Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Gov Elect Brown Helping To Terrorize Immigrant Community-Supports ICE "Secure Communities"
New Democratic Governor Jerry Brown is Helping To Terrorize Immigrant Community-Supports ICE "Secure Communities" Program Throughout State. This is not the first time Brown has supported police state tactics. He supported the police riot in Oakland while he was Mayor against peaceful anti-war protesters and ILWU longshore workers and worked closely with the Bush and Obama administration in "anti-terrorism" implementation laws. At the same time Brown refused to prosecute insurance companies and self-insured employers as well as corrupt District Attorneys for terrorizing injured workers and workers comp fraud cover-ups. He received millions from these crooks.
Gov Elect Jerry Brown Helping To Terrorize Immigrant Community-Supports ICE "Secure Communities" Program Throughout State
Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Aurora wrote:
Dear friends, allies and comrades, greetings!
I, as so many others, are very concerned about the repercussions that the Secure Communities Program (S-Com) has for tens, or possibly hundreds, of thousands of members of our communities, so I did the best I could in my limited capacity, to inform myself on it's provisions, methods and how these were being implemented, with special focus on whether or not the Bill's procedural dictates/provisions were being carried out in accordance and in compliance with it.
Again, in my limited capacity, I started hearing reports of people being summarily deported after being detained for minor offenses or infractions before they were convicted of any crime/s, we have been also hearing about how some of these persons were being coerced into signing guilty pleas to, allegedly, avoid being charged and convicted under more severe charges.
Having been very familiar with the language in the legislation pertaining to S-Com, specially with the text in House Report 111-157 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010, I was very alarmed at what I saw as non-compliance and/or, violations in it's implementation, or both, I was shocked to find out that our Attorney General in California signed a contract with HS/ICE to allow municipalities to participate in the program.
Most of us are familiar with the events that followed the disclosure of the agreement, specially AG J. Brown's position on whether of not it was compulsory or voluntary for Counties to join, his declining of San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey's request to have SF opt-out of the program; this caused a firestorm of controversy, but I felt the conversation was lacking discussions on the text in the bill other than what was related to participation.
While many of us questioned Jerry brown on his signing of the contract, I wondered why also so many of us, including our National Community Organizations who have lawyers in their staff, such as MALDEF, LULAC, NCLR, etc., have not taken a closer look and actions, where and when warranted, on the issues that I bring up in the questions and arguments that I would raise in front of our Attorney General if he were to give me the opportunity to speak up in his presence.
Fully aware that the chances of that occurring are from slim to non existent, the need and desire to speak up are still there, for, given that in addition to what I see as body punches to our community via pre-existing irregularities in the implementation of S-Com, he has given us what amounts to a slap in the face with his going to Arizona to vacation
(In all fairness and full disclosure, it was mentioned by a friend of mine, that he has family in Arizona and probably that's the reason he chose to vacation there - maybe this is so, or maybe not, but to me, an explanation from his part was warranted, as would be also expected from anyone under the same circumstances.).
So, if Jerry Brown were to give me time and attention to what I have to say, here is what I'd tell him:
Mr. California Attorney General Jerry Brown, how many body punches and Arizona slaps-on-the-face are we supposed to take?
It is fair to say that we, in the Hispanic/Latino Community, have been there for you in the past and in the 2010 California race for Governor we went all out for you again, this has been widely recognized, including by yourself, who posted in the Official Campaign Site some endorsements of Hispanic/Latino Community's Organizations.
By the same token, it is important to declare that: it is a matter of record where you have been instrumental in making changes which helped our community and implemented policies that alleviated the burden and dangers that California workers in general faced and had to endure for many decades, most notably to us, in the Farm Labor Work Force's working conditions and compensation.
Given our common past and present history, it came as a very unpleasant surprise to me, that for your well deserved after-the-election victory vacation, that in spite of the SB 1070 Boycott and your claims to stand by us, you decided to visit Arizona and spend you leisure time and money there.
Did your Arizona visit gave it a degree of legitimacy? Did it embolden more Tea Party Operatives, such as Michael Erickson of Belmont CA, to introduce copycat Legislation for California via an Initiative?
.
I'll start with the slaps on the face and then follow up with the body punches you landed on us with your behavior and actions in the implementation of your contract with HS/ICE's Secure Communities (S-Com) For the State of California.
