
|
|
|
|
AGAINST ARIZONA'S SB 1070
Friendly
House, et al. v. Whiting, et al.
|
|
|
|
Briefs and Orders Filed with/Issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona (from latest to earliest): |
|
■ |
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. §§
13-2928(A) and (B) and Memorandum in Support Thereof
(filed 1/7/11)
"Plaintiffs move the Court for a preliminary injunction as to §§
13-2928 (A) and (B) of the Arizona Revised Statutes in order to
halt the ongoing deprivation of First Amendment rights to
individuals -- day laborers and employers -- at risk of
prosecution under these provisions." |
|
■ |
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration (filed
10/22/10)
"The dismissal was premised on the Court’s conclusion that under
Hoffman individuals who are 'unlawfully present' and not
employment authorized do not have the right to solicit work of
any kind. That premise is clearly erroneous, because day
labor is exempt from the federal immigrant employment regulation
scheme and Hoffman does not purport to address the
lawfulness of such exempted work by individuals lacking
employment authorization. Nor does Hoffman bar
individuals without employment authorization from seeking
redress in the courts for alleged violations of First Amendment
and other Constitutional rights." (Citations omitted.) |
|
■ |
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Dismiss
(Issued 10/8/10)
Among other things, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona found that the plaintiffs' claim that “Racial
discrimination was a motivating factor for [SB] 1070's
enactment” establishes a valid constitutional challenge to
Arizona's SB 1070. |
|
■ |
Proposed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
(Filed 6/4/10) |
|
■ |
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Filed
5/17/10) and
Complaint Exhibits 1 & 2 (Arizona Senate & House Bills) (Filed
5/17/10) |
|
|
|
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary
Injunction (7/22/10) |
|
|
Memorandum Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association in Support of
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filed 6/30/10)
(Or read the ABA's
news release summarizing its four reasons/arguments for why SB 1070
should be enjoined.) |
|
|
Why Police Chiefs Oppose Arizona’s SB 1070 (Excerpts from
declarations submitted as part of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction
in Friendly House v. Whiting.) (6/10)
|
AGAINST ARIZONA'S SB 1070
United
States v. Arizona
|
|
|
Frequently Asked Questions - Update on Legal Challenges to Arizona’s
Racial Profiling Law (SB 1070)
(ACLU, 9/10 -- This link will take you to the ACLU website.) |
|
|
Appellate Court Upholds Decision Blocking Arizona’s Extreme Racial
Profiling Law
(4/11/11) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AGAINST CITY OF FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS
Villas at
Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch
|
|
|
Memorandum Opinion and Order ("[T]he Court finds . . . that the
landlord and tenant plaintiffs have established standing to challenge
the ordinance, and that the ordinance is invalid under the Supremacy
Clause.") (3/24/10) |
|
|
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Granting Permanent Injunction (Federal district court finds
that a local ordinance restricting immigrants' access to housing is
preempted by federal law and violates the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.) (5/28/08) |
|
|
Memorandum Opinion and Order
(Court lacks jurisdiction to consider defendants' proposed
counterclaim.) (5/28/08) |
|
|
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Granting Preliminary Injunction (6/19/07)
|
AGAINST CITY OF HAZLETON, PENNSYLVANIA
Lozano et
al. v. City of Hazleton
|
|
|
Federal Court Strikes Down
Discriminatory Anti-Immigrant Law in Hazleton, Pennsylvania
(link is to ACLU of Pennsylvania website). "In the first trial
decision of its kind, a federal court has declared unconstitutional a
local ordinance that sought to punish landlords and employers for doing
business with undocumented immigrants." (7/26/07)
|
|
|
Decision in
Lozano v.
City of Hazleton, No. 3:06cv1586 (M.D. Pa. July 26,
2007). |
|
|
|
Appeal (by Hazleton) to Third Circuit
Court of Appeals |
|
■ |
Hazleton, PA, Anti-Immigrant Law Is Unconstitutional, Federal
Appeals Court Rules
(ACLU, 9/9/10; this link will take you to the ACLU website.) |
|
■ |
Decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Lozano v.
