Trust Act

RECENT POSTS

May 21, 2012 | 4:38 PM | By

‘TRUST Act 2.0′: Amended CA bill would only let cops hold convicted criminals for ICE

Photo by antonychammond/Flickr (Creative Commons)

A year ago, a bill was moving through the California state legislature that aimed to make optional counties and cities’ participation in the controversial Secure Communities immigration enforcement program.

At the time, California was one of several states in which some state and law enforcement officials had come out against the federal program, which allows the fingerprints of people booked at local jails to be shared with immigration officials.

The bill was rendered moot last August, after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement rescinded state agreements with the agency allowing Secure Communities to operate. The decision essentially made the program mandatory, leaving states no choice but to go along.

As a counter to that, the same California lawmaker behind last year’s bill is now pushing an alternative dubbed TRUST Act 2.0. The idea is for local agencies to work with ICE as mandated, but only to a point, since the bill proposes restricting who it is that law enforcement agencies can hold for deportation at the request of ICE.

The bill, sponsored by Assembly member Tom Ammiano, a Bay Area Democrat, came back to the state senate amended earlier this month. It proposes that law enforcement agencies in California only hold immigrants for ICE if the person has a violent or otherwise serious criminal conviction. How it stands now, ICE can place a detention hold on any immigrant identified as deportable via Secure Communities, whether the person has a criminal record or not.

The Obama administration has said that its focus is on deporting immigrants with criminal records. However, one of the criticisms of Secure Communities, which began in 2008, is that it casts too wide a net, landing people without criminal backgrounds in deportation proceedings, such as domestic violence victims or people with minor traffic offenses.

Here’s an excerpt from a relevant section of Trust Act 2.0 as amended this month, titled “Standards for Responding to United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Holds:”

An individual shall not be detained by a law enforcement official on the basis of an immigration hold after that individual becomes eligible for release from criminal custody, unless, at the time the individual becomes eligible for release from criminal custody, both of the following conditions are satisfied:

(a) The individual has been convicted of a serious or violent felony, according to a criminal background check or documentation provided to the law enforcement official by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

(b) The continued detention of the individual on the basis of the immigration hold would not violate any federal, state, or local law, or any local policy.

Local jurisdictions would also be required to have plans in place to prevent the detention of U.S. citizens, racial profiling, and conditions that might prevent victims and witnesses from stepping forward to report crimes.

TRUST (which stands for Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools) Act 2.0 was one of the California bills highlighted today in Sacramento in an annual event that’s become known as Immigrant Day, during which immigrant advocacy, civil rights, faith and other groups rally in Sacramento for legislation favorable to immigrants. It has yet to come up for a committee vote.

The text of the amended bill can he read here.

FILED UNDER: Immigrant Day, Secure Communities, Tom Ammiano, Trust Act, Trust Act 2.0
February 3, 2012 | 3:35 PM | By

‘TRUST Act 2.0′ would limit local cops’ cooperation with Secure Communities

Photo by Chad Miller/Flickr (Creative Commons)

In August, after the federal government rescinded state contracts related to the Secure Communities immigration enforcement program, those states that at the time were trying to opt out of the controversial fingerprint-sharing program seemed to have little choice but to comply.

But there’s another option, at least according to a California state legislator who is retooling a bill from last year to allow for another kind of out: Restricting how law enforcement agencies hold immigrants for deportation at the request of federal immigration officials.

The yet-to-be-introduced California bill is a retooled version of the TRUST Act, a measure approved last May by the state Assembly that would have allowed the state to renegotiate its contract with the feds and allowed local jurisdictions to opt out of Secure Communities if they wanted to. It had begun moving through the Senate when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director John Morton sent a letter to state governors terminating the contracts, whose language did not suggest the program was mandatory.

