Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

U.S. Forced to Release New “Embarrassing” Documents On Controversial Secure Communities Program

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 10:12 AM
Original message
U.S. Forced to Release New “Embarrassing” Documents On Controversial Secure Communities Program
U.S. Forced to Release New “Embarrassing” Documents On Controversial Secure Communities Program

Documents Show Broad Deception and Disagreement Within Federal Agencies on Opt Out; Raise New Questions About ICE’s Mandatory Stance

Contact: [email protected]
http://ccrjustice.org/newsroom/press-releases/u.s.-forced-release-new-%E2%80%9Cembarrassing%E2%80%9D-documents-controversial-secure-communities-program#.Tk0iegL6bNs.twitter

New York, August 18, 2011- In the wake of protests and civil disobedience in Chicago yesterday and across the country criticizing the Obama administration’s Secure Communities program, immigrant advocates called on the government to turn over remaining documents about the program sought in a Freedom of Information lawsuit and to halt the controversial program.

A batch of unredacted documents released by court order this week, which federal district court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin called “embarrassing,” included acknowledgement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) attorneys that they would have to “rewrite” memos on whether the program is mandatory for states and localities and revealed schisms between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on the right of states and localities to opt out of the program. In her order, Judge Scheindlin chided the agencies for going “out of their way to mislead the public about Secure Communities,” and pointedly stated that the “purpose of the is to shed light on the operation of government, not shield it from embarrassment.”

The judge has not yet ruled on whether the government must release other documents relating to the legal authority to make Secure Communities mandatory. Strikingly, the government continues to attempt to withhold documents that shed light on that policy. ICE will be back in court today arguing it should be able to keep secret documents relating to the agency’s purported legal basis to impose S-Comm on unwilling states like Massachusetts, Illinois and New York.

The documents are being sought in a Freedom of Information lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law with the law firm of Mayer Brown LLP on behalf of the National Day Laborer Organization Network.

One previously redacted email chain of over 100 pages shows the director of Secure Communities, David Venturella, dodging questions from Margo Schlanger, an important official from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (OCRCL). When ordering release of this document, Judge Scheindlinobserved that the exchange showed “clearly obfuscating” and “non-responsive” answers from ICE in response to a request for clarification from OCRCL about Secure Communities policy. DHS000196-000317.

Another email chain from July 2010 discussing a draft response to Representative Zoe Lofgren’s letter requesting clarification on the agency’s opt-out policy indicates that the FBI was considering an opt-out option. The FBI had concerns that if no opt-out was allowed, states might consider not sending fingerprints to the FBI for other purposes. The email notes that “moving away from the mandatory stance” would require “S1” (Secretary Napolitano) and AG approval.ICE FOIA 10-2674.0002039.

The back-and-forth and deception was clearly frustrating to ICE officials. In an angry email dated August 6, 2010, a Secure Communities employee comments: “We never address whether or not it is mandatory – the answer is written to sound like it is but doesn’t state it. It’s very convoluted – or is that the point? I’m all about shades of grey but this really is a black and white question…Is it mandatory? Yes or No. Ok, so not such an easy question to answer.” ICE FOIA 10-2674.0011165-ICE FOIA 10-2674.11171.

Commenting on the documents, Sunita Patel, staff attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights said, “The previously redacted portions of these documents—now public for the first time—reveal the extent of ICE’s deceit and political game-playing in its communications with states and localities. Perhaps more disconcerting, though, is the confusion and flip-flopping within the agency about their own policies and plans for deployment of such a high-impact and unprecedented program.”

Added Bridget Kessler, an attorney with the Cardozo Immigration Justice Clinic, “These newly unredacted documents signal that the fight is not over yet. ICE’s purportedly ‘mandatory’ S-Comm policy appears to lack a sound legal basis, and is certainly misguided and confused as a matter of policy. Massachusetts, New York and Illinois should continue to push the federal government to honor their rejection of S-Comm.”

Sarahi Uribe, national organizer for the National Day Laborer Organizing Network said, “Even as they moved full-speed-ahead with deploying this program across the nation, at times top-level agency officials didn’t seem to fully understand—or disagreed about—how the program would work. Everywhere around the country people are resisting—there have been walkouts and arrests during S-Comm hearings, rallies, and thousands of petition signatures delivered to President Obama. The time has come. It’s time to halt S-Comm.”

The groups said they will continue to litigate this case to obtain the full information about S-Comm that the public is entitled to.

Visit CCR’s NDLON v. ICE case page or the joint website, UncovertheTruth.org, foran index of the newly released documents, the text of the FOIA request, the lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York and all other relevant documents.

Mods: This press release has no copyright issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 10:19 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bit by bit, the invisible Razor-Wire fence goes up
Minute by minute, the American Gulag takes shape.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. Yep, and we were there.
I still think these S-Comm people had a hand in the BART cell phone shutdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Someone got a phone call.....
I doubt if BART would do it on their own.

I suspect this is going to become common place as the Serfs hit the streets.

Sometimes a land-line can't be beat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. BART has always been really conservative, slow and sort of stilted
when it comes to PR. All of a sudden, they had a polished video ready to go within 24 hours and their spokesliar says, it was his idea.

lol

I agree about landlines. It's not going to work to depend on an industry that is controlled so easily by the Feds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
formercia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Fell on his Sword
Not to worry, He gets a promotion for protecting the Boss. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
2. It would be nice if the OP would include a brief explanation of Secure Communities
Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Excellent suggestion:
Secure Communities (SComm) is an American deportation program that relies on partnership among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.<1> U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the interior immigration enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is the program manager.

John Morton of ICE called Secure Communities “the future of immigration enforcement” because it “focuses our resources on identifying and removing the most serious criminal offenders first and foremost.”<2>

SComm relies on integrated databases and partnerships with local and state jailers to build domestic deportation capacity. The goals, as outlined in a 2009 report to Congress, are to: “1. IDENTIFY criminal aliens through modernized information sharing; 2. PRIORITIZE enforcement actions to ensure apprehension and removal of dangerous criminal aliens; and 3. TRANSFORM criminal alien enforcement processes and systems to achieve lasting results.” <3>

The program has come under controversy, however, for misrepresenting who is being picked up and what is expected of law enforcement partners. SComm was created administratively, not by congressional mandate, and to date, no regulations have been promulgated to govern the program’s implementation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Communities

Two points to note:
1. Secure Communities relies on unconstitutional racial profiling and problematic intrusion of Federal forces into community level law enforcement.
2. There is some doubt whether the measures authorized under SC to be used in the context of investigating immigration status aren't also authorized for use against any individual -- can the Feds demand that your local LEA give them your prints, your personal information, detain you, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 11:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Thank you!
Very kind of you to go to the trouble of posting this. Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. My pleasure.
My hope is that people will begin to question what "Secure Communities" means for all of us and will stop seeing it only as a deportation program because its scope and implications are far broader than that. As far as I can tell, it picks up where the Patriot Act leaves off.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Trillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
15. The wikipedia article doesn't mention racism or racial profiling.
"rac" is only in the word "crackdown". So, Where does "racial profiling" come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. recommend
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
8. kr
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. Excellent post
Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I may be wrong but S-Comm sure looks like the icing on the Patriot Act cake. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. more here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solly Mack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-18-11 07:58 PM
Response to Original message
12. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gratuitous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-19-11 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
17. It's a good thing all our enemies are foreign terrorists
Because this story might make me think that the people of the United States have not a few enemies in our own government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC