ICE says it will automatically vet juvenile immigrants fingerprints

Here's looking at you, kid
A homeland security initiative raises questions about due process and juvenile confidentiality

In what appears to be another fatal blow for San Francisco's sanctuary laws--and due process in general-- officials for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) say the fingerprints of juvenile immigrants charged with serious offenses will also be automatically forwarded to ICE

"My colleagues in SF advise that the fingerprints of juveniles arrested for criminal offenses will also be vetted through Secure Communities," Virginia Kice, ICE's Western Regional Communications Director, told the Guardian.

"If that's the case, that's pretty significant," said Sup. David Campos, who was under the impression that the Secure Communities initiative would not touch juveniles. The thinking, Campos said, was that juveniles' fingerprints were handled through a separate database and therefore would be exempt from the new federal initiative.

Sheriff Mike Hennessey, who does not handle juvenile detainees, told the Guardian,  "If I had to guess, I would say that Ms. Kice is correct, but it's possible that the computer could be bifurcated."

Calls to Mayor Gavin Newsom, San Francisco Juvenile Probation Department Chief William Siffermann and California Attorney General Jerry Brown (whose office maintains fingerprinting databases) remained unanswered, as of blog posting time.


SF sheriff says fed program nixes sanctuary policy
By JULIANA BARBASSA Associated Press Writer
Posted: 05/06/2010 08:19:35 AM PDT
Updated: 05/06/2010 06:04:38 PM PDT

SAN FRANCISCO—San Francisco is set to join a federal program next month that will automatically check the immigration status of anyone arrested or booked for a misdemeanor or felony.

Starting in June, anyone arrested in San Francisco will have their fingerprints checked against a database used by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The program, called Secure Communities, has been deployed in more than 160 local jurisdictions in 20 states, said agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice.

It is up to ICE to chose where to deploy the program, which will be in place nationwide by 2013, Kice said.

San Francisco County Sheriff Michael Hennessey said he learned about 10 days ago from federal officials that his department be included in the program next month.

Currently, San Francisco's sanctuary policy requires law enforcement to report to immigration authorities only those who were booked for felonies. Calls to city officials were not immediately returned Thursday.

Hennessey said he was concerned it would increase his department's workload and expense. His department arrests up to 10,000 people a year on misdemeanor charges, and many who would otherwise be released quickly may have to be held while their immigration status is checked with ICE, he said.

He also expressed concern that the federal law does not reflect the attitude of local elected officials and of the city's residents. City officials recently called for a boycott
of the state of Arizona, which passed a law requiring police to question those suspected of being in the country illegally.

"I certainly felt the system that we have currently has served our community well and has been supported by the community," he said of the city's existing sanctuary policy.

Many local law enforcement officials also want to stay clear of federal immigration law, he said, because it may lead undocumented immigrants to be too afraid of police to cooperate with authorities.

Secure Communities is a law enforcement information-sharing tool and won't require any change in the way local authorities to their work, Kice said. She added that the turnaround on fingerprint matches would be short.

Organizations that advocate for the rights of immigrants said the news was unfortunate, as other communities where the program is already in place have reported an increase in racial profiling and in the willingness of immigrants to work with police.

The program also runs counter to the goals of San Francisco's Sanctuary policy, said Titi Liu, executive director of the Asian Law Caucus.

"It's clear that this is not something that our community supports," she said.

End of Article


Disgusting. And this is coming from Mr "Change we can believe in."
Nader and McKinney wouldn't be doing this shit, but most people didn't have the intelligence or foresight to vote for them....because they didn't/don't have a D or R behind their name. Most of the voters are Suckers...for believing in some slick millionaire politician's simplistic marketing slogans ("Hope" and "Change we can believe in" BS). And then in 2012, most voters will repeat the entire exercise all over again. As usual, they will drag out the so-called "lesser of two evils" card and whine, "you don't want Palin, do you?"....while they completely ignore the progressives who are running (whoever they might be at the time). Instead, the voters pay attention only to the corporate candidates because of their feel-good rhetoric and marketing slogans and how they look on television. The candidates become celebrities because they are on television. And most of the voters will not bother to read the voting record of the candidates or the neocon record of the current White House occupant (Bush3). Most voters will vote as instructed by the corporate media and will remain cemented in the dismal pro-war, neocon D and R corporate rut (Obama or Palin). And I won't be voting for either one. I will be voting for the true progressive again.

