Gov. Cuomo suspends S-Comm in New York State

|
(14)

More bad news for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)’s troubled Secure Communities program, which continues to draw fire for deporting thousands of folks with no criminal records since it was started under former President George W. Bush in 2008. Last month, Illinois said it was quitting the program, and today Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued a letter suspending S-Comm in NY state. 

In a June 1 letter to the Department of Homeland Security, Cuomo’s counsel Mylan Denerstein noted that since the commencement of Cuomo’s administration in January, “we have received numerous complaints and questions about the purpose and implementation of the Secure Communities Program to which the prior administration committed New York State.”

“The heart of concern is that the program, conceived of as a method of targeting those who pose the greatest threat to our communities, is in fact having the opposite effect and compromising public safety by deterring witnesses to crime and others from working with law enforcement,” Denerstein continued.
“Compounding these concerns, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General recently announced that he will investigate whether the program is meeting its stated goals, whether it is being applied equitably and whether prior representations to states, including New York, regarding the program’s purpose, intent and impact are accurate,” Denerstein wrote.

“Accordingly, until the numerous questions and controversies regarding the program can be resolved, we have determined that New York is best served by relying on existing tools to ensure the safety of its residents, especially given our overriding concerns that the current mechanism is actually undermining law enforcement,” Denerstein concluded. “As a result, we are suspending New York’s participation in the program.”

Last year, S-Comm was activated in 35 New York communities, but with Cuomo’s announcement all counties will be barred from sharing fingerprint data.

Comments

This is a huge victory for everyone who believes that real public safety comes from strong communities, not more deportations. I can only hope that California will follow the lead of New York and Illinois and pass the TRUST act so that counties can opt-out of this destructive program. It is great that more and more people are seeing through the lies of this program to how it will actually impact immigrants, domestic violence survivors, and young people. As a member of San Francisco's vibrant LGBT community, I am proud that our city and leaders are standing up against this program! I hope our senators and governor will do the same and pass the TRUST Act!

Posted by Queer San Franciscan on Jun. 01, 2011 @ 5:03 pm

Herrera supports S-Comm,

The Examiner's Brent Begin said in yesterday's edition (June 1st, 2011) that in August 2009 the City Attorney ruled that Sheriff's deputies could ignore the Sheriff and go ahead and report ... well, here:

"Federal law prohibits a government entity from preventing its officials from reporting immigration status information to ICE."

Keep two things in mind. First, Dennis Herrera is anti-immigrant and second, he's running for Mayor.

Adachi for Mayor!

Gonzalez for Mayor!

Baum for Mayor!

Go Giants!!

h.

Posted by Guest h. brown on Jun. 02, 2011 @ 11:06 am

Those legislators and elected officials who don't oppose illegal immigration will be vividly remembered by the growing TEA PARTY membership. If we used zero tolerance policies to remove illegal aliens from America, it would save us trillions of dollars in the years ahead. Each of the thousands of TEA PARTY cells will be looking to oust those who have pushed our country into this financial chaos. Governors such as Andrew Cuomo called the “architect or ruin”, which had much to do with the real estate collapse and low income and illegal immigrant mortgages. Such Mayors as Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, for evasion of implementing E-Verify and Secure Communities, in exposing foreign nations in the workplace and criminal aliens through a ICE fingerprinting. A new poll conducted by Rasmussen found that 82% of likely voters think businesses should be required to use E-Verify. Because of the incompetence of the major parties the border fence is incomplete (NOT COMPARABLE TO THE 2006 Secure Fence Act) and the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration laws not enforced.

California like so many other States are going it alone, to protect their own residents from economic illegal aliens. Then you have Sheriff Michael Hennessey, in the ultra-Liberal fortress who is illegally opting out of policing laws such as mandatory Secure Communities, that is a resonating signal for parasitic economic illegal aliens to quickly arrive there. Releasing any illegal aliens is incorrigible, and ICE being implicated shows that the Obama administration has a no intentions of enforcing laws.This is the same fiasco with highlighted States like Nevada and cities as Chicago and Denver named infamously as Sanctuary cities and states, which are ignoring federal law. ICE doesn’t seem to be reigning in these policies and apprehending the officials behind these illegal people havens. Cops and citizens-legal residents are dying, at the bloody hands of illegal migrants and immigrants that the city councils and managers have no interest in rescinding these anti-sovereignty laws and ordinances?

The House of Representatives is debating and voting on amendments to the 2012 Homeland Security spending bill. Several immigration amendments will be offered and receive votes. It will be the first votes cast on immigration during the 112th Congress. An amendment that increases spending for the administration of the 287(g) program passed in the House of Representatives. In addition two border security amendments offered by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) to the 2012 DHS spending bill were passed by the House of Representatives on Wednesday. The two amendments would reallocate funds to provide funding towards removing mountain lookout posts along eh U.S.-Mexico border. These lookout posts are used to aid illegal aliens and drug smugglers in avoiding border patrol agents stationed in the desert. Funds to hire shadow wolves, who are an elite unit, that track smugglers along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Attn: When we have 15 million people out of work nationally, why is the federal government giving contracts to foreign countries. watching C-Span today, Congress listened to Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) pleading that US contracts for US Coast Guard diesel engines, should be made in America and not Germany? Another Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) brought to attention of both House parties, that a company in San Francisco was given a contract to manufacture TSA uniforms, and turned around and outsourced the work to Mexico. All patriotic Americans should bombard Federal and State Representatives and demand that all government contracts should go to USA companies and not outsourced to foreign countries.