Since I can't speak for the whole Hispanic/Latino Community, I won't; but I do strongly ask that you let me know why I shouldn't feel like if I was just slapped on the face by you vacation in Arizona, furthermore, I do also ask you to explain why I shouldn't feel it as further alaps on the face by your reticence to even explain how do you reconcile your position on SB 1070 and all of the exploitation, abuses and humiliation that our community continues to be subjected to, most notably in Maricopa County, with your pledges to stand by our side, vis a vis your choice to vacation in that state.
With all due respect, Mr. California Attorney General and Governor Elect, what is there to prevent me from applying to you the same charges you made against Meg Whitman, together with the unflattering attributes? Again, with all due respect, is there anything you can say that would prevent me from calling you a hypocrite?
Here are some posts at your web site, by the way, there is nothing posted in your 'solutions' page stating your positions on immigration or any proposal you make to deal with this issue in the State of California:
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LATINO COMMUNITY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS BACK JERRY BROWN FOR GOVERNOR, BLAST MEG WHITMAN FOR LATINO, IMMIGRATION DOUBLE TALK
"As Mayor, he cut Oakland's crime rate; and as Attorney General, he's using the latest technologies to crack down on criminal street gangs, catch killers, protect consumers from fraudsters, and protect Latinos, immigrants, and all working people from exploitation and abuse."
Latino Leaders Back Brown For Governor, Call Out Whitman For Anti-Latino, Anti-Immigrant Record And Deceptive Ads
And in the event you did forget that we went to bat for you, giving it our best shot, here is more information on the support you received from the Hispanic/Latino Community and if I might add, it was a critical voting block on your victory.
Egregious as it was your choice of Arizona as your vacation spot, this pales in comparison to your behavior, acts and the performance in discharging your duties as California's Attorney General on the Homeland Security ICE Secure Communities Program contract with Municipalities in the Great State of California.
Albeit I'm a lay person in legal matters, I was one of the many, not the first or the only one, to raise my voice in protest of your position on whether or not it was compulsory for California's Municipalities to participate in the S-Com program, our opinion from the beginning was that after reviewing the language in the SC/CIRCA Bill, there was nothing in it that would mandate making it compulsory for California's Cities or Counties to participate.
The first test on your legal understanding of the provisions and your due diligence on the contract with S-Com, came when San Francisco's Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who upon learning of your signing the Contract with HS/ICE, was deeply troubled and send you a request to allow San Francisco to opt out of Secure Communities, here is the text of your reply to his request:
California Attorney Jerry Brown’s reply to SF's Sheriff Hennesy:
"Dear Sheriff Hennessey:
I am writing in response to your letter regarding the Secure Communities program developed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The program is scheduled to be rolled out in San Francisco next month. You requested that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) block ICE from running checks on the fingerprints collected in San Francisco. The Secure Communities program is up and running in 169 counties in 20 states, including 17 counties in California. Because I think this program serves both public safety and the interest of justice, I am declining your request...
... I appreciate your concern. But I believe that working with the federal government in this matter advances important and legitimate law enforcement objectives.
Sincerely,
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General."
Notwithstanding the high regard in which your legal opinions are regularly held, as California's Top Law Enforcement Officer, your "I think.." and "I believe..." Fall far short of what is to be expected of such High Ranking Law Enforcement Officer's explanation as to why Sheriff Hennessey's request for SF to opt-out was being declined.
Due to your apparent failure to fully review, understand or act with due diligence and in accordance to the stated provisions in the Bill, we were forced to ask ICE to allow San Francisco to opt-out of the Program, which in the opinion of Legal Professionals, it is optional and thus other Counties are trying to opt-out as well:
Secure Communities "is voluntary, not mandatory," said Angela Chan, an attorney with San Francisco's Asian Law Caucus and also a member of the city's Police Commission. "We have known this all along."
And now we do confirm that we were right in the first place and you have been wrong all along; this prompts me to ask you an obvious question, before you declined SF Sheriff Hennessey's request to opt-out, did you research or consulted the pertinent agencies or officials to ascertain that your position on the issue was the correct one, hence, valid?:
Finally on August 17, 2010, ICE released a memo entitled, “Setting the Record Straight” which sets forth an opt-out policy:
If a jurisdiction does not wish to activate on its scheduled date in the Secure Communities deployment plan, it must formally notify its state identification bureau and ICE in writing (email, letter, or fax). Upon receipt of that information, ICE will request a meeting with federal partners, the jurisdiction, and the state to discuss any issues and come to a resolution, which may include adjusting the jurisdiction’s activation date in or removing the jurisdiction from the deployment plan.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano later confirmed that process to be accurate in a letter in response to Rep. Lofgren.
Since you present and promote yourself as someone who will "protect Latinos, immigrants, and all working people from exploitation and abuse", I do hereby question, in this specific case, the veracity of your self portrayal as a "Defender and Protector of The People" For the following reasons:
Failure to ascertain if the dictates of the latest House Report from the Dept. of Homeland Security Appropriations Committee Bill were being faithfully followed, which according to these reports, this is not the case: "While the Committee supports Secure Communities, it also believes ICE must work to make sure the program's implementation does not negatively impact other aspects of the judicial system and allows for appropriate transparency for those prosecuted for immigration violations."
Failure to verify that the Programs you signed us in, a) had not, b) was not and, c) is not trumping the administration of criminal justice -- we knew that summary deportations of individuals detained for minor infractions and without previous criminal offenses were taking place without going through the criminal justice system, a situation contrary to the dictates of HR 111-157 of 2010, why didn't you know it as well?
Failure to inquire to see if HS/ICE was adhering to one of HR 111-157's statutory requirements. While it is possible that you did inquire and just didn't inform us on the results of these queries, I must ask, were you informed to your satisfaction and in line with your responsibility as California's Attorney General which is to insure that the proper judicial procedure for all, is applied? "In particular, the Committee has heard concerns from some jurisdictions that ICE detains individuals in immigration custody while criminal charges are still pending against them, effectively trumping the administration of criminal justice" Or that the dictates and requirements of HR 111-157 were being followed by HS/ICE and thus in compliance? Apparently not, or you just didn't inform us on it, "Given problems with these reports being delivered to the Committee on a timely basis, the bill includes a statutory requirement making the reports due 30 days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal year."
I'm ready to be contradicted and proven wrong by properly trained and fully licensed Legal Professional Minds, but until such an event, I'll stand on and declare that my Lay Person's assessment and conclusions on the application and enforcement of H.R.2892, Titled: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 Sponsored by Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] (introduced 6/16/2009), are legally sound.
Without prejudice or intended malice, I offer you excerpts of the text in HR 111-157, so in the event that you have not read them, you may want do so now and consider re-stating your position and actions regarding the HS/ICE's S-Com contract with California.
“Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities/CIRCA) -- ( H.R.2892 -- SC/CIRCA)
[From the:] House Report 111-157 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010
In the 2008 and 2009 Appropriations Acts, Congress provided $350,000,000 in unrequested funding to initiate the Comprehensive Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens (CIRCA) program, which ICE has renamed `Secure Communities.' In addition, in the 2009 Appropriations Act, Congress directed that at least $1,000,000,000 of ICE's budget be used to identify aliens convicted of crimes, and to ensure their removal once they have been judged deportable.
Using the funds previously appropriated for Secure Communities, ICE has instituted an effective pilot program that locates criminal aliens through coordination with local jail facilities, while maintaining the clear division between the law enforcement roles of Federal and local officers. In brief, the ICE system known as `Interoperability' allows local law enforcement agencies to check fingerprints of individuals booked on criminal charges against both national criminal and immigration databases. If an individual is identified through this system as illegally present in the United States, ICE can take appropriate steps to ensure the most dangerous of these criminals are deported upon completion of their jail sentences, while those convicted of lesser crimes are identified and deported as resources allow.
Given the advantages of the Secure Communities approach, the Committee provides an additional $200,000,000 in the bill to continue the program's expansion, with the ultimate goal of deploying Interoperability on a nation-wide basis and equipping ICE with adequate personnel and mission support to identify and remove all convicted criminal aliens from the country after they have been judged deportable but before they are released from custody. Consistent with past appropriations for this program, the Committee requires ICE to report every three months on the status of the program. Given problems with these reports being delivered to the Committee on a timely basis, the bill includes a statutory requirement making the reports due 30 days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal year.