As for the ending of the sanctuary city policy, what will the rabid regressives on SFHate (SFGate) have to moan, whine and complain about after the sanctuary city policy is gone? Oh, I'm sure they will come up with something else to hate. They are so filled with the cancer of hate. Of course they will still be hating on "illegal aliens" [sic] as they do 24/7.

Posted by Sam on May. 07, 2010 @ 9:57 pm


Posted by Guest JC on May. 07, 2010 @ 10:54 pm

"Secure Communities" is bad law
May 3, 2010
By Diana Meija
Daily Record dot com

In Los Angeles, a U.S. citizen was deported to Mexico after the local police and immigration officials misidentified him as an undocumented immigrant. In New York, a longtime lawful permanent resident was torn from his family and held in immigration detention, even after the criminal charges against him were dismissed. And here in Morristown, women in a domestic violence shelter are too afraid to call the police because they fear the police are cooperating with immigration
authorities. All of these people share something in common — they are all victims of programs like "Secure Communities," which use local authorities to enforce federal immigration law, consuming local resources and devastating lives in the process.

Recently, Assistant Secretary of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) John Morton wrote a column in the Daily Record claiming that Secure Communities is good because it streamlines the deportation of local residents. But these people are our family members, employers and employees, and longtime community members. Morristown already stood its ground against these types of failed
policies when it opposed the 287(g) program, which would have deputized local police officers to enforce immigration law. Secure Communities is just more of the same, and we will continue to hold the line.

Wind of the Spirit has collected more than 1,000 surveys in Morristown in order to understand how the Latino community perceives their safety. These surveys clearly illustrate that programs like Secure Communities actually make our communities
insecure. Preliminary findings show that Morristown's Latino residents are afraid to report crimes to the police because they fear that involvement with the authorities may put them or others at risk of deportation. Some of the most disturbing data collected so far come from a group of 50 women, 30 of whom were surveyed at a
meeting at a domestic violence shelter. Some 72 percent of this group said that they had not reported crimes in the past. All 50 of the women indicated that they would be more willing to report crimes or serve as witnesses if they were certain that Morristown authorities were not sharing information with federal immigration authorities.

Secure Communities, and programs like it, are a grave threat to Morristown's safety because they discourage victims from reporting crimes committed against them. Moreover, this fear of cooperation between local police and federal immigration
authorities threatens relations between the Morristown Police Department and the Latino community. Morton claims that Secure Communities "is not subject to racial profiling or prejudice." But this statement refers only to post-arrest racial profiling,
not pre-arrest racial profiling. The police still retain the discretion to decide who will be questioned and arrested in the first place. Knowing that all arrestees
will be processed through Secure Communities gives the police an incentive to arrest anyone they think might be deportable. Since arrestees can be deported even if criminal charges are dropped, police can use Secure Communities to
deport innocent people who would be simply sent home by the criminal justice system.

The New Jersey police have a long and troubled history of targeting people for questioning and arrest on the basis of their perceived race or ethnicity. A 2009 Seton Hall University Law School study strongly suggests NJ police officers are
improperly targeting Latino drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and crime victims for questioning about their immigration status for no apparent reason or after minor infractions. Secure Communities threatens to worsen these unconstitutional practices.

As one community member told us, "Secure Communities is a beautiful name for a horrible law."

Diana Mejia is director of Wind of the Spirit Immigrant Resource Center in Morristown.

Posted by Sam on May. 08, 2010 @ 12:20 am

Suit targets ICE's Secure Communities
By Diana Washington Valdez \ El Paso Times
Posted: 04/28/2010 12:00:00 AM MDT

EL PASO -- The Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit Tuesday seeking records about the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Secure Communities program.

The suit was filed in U.S. District Court in New York City.

"Contrary to its name, this latest ICE program makes the public less safe," said Sunita Patel, a lawyer for the center in New York. "There is no doubt that the program has and will continue to deepen fear and mistrust of the police in our communities."

ICE Secure Communities partners in the region include the El Paso County Sheriff's Office and sheriff's offices in Hudspeth, Doña Ana and Otero counties. The Texas Department of Public Safety is also a partner, according to the ICE Web site.

The partnerships enable local law-enforcement agencies to access databases, which include information on immigration status of people they detain.

The National Day Laborer Organizing Network in Los Angeles and the Immigration Justice Clinic of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York joined the lawsuit. In February, the organizations filed a Freedom of Information Act request for details about the program, but ICE has not released the records.

The organizations allege that the rapid expansion of Secure Communities is cause for alarm. They said hardly any information has been made available on error rates, costs, oversight, accountability, racial profiling and civil-rights complaints.

Secure Communities partnerships operate in 168 jurisdictions in 20 states, and more agreements are expected.

"This is a massive, invasive and untested federal immigration enforcement program that ICE has been deceptive and secretive about from the start," said Bridget Kessler, a fellow with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Immigration Justice Clinic. "Without more information, we cannot allow for the spread of this dangerous ICE program."

Contrary to what some immigration advocates allege, said Leticia Zamarripa, spokeswoman for ICE in El Paso, Secure Communities does not give local law enforcement officers the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.

Instead, ICE officials said, new technology makes it possible to check a suspect's fingerprints against the Department of Homeland Security's biometric database. Biometrics can include fingerprints, handprints, DNA information and face recognition.

"This technology and the use of biometrics helps to more accurately and efficiently confirm a suspect's identity because, unlike a name or date of birth, biometrics are almost impossible to forge," according to the national ICE Web site.

Under the program, fingerprints are checked against the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System and the Department of Homeland Security's Automated Biometric Identification System-US-VISIT Program. A search can be done within hours.

"Since its inception in October 2008, Secure Communities has identified more than 18,000 (undocumented immigrants) charged with or convicted of level 1 crimes, such as murder, rape and kidnapping -- 4,000 of whom have already been removed from the United States," Matt Chandler, Department of Homeland Security spokesman in Washington, said Tuesday.

"Congress, DHS and ICE recognize that identifying and removing criminal aliens from the United States is a priority and essential to our nation's security. ICE's Secure Communities strategy is leading the agency's efforts to improve and modernize the identification and removal of criminal aliens from the United States. This FOIA request is the subject of a lawsuit and we will release any information as appropriate through the litigation process."

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor, has defended Secure Communities. [Sam's comment: That's "change we can believe in," isn't it?!]

But critics alleged that the program was used to deport people who had only minor violations or petty traffic offenses. They also alleged the databases contain errors that resulted in mistaken identities for others. And, they also said the program enables police to run checks on people who have not been charged with anything.

Other critics point out that ICE had a series of immigration raids in Arizona before that state passed Senate Bill 1070 last week, and contend that Secure Communities is a stealth version of the Arizona state immigration law.

"The passage of S.B. 1070 in Arizona should be proof enough of the dangerous and disastrous nature of ICE-police collaboration programs like the so-called Secure Communities program," said Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

Alvarado wants President Barack Obama to put an end to the ICE partnerships with local law enforcement.

Carlos Marentes, El Paso director of the Border Agricultural Workers Project, said Secure Communities and a similar program before it resulted in constitutional violations.

"We've had reports of deputies going into people's homes without search warrants, or turning people over to immigration authorities," Marentes said. "The Arizona (state) immigration law and the ICE program are misguided because they co-mingle unrelated issues, such as immigration, the violence across the border and national security issues."