Here’s how Quintin Mecke, a spokesman for bill sponsor and Assembly member Tom Ammiano, described the retooled legislation in an email:

We are in the midst of finalizing the exact language, but right now it will likely create thresholds and standards for local jurisdictions around ICE detainers. The bill will likely create a baseline for local governments not to expend resources on responding to ICE holds and detaining people for deportation, unless the individual had a serious or violent felony conviction.

Jurisdictions that do choose to detain people on the basis of immigration status will need to come up with common-sense plans to guard against profiling and wrongful detentions of citizens.

In a recent story the Los Angeles Times quoted Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco:

“States have their own ways of fighting back,” Ammiano said. “We can’t stand by and let innocent people, food vendors, etc., be caught up in sweeps, assume they’re guilty of some violent offense and then deport them and separate them from their families.”

The bill would be better met in some jurisdictions than others, such as in San Francisco, where Sheriff Michael Hennessey announced last spring that he would not hold arrestees for ICE. Some state, local and law enforcement officials have spoken out against Secure Communities, saying it alienates immigrant communities and thus impedes policing. But other jurisdictions have been supportive of the program, and the proposed additional regulations for those who do choose to hold prisoners for immigration officials are not bound to go over well in some local agencies.

Los Angeles’ law enforcement principals have been split over Secure Communities: Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has voiced misgivings, but county Sheriff Lee Baca is a supporter.

Mecke said the timeline for reintroducing what’s being called “TRUST Act 2.0″ is still fluid, but that it will be sometime this spring.

FILED UNDER: ICE, Secure Communities, Tom Ammiano, Trust Act, Trust Act 2.0, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
June 21, 2011 | 9:52 AM | By

Secure Communities reform: Does anyone benefit?

Photo by Chad Miller/Flickr (Creative Commons)

It’s been a few days since U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced planned reforms to its embattled Secure Communities enforcement program, which allows the fingerprints of people booked into local jails to be shared with immigration authorities.

The idea behind the changes, announced Friday, is to better focus the program on deporting serious criminals, to better train local law enforcement to understand its priorities, and to address any potential civil rights concerns.

Several immigrant advocates have denounced the changes as window dressing, but will any of these tweaks make a difference as to how many people get deported, and who? A few analyses since Friday’s announcement have tried to answer this question.

  • A Houston Chronicle piece yesterday zeroed in on a key component, a memo from ICE director John Morton urging the use of prosecutorial discretion when determining who should be detained or deported, potentially sparing many. Morton’s guidelines “instruct ICE officials to consider everything from a suspected illegal immigrant’s community contributions to criminal history before making a determination on a case.” More from the story:

Special consideration should be given to witnesses and victims of crimes, relatives of U.S. citizens and green card holders, military veterans and college students brought to the U.S. as children, according to the guidelines.

  • The guidelines make clear that Dream Act-eligible youths, the “college students brought to the U.S. as children,” qualify for special consideration. However, same-sex partners still don’t qualify as spouses or family members of U.S. citizens, according to SF Weekly:

It seems gay couples are still out of luck. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Virginia Kice e-mailed to clarify what the new memo means when it talks about “spouses.” That doesn’t include gay ones: “Pursuant to the Attorney General’s guidance, the Defense of Marriage Act remains in effect and the Executive Branch, including [the Department of Homeland Security], will continue to enforce it unless and until Congress repeals it or there a final judicial determination that it is unconstitutional,” Kice wrote.

  • Several reports, including one in Denver’s Westword, have pointed to another provision that urges agents and attorneys to use discretion in order ensure that crime victims and witnesses don’t land in deportation proceedings for contacting police, as some have in the past.

A separate ICE memo issued last Friday “sets forth agency policy regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in removal cases involving the victims and witnesses of crime, including domestic violence, and individuals involved in non-frivolous efforts related to the protection of their civil rights and liberties.”