While the Committee supports Secure Communities, it also believes ICE must work to make sure the program's implementation does not negatively impact other aspects of the judicial system and allows for appropriate transparency for those prosecuted for immigration violations. In particular, the Committee has heard concerns from some jurisdictions that ICE detains individuals in immigration custody while criminal charges are still pending against them, effectively trumping the administration of criminal justice. To minimize this occurrence, it is imperative for ICE field agents to maintain regular communication with local jails and courts on the actions ICE takes relative to individuals who are identified through the local booking process. Furthermore, in order to track the program's performance and effectiveness, the Committee expects ICE to maintain and regularly update performance data from the locations where the Secure Communities program has been implemented, and to report frequently on the results of the program, both to the public and the Congress.
In addition to its Secure Communities initiative, the Committee believes ICE must do more with its existing programs to ensure that it is focusing its efforts on those who represent the greatest threats to society and civil order. Whether it be efforts to locate at-large criminals through the Fugitive Operations program, disrupt transnational criminal gangs through targeted investigations, or more effective use of the Interoperability system at prisons where ICE personnel are already stationed, the agency must make sure it is doing all that it can to find and remove criminals who have been judged deportable. In an analysis of its 2009 budget, ICE reported to the Committee that it will spend $1,411,795,000 on these efforts, well in excess of the $1,000,000,000 Congress directed be allocated to these activities. Recognizing the increased funding provided both for the Secure Communities program and other activities related to apprehending criminal aliens, the Committee directs ICE to use not less than $1,500,000,000 of its 2010 budget to address this issue.
Unfortunately, at the closing of your term as California's Attorney General, there is not enough time for you to correct what you did, or didn't do, but one can hope that there is an acknowledgment of your lack of judgment in the past and letting rest there, but with the proviso that there has to be a principled pledge, that as Governor of California, you will truthfully and fiercely protect and defend all Californians from future miscarriages of justice, discrimination, mistreatment and abuses of power, in addition to dealing with pending immigration-related legislation in the Great State of California.
Respectfully submitted,
Aurora Grajeda
San Francisco, California
Nov. 26, 2010
"Tolerance is the presumption of superiority, acceptance is a manifestation of love"
-- Aurora
"By asking for, or accepting tolerance, we admit to an inferiority"
-- Juanita Villegas
http://elrinconcitodeaurora.net/
http://hladc-sf.blogspot.com/
http://elrinconcitodeaurora.blogspot.com/
Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Aurora wrote:
Dear friends, allies and comrades, greetings!
I, as so many others, are very concerned about the repercussions that the Secure Communities Program (S-Com) has for tens, or possibly hundreds, of thousands of members of our communities, so I did the best I could in my limited capacity, to inform myself on it's provisions, methods and how these were being implemented, with special focus on whether or not the Bill's procedural dictates/provisions were being carried out in accordance and in compliance with it.
Again, in my limited capacity, I started hearing reports of people being summarily deported after being detained for minor offenses or infractions before they were convicted of any crime/s, we have been also hearing about how some of these persons were being coerced into signing guilty pleas to, allegedly, avoid being charged and convicted under more severe charges.
Having been very familiar with the language in the legislation pertaining to S-Com, specially with the text in House Report 111-157 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010, I was very alarmed at what I saw as non-compliance and/or, violations in it's implementation, or both, I was shocked to find out that our Attorney General in California signed a contract with HS/ICE to allow municipalities to participate in the program.
Most of us are familiar with the events that followed the disclosure of the agreement, specially AG J. Brown's position on whether of not it was compulsory or voluntary for Counties to join, his declining of San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey's request to have SF opt-out of the program; this caused a firestorm of controversy, but I felt the conversation was lacking discussions on the text in the bill other than what was related to participation.
While many of us questioned Jerry brown on his signing of the contract, I wondered why also so many of us, including our National Community Organizations who have lawyers in their staff, such as MALDEF, LULAC, NCLR, etc., have not taken a closer look and actions, where and when warranted, on the issues that I bring up in the questions and arguments that I would raise in front of our Attorney General if he were to give me the opportunity to speak up in his presence.
Fully aware that the chances of that occurring are from slim to non existent, the need and desire to speak up are still there, for, given that in addition to what I see as body punches to our community via pre-existing irregularities in the implementation of S-Com, he has given us what amounts to a slap in the face with his going to Arizona to vacation
(In all fairness and full disclosure, it was mentioned by a friend of mine, that he has family in Arizona and probably that's the reason he chose to vacation there - maybe this is so, or maybe not, but to me, an explanation from his part was warranted, as would be also expected from anyone under the same circumstances.).