Last December, El Paso County Sheriff Richard Wiles voiced support for immigration reform legislation at a Border Network for Human Rights rally in Downtown El Paso, while trying to ease concerns that his department would enforce immigration laws.

In the region, immigrants who are detained for processing are placed in ICE detention centers in El Paso or Otero County. On Tuesday, 840 people were held at the El Paso center run by the federal government, and 933 were at Otero center run by the Management & Training Corp., a private contractor.

Posted by Sam on May. 08, 2010 @ 12:33 am

I was wondering when Los Angeles (which is also a sanctuary city) would become part of this so-called "Secure Communities" ICE nonsense. Los Angeles County joined the "program" in late August 2009 according to the article below. After reading these articles, I'm reminded of the title of one of Sarah Phelan's recent articles..."Knocking on Fascism's Door."

Federal program to deport criminal immigrants expands in California
February 17, 2010 | Andrew Becker
California Watch dot com

Police in two more California counties have joined an expanding federal program to identify and deport criminals who are in the country illegally or have committed crimes that makes them subject to deportation, immigration officials announced yesterday.

With the addition of San Joaquin and Stanislaus, 10 of the state's 58 counties have access to the database-driven program, dubbed Secure Communities, and run by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency. The program gives police agencies that use electronic booking machines to scan fingerprints of arrestees and inmates to access federal crime and immigration databases.

The other participating state counties are mostly in Southern and Central California, including Los Angeles, Ventura, San Diego, Imperial, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo. The other Northern California counties are Solano and Sacramento counties. Meanwhile, some counties, like San Francisco, which has a local "sanctuary" ordinance on its books, just aren't interested in joining up. (Sam's comment: Does anyone else find that statement strange? I get the impression a city does not have a choice over the matter based on what is happening in San Francisco. If we do have a choice over the matter, why is this city joining up?)

State and local law enforcement agencies can simultaneously check linked FBI and federal immigration databases to screen a person’s criminal history and immigration record. If there is a fingerprint match, the system immediately notifies immigration officials. Local law enforcement must give ICE officials 48-hour notice before releasing an immigrant who has a match in both systems. ICE determines the appropriate action. In the worst cases ICE officials will move to deport dangerous offenders while for some nonviolent offenders they may try to get them to depart the U.S. voluntarily.

The idea behind Secure Communities, which Congress appropriated $1.4 billion for in fiscal year 2009, is that the program will revolutionize how the government finds and identifies criminals who may be subject to deportation. ICE says the agency’s priority is to remove the most dangerous criminals — those who have committed crimes such as murder, rape or kidnapping — from the United States.

Los Angeles County, for instance, joined the program in late Aug. 2009. In the first two months Secure Communities was used there, law enforcement agencies made 78,895 submissions, resulting in 8,717 matches. Of those individuals found to have an immigration record, more than 1,100 were level 1 offenders, according to ICE officials.

ICE, which expects to go nationwide with the program by 2013, launched the initiative selectively around the country in Oct. 2008. From Oct. 27, 2008 through December 31, 2009, Secure Communities nationwide received more than 1.3 million submissions, according to an ICE official. Those submissions resulted in 155,521 matches, including 14,796 aliens who had been charged with or convicted of serious criminal offenses. Statewide figures were not immediately available.

But Secure Communities has also raised some controversy and concern, including errors in databases. For instance, of the 155,521 matches, 9,053, or about 6 percent, were U.S. citizens mistakenly matched, according to an ICE official. (The Dallas Morning News reported in November that there were about 119,000 matches, and 5,900, or just about 5 percent, people were U.S. citizens.)

Another potential issue is the housing of illegal immigrants in state prisons and jails. Although the Obama Administration allocated about $330,000 in its 2011 budget request to reimburse states for incarcerating illegal immigrants, that amount is no where near what's spent to house illegal immigrant inmates in state prisons and jails.