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, Secure Communities, Trust Act
May 31, 2011 | 5:37 PM | By

Opting out of Secure Communities? Not so fast, ICE official says

Photo by Chad Miller/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The California Assembly voted last week to approve a bill that seeks to extricate the state from Secure Communities, a federal immigration enforcement program in which the fingerprints of people who land in local jails are checked against a database of immigration records.

The bill, which now moves to the state Senate, would allow California to renegotiate its contract with the Department of Homeland Security, letting local jurisdictions opt out of what is now a mandatory program or the state to opt out altogether.

But can this really happen? Not so fast, says a top Homeland Security official interviewed by KPCC’s Kitty Felde. From a story today:

John Morton, director of federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, says local jurisdictions don’t have the power to pick and choose.

“An individual state can’t come to the federal government and say, ‘We don’t want the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security to share information or seek to prevent that information sharing.’ That is between federal departments.”

The bill still needs approval from the state Senate, and from Gov. Jerry Brown, who supported Secure Communities when he was California’s attorney general.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Secure Communities, Trust Act, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
May 26, 2011 | 6:06 PM | By

Will California opt out of Secure Communities, and can it?

Art by José Luís Agapito/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The California Assembly passed a bill 43-22 today that challenges the embattled federal immigration enforcement program known as Secure Communities. If the bill becomes law, it would allow the state to renegotiate its contract with the Homeland Security department, allowing local jurisdictions to opt out of what is now a mandatory fingerprint-sharing program. The state could choose to opt out altogether as well.

The bill, which now goes on to the senate, has been dubbed the Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act, or “TRUST Act.”

The text of the California bill was posted on Multi-American late last month. Shortly afterward, the governor of Illinois announced plans to withdraw the state from the program. His decision was challenged by Department of Homeland Security officials, who said the department would not allow Illinois law enforcement to opt out of sharing information with immigration authorities.

If the California bill passes and the state moves to opt out of or modify its participation in Secure Communities, can it?

The program’s implementation in California was guided by a “memorandum of understanding,” or MOA, between Homeland Security and the California Department of Justice dated January 23, 2009. In the section titled “Modifications and Termination,” the document reads:

This MOA may be modified at any time by mutual written consent of both parties.

This MOA may remain in effect from the date of signing until it is terminated by either party. Either party, upon written or oral notice to the other party, may terminate the MOA at any time. A termination notice shall be delivered personally or by certified or registered mail and termination shall take effect 30 days after receipt of such notice.

The same section of the Homeland Security MOA with Illinois State Police, available online along with other Secure Communities documents, has the same wording.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, Secure Communities, Trust Act
April 26, 2011 | 10:58 AM | By

What is the TRUST Act? The bill that would make Secure Communities optional in California

A detainee waits to be processed at a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility Arizona.

A California state bill heard in Sacramento today that challenges the embattled federal immigration enforcement program known as Secure Communities has cleared a public safety committee vote. If it eventually becomes law, the bill would make the participation of local law enforcement in the fingerprint-sharing program optional, removing California counties from the mandatory program temporarily, then allowing them to rejoin voluntarily. The bill has been dubbed the Transparency and Responsibility Using State Tools Act, or “TRUST Act.”

From the text of AB 1081, introduced earlier this year by Assembly member Tom Ammiano, a Bay Area Democrat, and amended two weeks ago:

Existing law, setting forth the findings and declarations of the

Legislature, provides that all protections, rights, and remedies

available under state law, except any reinstatement remedy prohibited

by federal law, are available to all individuals regardless of

immigration status who have applied for employment, or who are or who

have been employed, within the state, and further provides that, for

purposes of enforcing specified state laws, a person’s immigration

status is irrelevant to the issue of liability, and prohibits, in

proceedings or discovery undertaken to enforce those state laws, an

inquiry into a person’s immigration status except where the person

seeking to make the inquiry has shown by clear and convincing

evidence that the inquiry is necessary in order to comply with

federal immigration law.

Continue reading →

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, Immigrant detention, Secure Communities, Trust Act, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement