Immigrant Fairness, ICE and Secure Communities

Co-Editor Leigh Goodmark and Alex Tsouristakis write about their efforts to provide safety for immigrants by promoting leglislation to relieve local police from enforcing federal immigration policy:

The Gender Violence Clinic at the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law recently joined with the Maryland ACLU and a coalition of several social justice groups, including CASA de Maryland and a number of religious groups, to support a bill that would prevent Maryland police from being forced to carry out federal civil immigration detainers under the Secure Communities program. The bill, which was sponsored by Delegate Gutierrez in the House and Senators Ramirez, Raskin, Montgomery, and several of their colleagues in the Senate, was modeled after a similar act that passed in California last year after much debate. Another bill based on the California bill passed in Connecticut, with unanimous votes in both houses.

The Maryland Law Enforcement Trust Act is a response to Secure Communities, a federal immigration program that allows Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to take any biometric data the police record from people who have been arrested and use it scan the federal immigration database for any violations. At the same time, ICE can request that the police department hold a person for two business days beyond their normal release date, even if they haven’t been charged with a crime and would ordinarily be free to go.

Under the bill, Maryland police would be restricted from carrying out these ICE holds, denying bail based on the presence of an immigration detainer, and investigating people solely on the suspicion of an immigration violation. In addition, law enforcement would be instructed not to make inmates available for interviews with federal immigration officers without written consent and counsel present. The bill is designed not to interfere with the normal criminal process, but to prevent abuses of the process on the basis of immigration violations.

Supporters of the bill testified on several issues, including the excessive costs to the state caused by immigration enforcement, the effects on safety and security in the community, and the chilling effect on undocumented victims of crime of the possibility of being arrested if they call law enforcement. In addition, a number of people came to share personal stories of how the federal program had affected them or people close to them, from a worker kept in sweatshop-like conditions out of fear of being deported by the police, to a priest who has seen two youth group leaders deported with no warning.

Members of the Gender Violence Clinic testified about the effects of immigration detainers on undocumented victims of domestic violence, citing two stories of women who had sought police protection, only to be caught up in Secure Communities, detained, and separated from their children. Stories like this spread through the community, and undocumented victims, who are already less likely to report crimes and abuse than documented victims and citizens, are thoroughly afraid to call the police when they know they might be deported as a result. When communication breaks down between the police and victims of crime, the police are unable to do their jobs and criminals and abusers can run rampant in the community.

In order to ensure compliance, the bill requires that state and local correctional facilities prepare yearly reports on the status of immigration detainers in the state. Each report would include the number of individuals held on immigration detainers, the number of days that individuals were held past their normal release date due to a detainer, the reason for arrest for each individual held because of a detainer, and the number of individuals transferred to federal immigration authorities. By requiring this information, the bill would prevent officers from “screening” for potential undocumented immigrants and ensure that inmates are not being held past their release dates.

Unfortunately, the bill received unfavorable reports in both houses in Maryland, and was withdrawn in the House as of 3/31. However, the issues it addressed continue to be an important part of the larger immigration reform debate, and advocates, including the Gender Violence Clinic, will continue to work toward reform.