The state expects to pay about a $1 billion this year to jail about 19,000 illegal immigrants, according to the Los Angeles Times. Of the $330 million, administered by the federal Justice Department's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), about $90 million will go to California.

In response, Gov. Schwarzenegger floated the idea of exporting illegal immigrant inmates to Mexico, as California's prisons are already overcrowded.The state Prison Industry Board also recently decided that it would no longer allow convicted illegal immigrants to receive job training.

The White House's Office of Management and Budget has determined that because SCAAP reimbursements don't deter crime by illegal immigrants and the program has not shown results, among other reasons, the program should be terminated.

ICE spokeswoman Virginia Kice said that the Secure Communities program would not financially burden state and local jails with holding more illegal immigrants. It is ICE's responsibility to house the illegal immigrant after the individual is released by local law enforcement, she said.

"As long as a criminal alien remains in local custody on criminal charges...we do not pre-empt that process," Kice wrote in an email. "If a potentially deportable criminal alien is slated for release by local authorities even though the criminal case has not been concluded, we will typically execute the detainer and initiate the removal process."

But Jim Denney, executive director of the California State Sheriff's Association, questions where ICE is going to hold such criminal aliens. He points to the state's overcrowded county jails. More than 30 counties in the state are already under court or self-imposed population caps, which require jails to release inmates to make room for new ones coming through the door, Denney said.

ICE has discussed building new detention facilities, and even begun the bidding process for a new facility in the Los Angeles area, but has faced delays.

Posted by Sam on May. 08, 2010 @ 1:00 am

... that would be great. A comment thread is not a place to export your RSS feed.

Posted by generic on May. 08, 2010 @ 12:49 pm

Agree with Generic. Repetitive comments which are nothing more than cut-and-pastes of other people's work are boring to read and also present a potential violation of copyright law.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 08, 2010 @ 6:53 pm

You can't build a wall around San Fran and keep your petty or federal crooks there so now you will be letting less out of custody to come to Los Angeles. I am very happy and look forward to it going nationwide.

I am disturbed about Mexico beating up on Arizona. I find it offensive. They would really have a fit if we based an Immigration Law on theirs' or introduced a few articles from their Constitution into our Federal Laws: Articles 9, 11, 16, 27, 32, 33, 37.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2010 @ 11:24 pm

Hopefully someone who has visited this site---whether they write comments on here or not---found the 3 different articles I posted about so-called "Secure Communities" informative. I didn't write the articles, I didn't claim to write them and I put them on here in their entirety for people's information because I didn't think that most people would find them. (I Googled them, that's how I found them). I found the articles very informative.

But as is often the case with dysfunctional people, I see a couple of people whining and moaning about the 3 articles in their constant obsession to go at Sam and not learn a fuking thing. Stupidity is what they strive for these days. Use any excuse to attack the messenger. No one forced you to read those articles (assuming you did) and the people who are whining about them are not moderators nor do they own this site, so they are in no position whatsoever to say anything about them. They just felt the need to troll around and take a stab at Sam, as per usual. They had nothing better to do. If the Guardian doesn't want those 3 articles on here, they are, of course, free to remove them. I won't be offended. It's their site. They can do with it what they want. I had just thought that some people might find the 3 articles informative. I would have just put the links in to the articles, but I've never been able to get links to work on this site. I end up in the spam filter thingy when I put links in for some reason. So that's why I posted the entire article for each of the 3 articles.

I suspect the intelligent and well-adjusted people did find them informative and understood the reason I posted them.

But then you have those who have a constant chip on both shoulders, who are constantly whining, moaning and complaining no matter what the topic and they come with the nastiest of disposition 24/7.... no, I wouldn't expect them to find them informative whatsoever. They don't have the ability to find them informative.

To those who did, you're welcome.

