The Chinatown Coalition



What YOU CAN DO IN YOUR CITY, TOWN, COUNTY, AND CAMPUS to protect immigrants

Cities and Towns

• Limit how police share information that can help ICE deport people: passing “Trust” policies or becoming a “Sanctuary city.” This can be done by the Mayor, Police Chief, City Council, or Town meeting. (See attachment 1)

• Slightly more limited than the suggestion above, pass policies that limit how police collaborate in deportation operations such as raids.

• Pass welcoming statements.

• Find out if your city honors ICE detainers by filing a public records request.

• Work through the City Council or Town Meeting to provide municipal IDs for undocumented immigrants that can be used to access city/town services like public libraries, etc.

• Propose “municipal voting” rules that allow non-citizens living in the city or town to vote for local officials.

Counties

• Find out more about whether your county collaborates with ICE either by holding ICE detainees or by honoring ICE detainers.

• Support incarcerated immigrants (ICE detainees waiting to be deported).

o Hold a vigil outside the jail.

o Find detainees in jail with whom you can correspond. (Realize that communications are monitored).

o Reach out your local legislator – they can walk into the jail and “inspect” it at any point, without announcement.

o The following county jails hold immigration detainees on behalf of ICE.

▪ Plymouth

▪ Bristol

▪ Essex

▪ Norfolk

▪ Suffolk

▪ Franklin

• Find out if your Sheriff honors ICE detainers by doing a public records request (Attachment 3). The following are believed to do so. (See attachment 4 for a description of detainers)

▪ Barnstable

▪ Essex

▪ Franklin

▪ Middlesex

▪ Hampshire

▪ Norfolk

▪ Plymouth

▪ Bristol

▪ Suffolk

▪ Worcester

• Organize a campaign to get your Sheriff to stop honoring ICE detainers.

• Oppose “287(g)” agreements, which deputize local county staff to become immigration agents. Currently, only Bristol county has one of these.

Campuses

Work with campus police to create a policy of non-collaboration with ICE. Campus police should not voluntarily share information about students and should not detain students for ICE or participate in any enforcement actions.

Contact Natalicia Tracy at UMass Boston to learn more: natalicia.tracy@umb.edu

Strong statements from administration that ICE is not welcome on their campus.

Become a “Dreamer School” (work with the Student Immigrant Movement – SIM) to be welcoming and supportive of undocumented students:

• Scholarships for undocumented students

• Guidance counselors who can work with specific needs of undocumented students

• Increased awareness of the struggles of undocumented students

• Teachers and administration who are educated on the issues and help make the academic journey of undocumented students a bit easier

Attachments

1. Sample “Trust” legislation

2. Sample public records request to county to find out about detainers

3. What are detainers?

4. Detainer and PEP statistics

5. Coming soon: Sample talking points relating to “Trust” legislation and Sanctuary Cities

6. Coming soon: FAQs about Sanctuary Cities and Trust Act cities.

7. Coming soon: Sample police order limiting interactions with ICE.

ATTACHMENT 1: SAMPLE TRUST POLICY

CITY OF ---

TRUST POLICY & ORDER

PURPOSE.

The purpose of this [CITY] TRUST Policy and Order is to increase public confidence in [city] Law Enforcement by providing guidelines associated with federal immigration enforcement, arrests, and detentions.

TRUST POLICY.

It is not within the purview nor mandate of the City to enforce federal immigration law or seek the detention, transfer or deportation of [city] residents for civil immigration purposes, nor should city resources be expended toward that end. Under no circumstances shall a person be contacted, detained, or arrested by [city] Law Enforcement based on immigration status, whether known or unknown.

The City of [city] will equally enforce the law and serve the public without consideration of immigration status. Citizenship, immigration status, lack of immigration documentation, national origin, race, and ethnicity shall have no bearing on an individual’s treatment by [city] Law Enforcement (including but not limited to classification status, eligibility for work programs, eligibility for alternative to incarceration programs, right to release on bail), or on decisions to initiate stops, make arrests, or extend the length of custody.

1. DEFINITIONS

“Immigration & Customs Enforcement” (or “ICE”) is the agency within the US Department of Homeland Security with primary responsibility to investigate and enforce immigration law.

“Immigration Holds” are requests, often called “ICE holds” or “immigration detainers”, by federal immigration officials, including but not limited to those using federal form I-247 (authorized under Section 287.7 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations) to local Law Enforcement to voluntarily maintain custody of an individual once that individual is released from local custody.

“Administrative warrant” means a warrant, notice to appear, removal order, warrant of deportation, or other ICE custody document (I-200, I-203, I-205 or another listed in the National Crime Information Database (NCIC)) issued by a federal immigration official, not a judicial officer, and not based on a finding of probable cause for an alleged criminal law violation.

“Released from local custody” means an individual may be released from the custody of a Law Enforcement agency because any of the following conditions has occurred:

(a) All criminal charges against the individual have been dropped or dismissed;

(b) The individual has been acquitted of all criminal charges filed against him or her;

(c) The individual has served the time required for his or her sentence;

(d) The individual has posted a bail or bond, or has been released on their own recognizance;

(e) The individual has been referred to pre-trial diversion services;

(f) The individual has been sentenced to an alternative to incarceration, including a rehabilitation facility;

(g) The individual is otherwise eligible for release under state or local law.

2. ORDER

a.) ICE holds or administrative warrants. Unless ICE demonstrates a criminal warrant signed by a judge and based on probable cause, no officer or employee of a [city] Law Enforcement agency shall arrest or detain an individual solely on the basis of an immigration hold or administrative warrant. This includes extending length of custody by any amount of time once an individual is released from local custody.

b.) ICE notification requests. No officer or employee of a [city] Law Enforcement agency shall respond to any ICE notification request seeking information about an individual’s incarceration status, length of detention, home address, work address, personal information, hearing information, or pending release.

c.) ICE access to records or facilities. Unless ICE demonstrates a criminal warrant signed by a judge and based on probable cause, no officer or employee of a [city] Law Enforcement agency shall allow ICE agents access to or use of facilities, records/databases, booking lists, or individuals in custody either in person or via telephone or videoconference.

d.) Individuals subject to ICE interventions. Any individual subject to an immigration hold, administrative warrant, notification request, or contact with ICE, where [city] Law Enforcement acquiesces to the ICE request, shall be provided with a copy of the ICE request and any other documentation pertaining to their case that is presented to the Law Enforcement agency.

e.) U Visa Certification. In furtherance of the US Victims of Trafficking and Violence Prevention Act, City of [city] Law Enforcement shall consider and sign a U Visa certification request if an individual is (i.) the victim of a qualifying crime, and (ii.) have been, are being, or will likely be helpful in the investigation/prosecution of that crime.

f.) Raids. No officer or employee of any [city] agency or department may participate in an operation led by a federal agency to detain persons for deportation purposes.

f.) Compliance with federal law. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to prohibit any [city] agency or department from providing another law enforcement agency information that is required to be provided by state or federal law, including 8 U.S.C. § 1373.

3. COMPLAINTS

Allegations of violations of the present TRUST policy and order shall be filed with the [city] Office of the Mayor.

4. REPORTING

Beginning on [date] and on every other month thereafter, the [city] Police Chief shall submit a report, with the information detailed below, to the Clerk of the City, forward to the Mayor of the City, docket said report, and include the docket on the agenda of the next-occurring meeting of the City Council.

(a) The total number ICE holds, administrative warrants, and notification requests lodged with City Law Enforcement officials, organized by the reason(s) given for the request;

(b) The total number of individuals detained on an ICE hold or administrative warrant, if any;

(c) The total number of individuals transferred to ICE custody, if any; and

(d) The total reimbursements received from the federal government pursuant to any granted hold, administrative warrant, or notification request, organized by case.

ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST ABOUT DETAINERS

Records Access Officer

[Agency

Address]

Re: Public Records Request – ICE detainers

Dear Records Access Officer:

This is a request for public records under M.G.L. c. 66, § 10 made on behalf of [INSERT ORGANIZATION NAME, IF ONE].