So, if Jerry Brown were to give me time and attention to what I have to say, here is what I'd tell him:
Mr. California Attorney General Jerry Brown, how many body punches and Arizona slaps-on-the-face are we supposed to take?
It is fair to say that we, in the Hispanic/Latino Community, have been there for you in the past and in the 2010 California race for Governor we went all out for you again, this has been widely recognized, including by yourself, who posted in the Official Campaign Site some endorsements of Hispanic/Latino Community's Organizations.
By the same token, it is important to declare that: it is a matter of record where you have been instrumental in making changes which helped our community and implemented policies that alleviated the burden and dangers that California workers in general faced and had to endure for many decades, most notably to us, in the Farm Labor Work Force's working conditions and compensation.
Given our common past and present history, it came as a very unpleasant surprise to me, that for your well deserved after-the-election victory vacation, that in spite of the SB 1070 Boycott and your claims to stand by us, you decided to visit Arizona and spend you leisure time and money there.
Did your Arizona visit gave it a degree of legitimacy? Did it embolden more Tea Party Operatives, such as Michael Erickson of Belmont CA, to introduce copycat Legislation for California via an Initiative?
.
I'll start with the slaps on the face and then follow up with the body punches you landed on us with your behavior and actions in the implementation of your contract with HS/ICE's Secure Communities (S-Com) For the State of California.
Since I can't speak for the whole Hispanic/Latino Community, I won't; but I do strongly ask that you let me know why I shouldn't feel like if I was just slapped on the face by you vacation in Arizona, furthermore, I do also ask you to explain why I shouldn't feel it as further alaps on the face by your reticence to even explain how do you reconcile your position on SB 1070 and all of the exploitation, abuses and humiliation that our community continues to be subjected to, most notably in Maricopa County, with your pledges to stand by our side, vis a vis your choice to vacation in that state.
With all due respect, Mr. California Attorney General and Governor Elect, what is there to prevent me from applying to you the same charges you made against Meg Whitman, together with the unflattering attributes? Again, with all due respect, is there anything you can say that would prevent me from calling you a hypocrite?
Here are some posts at your web site, by the way, there is nothing posted in your 'solutions' page stating your positions on immigration or any proposal you make to deal with this issue in the State of California:
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA LATINO COMMUNITY LEADERS AND ELECTED OFFICIALS BACK JERRY BROWN FOR GOVERNOR, BLAST MEG WHITMAN FOR LATINO, IMMIGRATION DOUBLE TALK
"As Mayor, he cut Oakland's crime rate; and as Attorney General, he's using the latest technologies to crack down on criminal street gangs, catch killers, protect consumers from fraudsters, and protect Latinos, immigrants, and all working people from exploitation and abuse."
Latino Leaders Back Brown For Governor, Call Out Whitman For Anti-Latino, Anti-Immigrant Record And Deceptive Ads
And in the event you did forget that we went to bat for you, giving it our best shot, here is more information on the support you received from the Hispanic/Latino Community and if I might add, it was a critical voting block on your victory.
Egregious as it was your choice of Arizona as your vacation spot, this pales in comparison to your behavior, acts and the performance in discharging your duties as California's Attorney General on the Homeland Security ICE Secure Communities Program contract with Municipalities in the Great State of California.
Albeit I'm a lay person in legal matters, I was one of the many, not the first or the only one, to raise my voice in protest of your position on whether or not it was compulsory for California's Municipalities to participate in the S-Com program, our opinion from the beginning was that after reviewing the language in the SC/CIRCA Bill, there was nothing in it that would mandate making it compulsory for California's Cities or Counties to participate.
The first test on your legal understanding of the provisions and your due diligence on the contract with S-Com, came when San Francisco's Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who upon learning of your signing the Contract with HS/ICE, was deeply troubled and send you a request to allow San Francisco to opt out of Secure Communities, here is the text of your reply to his request:
California Attorney Jerry Brown’s reply to SF's Sheriff Hennesy:
"Dear Sheriff Hennessey:
I am writing in response to your letter regarding the Secure Communities program developed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The program is scheduled to be rolled out in San Francisco next month. You requested that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) block ICE from running checks on the fingerprints collected in San Francisco. The Secure Communities program is up and running in 169 counties in 20 states, including 17 counties in California. Because I think this program serves both public safety and the interest of justice, I am declining your request...