City of Hazleton
(9/9/10; this link will take you to the ACLU website.) |
|
■ |
Brief of the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race,
Ethnicity and Diversity at University of California, Berkeley
Law School as Amicus Curiae in Support of the
Plaintiffs-Appellees, Supporting Affirmance.
SUMMARY: "[R]esearch shows that notions of illegality are
strongly correlated with a specific racial profile and that this
phenomenon is exacerbated within communities, like Hazleton,
which have experienced rapid demographic change with the arrival
of Latinos. This backlash . . . has resulted in increased
alienation [among] U.S.-born and naturalized Latinos. Documented
harms . . . include a lack of trust in government entities and a
potential increase in hate crimes. . . . [O]rdinances such as
Hazleton’s fuel racial divisions and create barriers to
integration for a large segment of the population. As such, they
are not only unlawful but bad public policy." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
of the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005 (S. 1362) (6/30/05)(PDF) |
|
|
Summary of the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien
Removal (CLEAR) Act of 2005 (HR 3137) (6/30/05)(PDF) |
|
|
Summary of the Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien
Removal (CLEAR) Act of 2003 (HR 2671) (7/31/03)(PDF) |
|
|
|
Immigrants' Rights Update Articles
(back
to IRU index) |
|
|
Hazleton, Penn., Anti-Immigrant
Ordinances Preempted and Unconstitutional, Federal Court Finds
(10/5/07) |
|
|
Louisiana Courts Dismiss Charges
under Law Prohibiting Driving without
Lawful Presence, Citing Preemption and Enforcement Problems (4/25/07) |
|
|
Rhode
Island ACLU Sues over Arrests of Immigrants Resulting from Racial
Profiling (2/20/07) |
|
|
Toolkits
for Responding to Local Anti-Immigrant Ordinances Available (12/6/06) |
|
|
Bill authorizing enforcement of
immigration law by state and local authorities introduced in Senate
(12/22/05) |
|
|
House
passes border and immigration enforcement bill: Immigrants, noncitizens,
even citizens face unprecedented assault on rights
(12/22/05) (posted under "Comprehensive
Immigration Reform") |
|
|
L.A. County
to Enter Limited MOU with ICE to Permit
Immigration Enforcement at County Jail (2/10/05) |
|
|
Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev.,
Humboldt Cty. |
Supreme Court upholds state law requiring individuals to identify
themselves when asked during investigative stop (7/04) |
|
|
Homeland Security
Enhancement Act Provisions Spark Sharp Disagreement (5/20/04) |
|
|
National
Council of La Raza, et al v. Ashcroft |
Lawsuit Filed to Enjoin Entry of Immigration Records
into FBI's Crime
Database (2/17/04 ) |
|
|
Senate
State/Local Immigration Enforcement Bill Goes Further Than House "Clear
Act" Bill (12/18/03) (Posted under
"Congressional Developments") |
|
|
Alabama
State Troopers Said to Receive "Clear Authority" in Civil Immigration
Enforcement (11/24/03) |
|
|
CLEAR
Act Introduced: Sweeping Legislation Would Require Local Police to Enforce
Immigration Law
(9/4/03) |
|
|
Justice Dept. Order Exempts Crime Database
from Accuracy Requirement (6/3/03) |
|
|
Seattle Adopts Ordinance Preventing Inquiries
on Immigration Status (2/21/03) |
|
|
Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol
|
6th Circuit Upholds Ruling against Ohio Trooper Who
Seized Green Cards (11/22/02) |
|
|
Policies to Permit Police to Enforce Immigration
Law Could Undermine Public Safety, Violate Civil Rights (11/22/02) |
|
|
INS and Florida Enter MOU to Allow State
Officers to Enforce Immigration Law (9/10/02) |
|
|
Justice Dept. Contemplates Extending Immigration
Enforcement Responsibilities to State and Local Agencies (4/12/02) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