Please provide the following records:

1. Any and all [AGENCY] policies currently in force relating to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainers or the ICE Priority Enforcement Program.

2. Any and all records of communications dated between any ICE official and any [AGENCY] official that mentions or relates to any [AGENCY] policy or practice of honoring or accepting ICE detainers or any [AGENCY] policy relating to the Priority Enforcement Program, for the period between November 2014 and the date the search for these records is conducted.

3. Copies of any and all ICE detainers received by [AGENCY] from [DATE] to [DATE].

Because this request involves a matter of public concern, I ask that you waive any copying costs pursuant to 950 C.M.R. 32.06(5), which encourages all custodians of public records to “waive fees where disclosure would benefit the public interest.”

Should you withhold some portions of the requested documents on the grounds that they are exempt from disclosure, please specify which exemptions apply and release any portions of the records for which you do not claim an exemption.

As you know, a custodian of public records shall comply with a request within ten days of receipt.

Thank you for your assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can clarify any part of this request.

Sincerely,

ATTACHMENT 3: WHAT ARE ICE DETAINERS?

No matter what name you know them by, ICE detainers, ICE holds or immigration detainers are requests that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sends to local enforcement agencies (e.g. police, sheriff, local jail) asking for information about a person who is about to be released from custody and/or asking that the local agency hold that person for an extra amount of time in order to facilitate their deportation.

ICE detainers are not mandatory. There is no legal requirement that a local agency respond to a detainer request. Law enforcement agencies can choose for themselves whether or not to cooperate voluntarily.

ICE detainers are not judicial warrants. An arrest warrant is an order signed by a judge that allows a police officer to detain a person because there is “probable cause” to believe that the person has committed a crime. “Probable cause” is the standard of proof that the government must show in order to deprive a person of his or her liberty under the Fourth Amendment.

In contrast, a detainer is a document signed by an immigration agent—not a judicial officer—requesting that a locality hold a person who the judicial system would otherwise have released, based on ICE’s interest in deporting the person. Most detainers are not supported by probable cause. In fact, less than 1% of detainers are accompanied by a judicial warrant. And, what many people don’t know is that the fact that ICE issues a detainer does not even mean that the individual is a non-citizen subject to deportation. That is because ICE issues detainers without probable cause, sometimes even for U.S. citizens and people who are not deportable at all.

Around the country, courts are finding that ICE detainers are unconstitutional when they are not supported by what is called “probable cause,” Recently, the federal court of appeals for the area that covers Massachusetts ruled that the Fourth Amendment requires that detainers be supported by probable cause.

When local agencies hold a person on an unconstitutional detainer, they can be liable. Detainers also regularly prevent people from being released on bail, limit their access to treatment programs, and result in longer jail time, even if all the charges are dropped.

For these reasons, cities, towns, counties, and states around the U.S. are limiting how and when they collaborate with ICE detainers.  Hundreds of localities have passed laws and orders that limit or prohibit law enforcement from accepting these detainers, especially without a court order.

ATTACHMENT 4: STATISTICS ON ICE DETAINERS AND PEP

Background:

In November 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced a re-working of the controversial “Secure Communities” program, under a new name: the “Priority Enforcement Program” or “PEP.”

Although the new guidelines promised to use fewer requests for detention to local authorities (“detainers”), and to focus on deporting people with major criminal records, so far PEP has done neither.

By the numbers:

• Over 2 million people deported in Obama administration

o Only 20% of those deported were convicted of serious crimes

o Over 2/3 had minor infractions or no criminal record at all.