The People's power is invincible, but we must stand together against many entities who are only interested in profit and exploitation. We can join NumbersUSA and band together by demanding a--MANDATORY E-VERIFY--nationwide, from our federal, State representatives or call Senate—202-224–3121/ House—202-225–3121.

Posted by Guest Dave Francis on Jun. 02, 2011 @ 12:14 pm

"The perception of high crime rates by illegal immigrants is pure myth. And it is misdirecting public policy about what we really should do to stop illegal immigration. A century of studies has consistently shown that recent immigrants are in fact less likely to commit a crime or be in jail than native Americans.

"The last comprehensive national report, by Ruben G. Rumbaut, Walter A. Ewing and the American Immigration Law Foundation, found two years ago that while the number of unauthorized Latino immigrants in the country doubled between 1994 and 2005, violent crime during the same period dropped nearly 35 percent.

"Other studies show that the drop fell faster in major illegal immigrant destinations such as Los Angeles and New York than in cities with lower immigration rates. Rumbaut and Ewing reported that U.S-born men ages 18-39 were five times more likely to be in jail than foreign-born ones, even though nearly 30 percent of those foreign-born were here illegally and often jailed for only that offense.

"In California, home to the largest illegal immigrant Latino population, immigrants in 2005 made up about 35 percent of California's adult population but accounted for only 17 percent of the prison population, according to the Public Policy Institute of California." --Edward Schumacher-Matos

http://beta2.tbo.com/news/opinion/2009/mar/01/co-the-illegal-immigrant-c...

http://contexts.org/articles/winter-2008/rumbaut/

Posted by Lisa on Jun. 02, 2011 @ 5:53 pm

A UCLA study (2010) found that legalizing undocumented immigrants would help the economy~

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/07/local/la-me-immig7-2010jan07

Another study (2010) by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco came to the same conclusion~

"Statistical analysis of state-level data shows that immigrants expand the economy's productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization. This produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker. At the same time, evidence is scant that immigrants diminish the employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers." --Federal Reserve Bank of SF

http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/letter/2010/el2010-26.html

Posted by Lisa on Jun. 02, 2011 @ 6:02 pm

Be Careful What You Wish For: 'E-Verify' System for Immigration Checks is Rife with Errors~

http://www.alternet.org/immigration/149917/be_careful_what_you_wish_for%3A_%22e-verify'_system_for_immigration_checks_is_rife_with_errors

Posted by Lisa on Jun. 02, 2011 @ 6:14 pm

If the federal government wants to stop illegal immigration, then it should close the border instead of creating a police state where illegal immigrants are fed to the private, for-profit prison industry.

Posted by Guest on Jun. 02, 2011 @ 5:44 pm

this is an excellent point. I can assume that the Guardian and it's readers, both named and anonymous, will soon begin the campaign for a real actual fence on the border.

Legalize EVERYONE here! triple layered fence and 10 national guardsmen per mile on the border!

Oh wait, what's that? You don't want to do that either? Yeah, you don't really actually care do you...

Anyways... Why can't anybody ever admit that there is absolutely NO possible way that more people coming from the south is good for the people who are already here, legal or otherwise.

Posted by Juan Eduardo on Jun. 02, 2011 @ 7:27 pm

So on the one hand, we're all for open borders when it comes to capital. As long as you're a business, you can go anywhere you want, screw anyone you want without limits. Because see, business needs the freedom to move anywhere where economic conditions are best.

But the minute ordinary working people respond by going where economic conditions are best for them... oh no, we can't have that.

That's both hypocritcal and unconscionable. If you're going to open the borders, then open the borders. If you're going to close the borders, then close the borders. But in a sane and just society, human beings should have at least as much freedom as capital.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 02, 2011 @ 10:38 pm

"So on the one hand, we're all for open borders when it comes to capital."

I don't know anyone who is for the things you say in your post. Like much of your world view, that post is one long strawman.

Posted by matlock on Jun. 03, 2011 @ 12:24 am

No one is for free trade. NAFTA became law by... divine intervention?

Posted by Greg on Jun. 03, 2011 @ 8:18 am

and the rest of your screed.

You over state things so much that it makes it all meaningless. You need to keep in mind that you are not at the coffee house blabbering with other true believers.

Posted by matlock on Jun. 03, 2011 @ 10:13 pm

"You over state things so much that it makes it all meaningless. You need to keep in mind that you are not at the coffee house blabbering with other true believers. "

I'm well aware of the fact that I'm on a board frequented by assorted trolls and curmudgeons.

Evans' schtick is that he's an old crank. Yours is that you love to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. Even when you agree with the progressive position, you have an itch to say something disagreeable because you just don't like progressives. If I say that the sky is blue, you'll feel a need to chime in with some sarcastic remark disagreeing.

All I'm saying is that
1) Free trade means open borders for capital. Many politicians advocate free trade. And though they don't like to use the phrase "open borders," because it hints at their hypocrisy, few would actually disagree with the overall characterization. In fact, sometimes they do speak of the need to break down barriers (ie., borders) to investment (ie., capital).

2) Many of the same people who are for open borders for business (in other words, capital), are for closing the borders for immigration (in other words, human beings)

3) I believe this is rank hypocrisy, and I think that human beings should certainly have as much freedom as capital.

Perhaps you don't like my characterization, because it exposes your own hypocrisy on the issue, but I fail to see any overstatement here.

Posted by Greg on Jun. 03, 2011 @ 11:51 pm

Massachusetts has joined NY and IL among a growing number of cities and states that have announced their opposition to the Secure Communities program~

http://mycuentame.org/2011/06/08/ny-times-editorial-resistance-grows-aga...

Posted by Lisa on Jun. 08, 2011 @ 4:14 pm