... I appreciate your concern. But I believe that working with the federal government in this matter advances important and legitimate law enforcement objectives.
Sincerely,
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General."
Notwithstanding the high regard in which your legal opinions are regularly held, as California's Top Law Enforcement Officer, your "I think.." and "I believe..." Fall far short of what is to be expected of such High Ranking Law Enforcement Officer's explanation as to why Sheriff Hennessey's request for SF to opt-out was being declined.
Due to your apparent failure to fully review, understand or act with due diligence and in accordance to the stated provisions in the Bill, we were forced to ask ICE to allow San Francisco to opt-out of the Program, which in the opinion of Legal Professionals, it is optional and thus other Counties are trying to opt-out as well:
Secure Communities "is voluntary, not mandatory," said Angela Chan, an attorney with San Francisco's Asian Law Caucus and also a member of the city's Police Commission. "We have known this all along."
And now we do confirm that we were right in the first place and you have been wrong all along; this prompts me to ask you an obvious question, before you declined SF Sheriff Hennessey's request to opt-out, did you research or consulted the pertinent agencies or officials to ascertain that your position on the issue was the correct one, hence, valid?:
Finally on August 17, 2010, ICE released a memo entitled, “Setting the Record Straight” which sets forth an opt-out policy:
If a jurisdiction does not wish to activate on its scheduled date in the Secure Communities deployment plan, it must formally notify its state identification bureau and ICE in writing (email, letter, or fax). Upon receipt of that information, ICE will request a meeting with federal partners, the jurisdiction, and the state to discuss any issues and come to a resolution, which may include adjusting the jurisdiction’s activation date in or removing the jurisdiction from the deployment plan.
DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano later confirmed that process to be accurate in a letter in response to Rep. Lofgren.
Since you present and promote yourself as someone who will "protect Latinos, immigrants, and all working people from exploitation and abuse", I do hereby question, in this specific case, the veracity of your self portrayal as a "Defender and Protector of The People" For the following reasons:
Failure to ascertain if the dictates of the latest House Report from the Dept. of Homeland Security Appropriations Committee Bill were being faithfully followed, which according to these reports, this is not the case: "While the Committee supports Secure Communities, it also believes ICE must work to make sure the program's implementation does not negatively impact other aspects of the judicial system and allows for appropriate transparency for those prosecuted for immigration violations."
Failure to verify that the Programs you signed us in, a) had not, b) was not and, c) is not trumping the administration of criminal justice -- we knew that summary deportations of individuals detained for minor infractions and without previous criminal offenses were taking place without going through the criminal justice system, a situation contrary to the dictates of HR 111-157 of 2010, why didn't you know it as well?
Failure to inquire to see if HS/ICE was adhering to one of HR 111-157's statutory requirements. While it is possible that you did inquire and just didn't inform us on the results of these queries, I must ask, were you informed to your satisfaction and in line with your responsibility as California's Attorney General which is to insure that the proper judicial procedure for all, is applied? "In particular, the Committee has heard concerns from some jurisdictions that ICE detains individuals in immigration custody while criminal charges are still pending against them, effectively trumping the administration of criminal justice" Or that the dictates and requirements of HR 111-157 were being followed by HS/ICE and thus in compliance? Apparently not, or you just didn't inform us on it, "Given problems with these reports being delivered to the Committee on a timely basis, the bill includes a statutory requirement making the reports due 30 days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal year."
I'm ready to be contradicted and proven wrong by properly trained and fully licensed Legal Professional Minds, but until such an event, I'll stand on and declare that my Lay Person's assessment and conclusions on the application and enforcement of H.R.2892, Titled: Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 Sponsored by Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] (introduced 6/16/2009), are legally sound.
Without prejudice or intended malice, I offer you excerpts of the text in HR 111-157, so in the event that you have not read them, you may want do so now and consider re-stating your position and actions regarding the HS/ICE's S-Com contract with California.