• Under the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP), 51% of detainers are issued for people with no prior criminal convictions ()

• PEP continues to use detainer requests to seek detention, not just notification of release date:

4 out of 5 detainers are requests to detain ()

Massachusetts Statistics:

Source:

|State* |Number of ICE Detainers |

| |All Facilities |County and Local Facilities |

| |Nov '14 - Feb '15 |Mar '15 - Jun '15|Jul '15 - |Nov '14 - Feb '15|Mar '15 - Jun '15 |Jul '15 - |

| | | |Oct '15 | | |Oct '15 |

|Massachusetts |125 |188 |165 |81 |129 |84 |

Table 4. Reported ICE Detainers by State and Detention Facility, November 2014 - October 2015

|State |Type |Detention Facility |Total |Nov '14 - Feb '15|Mar '15 - Jun '15 |Jul '15 - Oct '15|

|Massachusetts |County |BARNSTABLE COUNTY |7 |2 |3 |2 |

|Massachusetts |State |BAY STATE CORR, NORFOLK |10 |8 |2 |0 |

|Massachusetts |ICE |BOSTON HOLDROOM |2 |0 |1 |1 |

|Massachusetts |Local |BOSTON POLICE DEPT |17 |7 |6 |4 |

|Massachusetts |Local |BOSTON POLICE DEPT, DISTRICT #3 |4 |1 |2 |1 |

|Massachusetts |County |BRISTOL CNTY NDARTMOUTH |20 |8 |6 |6 |

|Massachusetts |County |BRISTOL CTY, NEW BEDFORD |3 |1 |0 |2 |

|State |Type |Detention Facility |Total |Nov '14 - Feb '15|Mar '15 - Jun '15 |Jul '15 - Oct '15|

|Massachusetts |Local |BROOKLINE POLICE DEPT. |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|Massachusetts |State |BWATER ST HOSP BRIDGEWATE |2 |2 |0 |0 |

|Massachusetts |Local |CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPT |2 |1 |1 |0 |

|Massachusetts |Federal |DEVENS FMC |12 |6 |1 |5 |

|Massachusetts |County |DUKES COUNTY JAIL |2 |1 |0 |1 |

|Massachusetts |County |ESSEX CO. JAIL, MIDDLETON |63 |13 |29 |21 |

|Massachusetts |Local |GREENFIELD HOUSE OF CORR. |1 |0 |1 |0 |

|Massachusetts |County |HAMPDEN CO.HOUSE OF CORR. |5 |3 |1 |1 |

|Massachusetts |Local |LAWRENCE POLICE DEPT |7 |2 |2 |3 |

|Massachusetts |State |MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE |4 |0 |4 |0 |

|Massachusetts |State |MCI CEDAR JUNCTION |34 |7 |13 |14 |

|Massachusetts |State |MCI CONCORD |22 |4 |5 |13 |

|Massachusetts |State |MCI NORFOLK |14 |1 |5 |8 |

|Massachusetts |State |MCI SHIRLEY |12 |6 |4 |2 |

|Massachusetts |State |MCI, FRAMINGHAM |10 |2 |3 |5 |

|State |Type |Detention Facility |Total |Nov '14 - Feb '15|Mar '15 - Jun '15 |Jul '15 - Oct '15|

|Massachusetts |County |MIDDLESEX COUNTY |49 |20 |20 |9 |

| | |H.O.C.-BILLERICA | | | | |

|Massachusetts |County |MIDDLESEX COUNTY-CAMBRIDGE |3 |1 |1 |1 |

|Massachusetts |Local |NASHUA ST. JAIL |22 |3 |17 |2 |

|Massachusetts |State |NCCI GARDNER |20 |2 |6 |12 |

|Massachusetts |County |NORFLK CNTY DEDHAM |14 |2 |5 |7 |

|Massachusetts |State |OLD COLONY, BRIDGEWATER |3 |2 |0 |1 |

|Massachusetts |County |PLYMOUTH COUNTY H.O.C. |27 |6 |15 |6 |

|Massachusetts |State |SOUSA-BARANOWSKI CORR. CENTER |2 |0 |0 |2 |

|Massachusetts |County |SUFFOLK HOC SBAY |33 |8 |12 |13 |

|Massachusetts |Federal |US MARSHALS, BOSTON,MA |37 |4 |15 |18 |

|Massachusetts |Local |WALTHAM POLICE DEPT. |3 |1 |2 |0 |

|Massachusetts |County |WRSTR CNTY W BOYLSTON |12 |1 |6 |5 |

-----------------------

Call the agency and ask if they have one, and get their name. Otherwise, you can find out the name of the city attorney or just write to the “Custodian of Record”

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download