Posted by Sam on May. 09, 2010 @ 4:04 pm

Thanks Sam for trying to help folks connect the dots. And along those lines, here's another link to a story about Secure Communities, this time set in Oakland:

This particular story raises a couple of interesting questions:

A) Do cities have the ability/right to opt out of Secure Communities? If so, does the mayor, the chief of police, the sheriff, have that ability? Or does the federal government unilaterally decide to bring the program into a local community?

B) Are the feds really focussing on Level 1 crimes

Posted by sarah on May. 09, 2010 @ 9:03 pm
Posted by glen matlock on May. 10, 2010 @ 7:30 am

One of the articles I posted said this (as you probably read): "Meanwhile, some counties, like San Francisco, which has a local "sanctuary" ordinance on its books, just aren't interested in joining up."

To me, that sounds like so-called "Secure Communities" (how Orwellian) is optional. If so, why is San Francisco joining up? Could it be because Newsom is running for another office and is trying to change his image to appear more regressive? (A typical politician bends whichever direction the wind blows and it makes no difference whether it's a R or a D).

Posted by Sam on May. 09, 2010 @ 9:47 pm

Newsom changed the city's sanctuary policy in July 2008, when he was running for governor. The change meant that juveniles accused of felonies get referred to ICE when they are booked. In other words, befor they have their day in court.

Sup. David Campos amended Newsom's policy in fall 2009, and a super majority of the Board supported his amendment, overriding Newsom's veto.

But Newsom ignored the Board's will. So, this latest development isn't proof that Newsom has changed his image. It merely reinforces what folks already know. But which local agencies suggested and/or agreed to join the new federal initiative? And is their a funding incentive involved?


Posted by sarah on May. 10, 2010 @ 12:40 pm

While we are on this subject, there's another update on the juvenile immigrant front: The U.S. Department of Justice has replied to a March 12 letter in which the City Attorney expressed concerns over the inquiries and actions of Joseph Russoneillo's US Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California with regard to how San Francisco has implemented its confidentiality policy for undocumented juveniles.

Posted by sarah on May. 10, 2010 @ 12:55 pm

About the US DOJ letter:

You can find a copy here: But in a nutshell, US DOJ says that the US Attorney's Office"has not threatened to arrest any City employee in connection with these discussions."

Hmm. That must be a relief to  the city's juvenile probation departmen. JPD Chief William Siffermann told a Board hearing in March that there is a prohibition against "transporting and harboring any person known to be undocumented," a position, Siffermann said, that leaves JPD officers feeling vulnerable given that the department has received three federal Grand Jury subpoenas related to JPD's previous policy towards juveniles.

Posted by sarah on May. 10, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

One more thing about the US DOJ letter:

The letter also notes that the US Attorney's Office "is concerned that the City has not implemented any appropriate safeguards to ensure that individuals the City seeks to protect are in fact juveniles, rather than adults attempting to circumvent removal or deportation. Furthermore, there has been no confirmation that these undocumented juveniles have been reunited with actual family members. A number of undocumented juveniles have regularly and illegally re-entered the United States, resumed their criminal conduct, and been re-arrested."

Posted by sarah on May. 10, 2010 @ 1:09 pm

ICE's Virginia Kice just told me that, "All law enforcement agencies are expected to be part of Secure Communities by 2013 in accordance with Congressional mandate."

I'd asked her if local jurisdictions chose to join the plan...and given that participation is expected by 2013, its seem to have jumped in 3 years earlier than needed ...but it also looks like our only option would be not to receive information about individuals, even as that info gets forwarded to ICE anyways:

"ICE continues to work with jurisdictions to provide information, explain the benefits, and address any concerns local law enforcement agencies may have about Secure Communities," Kice told me. " Once a Memorandum of Agreement is signed with the state bureau of identification, ICE continues to work with all jurisdictions to implement Secure Communities within that state. A jurisdiction can choose not to receive the immigration-related information on an individual who is fingerprinted, but that information will still be provided to ICE."

I also asked Kice if there was a "funding incentive" involved."

I’m not sure what you mean by 'funding incentives," Kice replied. "The costs associated with the deployment of this interoperability capability are being born by the federal government, which is another benefit of this initiative – it imposes virtually no burden on local law enforcement. "



Posted by sarah on May. 10, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

Muchísimas gracias, Sarah, for your work.

It looks like quite a crackdown is coming, unfortunately.

I guess it's time to prepare the crates and blow torches to ship the Statue of Liberty back to France. The inscription on it is meaningless for this nation. It no longer fits this nation of immigrants. In its place, put a huge swastika. From the rabid, hate-filled comments I read on other sites, that's what many people would prefer. That would be more appropriate considering the direction this nation is creeping.

Posted by Sam on May. 10, 2010 @ 2:33 pm

Unfortunately, there's more. It appears that the state identification bureau (SIB) which is part of  California Attorney General Jerry Brown's Department of Justice signed a memorandum of agreement on April 19 (when Arizona legislators passed SB 1070) in which SIB agreed "to coordinate with ICE regarding information to be released to the media regarding actions taken under this MOA."

"The SIB may, at its discretion, communicate the substance of this MOA to law enforcement professional expressing an interest in the law enforcement activities to be engaged in under this MOA," the MOA states.

"You can review a copy of that agreement in the “reading room” on the ICE Web site," ICE's Virginia Kice said.
"As for the Secure Communities’ activation schedule," Kice continued, "you are correct, the deployment was dictated by a variety of factors, including a jurisdiction’s estimated criminal alien population and the availability of ICE resources to respond the additional workload."

Posted by sarah on May. 10, 2010 @ 3:01 pm

Sarah you should ask Sam to co-write your articles since it appears he's "connecting the dots" you're apparently incapable of connecting yourself.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 10, 2010 @ 4:27 pm

"...including a jurisdiction’s estimated criminal alien [sic] population..."----Ms Kice


"Alien" population? Jesus fuking christ! Where are these "aliens?" Where is their ship? What planet do they come from? What do they look like? Do they have antennas coming out of their head?

So this government---the "Hope" and "Change we can believe in" government---is using THAT language? (Sigh....not that I'm surprised.)

I'm still waiting for a photo of one single space ship. One would think that with all these "aliens," there would be ships all over the place...that we'd be saturated with ships. Or do they all have cloaking devices?

Posted by Sam on May. 10, 2010 @ 4:45 pm

Hey Lucretia, great to see that you are back in classically feisty form.

Here's my concern with this Secure Communities database deal:  regimes may come and go, but databases are forever. So, if you got a really bad regime, really bad things could happen---depending on that regime's definition of "terrorism" and "criminal behavior". Especially, if, along the way, "due process" concerns are tossed to the wind.

And then there is the million-dollar follow-up question: do you think that  U.S. citizens going to be required to be electronically finger printed and otherwise biometrically assessed when they get a driver's license or a passport, in future? If so, would you have any concerns and/or want any safeguards in face of such an arrangement?

Posted by sarah on May. 10, 2010 @ 5:12 pm

I support a bill allowing non-documented people to get drivers licenses. I was kind of surprised that when I moved to CA I had to show proof of citizenship to get one, because in Washington State you're not required to show that.

And no, I don't think US citizens are going to be required to be "electronically finger printed and otherwise biometrically assessed" when getting a passport or DL. I think the current requirements for getting a US passport are quite satisfactory.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on May. 10, 2010 @ 8:38 pm

It'll be interesting to see how long the feds agree with your assessment, Lucretia.

In the meantime, here's another story, this time at the Public Press, that illustrates how the feds' claims that they are primarily interested in deporting folks who have been charged with Level 1 crimes, don't actually match their own statistical realities.

Posted by sarah on May. 11, 2010 @ 5:28 pm

Good luck in getting Jerry Brown to return the call. . .

Posted by Colin V. Gallagher on May. 12, 2010 @ 12:25 pm