“Secure Communities: A Comprehensive Plan to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens (Secure Communities/CIRCA) -- ( H.R.2892 -- SC/CIRCA)
[From the:] House Report 111-157 - DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2010
In the 2008 and 2009 Appropriations Acts, Congress provided $350,000,000 in unrequested funding to initiate the Comprehensive Identification and Removal of Criminal Aliens (CIRCA) program, which ICE has renamed `Secure Communities.' In addition, in the 2009 Appropriations Act, Congress directed that at least $1,000,000,000 of ICE's budget be used to identify aliens convicted of crimes, and to ensure their removal once they have been judged deportable.
Using the funds previously appropriated for Secure Communities, ICE has instituted an effective pilot program that locates criminal aliens through coordination with local jail facilities, while maintaining the clear division between the law enforcement roles of Federal and local officers. In brief, the ICE system known as `Interoperability' allows local law enforcement agencies to check fingerprints of individuals booked on criminal charges against both national criminal and immigration databases. If an individual is identified through this system as illegally present in the United States, ICE can take appropriate steps to ensure the most dangerous of these criminals are deported upon completion of their jail sentences, while those convicted of lesser crimes are identified and deported as resources allow.
Given the advantages of the Secure Communities approach, the Committee provides an additional $200,000,000 in the bill to continue the program's expansion, with the ultimate goal of deploying Interoperability on a nation-wide basis and equipping ICE with adequate personnel and mission support to identify and remove all convicted criminal aliens from the country after they have been judged deportable but before they are released from custody. Consistent with past appropriations for this program, the Committee requires ICE to report every three months on the status of the program. Given problems with these reports being delivered to the Committee on a timely basis, the bill includes a statutory requirement making the reports due 30 days after the end of each quarter of the fiscal year.
While the Committee supports Secure Communities, it also believes ICE must work to make sure the program's implementation does not negatively impact other aspects of the judicial system and allows for appropriate transparency for those prosecuted for immigration violations. In particular, the Committee has heard concerns from some jurisdictions that ICE detains individuals in immigration custody while criminal charges are still pending against them, effectively trumping the administration of criminal justice. To minimize this occurrence, it is imperative for ICE field agents to maintain regular communication with local jails and courts on the actions ICE takes relative to individuals who are identified through the local booking process. Furthermore, in order to track the program's performance and effectiveness, the Committee expects ICE to maintain and regularly update performance data from the locations where the Secure Communities program has been implemented, and to report frequently on the results of the program, both to the public and the Congress.
In addition to its Secure Communities initiative, the Committee believes ICE must do more with its existing programs to ensure that it is focusing its efforts on those who represent the greatest threats to society and civil order. Whether it be efforts to locate at-large criminals through the Fugitive Operations program, disrupt transnational criminal gangs through targeted investigations, or more effective use of the Interoperability system at prisons where ICE personnel are already stationed, the agency must make sure it is doing all that it can to find and remove criminals who have been judged deportable. In an analysis of its 2009 budget, ICE reported to the Committee that it will spend $1,411,795,000 on these efforts, well in excess of the $1,000,000,000 Congress directed be allocated to these activities. Recognizing the increased funding provided both for the Secure Communities program and other activities related to apprehending criminal aliens, the Committee directs ICE to use not less than $1,500,000,000 of its 2010 budget to address this issue.
Unfortunately, at the closing of your term as California's Attorney General, there is not enough time for you to correct what you did, or didn't do, but one can hope that there is an acknowledgment of your lack of judgment in the past and letting rest there, but with the proviso that there has to be a principled pledge, that as Governor of California, you will truthfully and fiercely protect and defend all Californians from future miscarriages of justice, discrimination, mistreatment and abuses of power, in addition to dealing with pending immigration-related legislation in the Great State of California.
Respectfully submitted,
Aurora Grajeda
San Francisco, California
Nov. 26, 2010
"Tolerance is the presumption of superiority, acceptance is a manifestation of love"
-- Aurora
"By asking for, or accepting tolerance, we admit to an inferiority"
-- Juanita Villegas
http://elrinconcitodeaurora.net/
http://hladc-sf.blogspot.com/
http://elrinconcitodeaurora.blogspot.com/
Add Your Comments
Latest Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
Authorized & unauthorized immigrants are being terrorized
Wed, Dec 1, 2010 4:10PM
To Magyart who posted above
Wed, Dec 1, 2010 12:10AM
magyart
Tue, Nov 30, 2010 7:59PM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network