Sheriffs divided on immigration policy

Sheriffs in Bay Area counties are divided on whether they must go along with federal requests to turn over suspected illegal immigrants who land in local jails, an issue raised anew this week by state Attorney General Kamala Harris.

San Francisco complies only if an immigrant booked on suspicion of a crime already has a serious criminal record. Santa Clara County, under a policy approved last year by its Board of Supervisors, goes a step further and won`t hold anyone for immigration authorities unless the federal government funds the cost of an extra day`s confinement, a price the government has declined to pay.

 

Alameda, Contra Costa and San Mateo counties hand over all inmates sought by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a policy also backed by the California State Sheriffs Association.

 

But Contra Costa County Sheriff David Livingston says he`s considering a change after meeting with local Latino and clergy groups.

 

“The whole idea (of the federal program) was to target the greatest offenders,” Livingston said. “When we have someone coming up (for release) on a misdemeanor … I question whether it`s in the interest of public safety to hold someone an additional 48 hours” for delivery to the immigration agency.

Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern may also take another look at the issue, based on what he learns in a planned meeting with Gov. Jerry Brown, said Sgt. J.D. Nelson, a sheriff`s spokesman.

 

“We want to gain some clarification” in light of Harris` comments, Nelson said Thursday.

 

Under a federal program called Secure Communities, fingerprints of everyone booked into local jails are forwarded to Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check against immigration records. If ICE identifies an arrestee it wants to deport who is about to be released, it files a detainer, asking the jail to hold the person for an additional 48 hours so federal agents can pick him or her up.

 

The goal of Secure Communities is to speed up the deportation of dangerous criminals. After advocates and some local governments complained that most of those detained and deported had little or no criminal record, ICE said in August 2011 that it would make removal of serious offenders the highest priority.

 

But Harris, at a news conference Tuesday, said the federal agency hasn`t followed through. Twenty-eight percent of those deported after being held on detainers at California jails during a recent four-month period had no criminal records, a figure comparable to ICE`s deportation record in the state in early 2011, she said.

 

No big change

“We`ve not seen a marked change or improvement,” the attorney general said.

In a message distributed to county sheriffs and police departments statewide, Harris said ICE detainers are not legally binding, and that each agency should decide whether to comply based on its own policies and an inmate`s record.

 

Sheriffs` offices, which run county jails, have varying policies on the detainers, some treating them as optional and others as mandatory.

 

“We work hand in hand with them,” said Rebecca Rosenblatt, spokeswoman for San Mateo County Sheriff Greg Munks. She said ICE agents visit the jail regularly and notify deputies when they want someone held for deportation proceedings, requests that she said the sheriff always grants.

 

San Francisco policy

San Francisco, in a policy first adopted by then-Sheriff Mike Hennessey, holds inmates for ICE only if they have a felony conviction or two misdemeanor convictions, or if they have been arrested on suspicion of domestic violence.

 

A similar policy would have been required for all California counties under legislation by Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco, that Brown vetoed in September. Ammiano introduced a new version of the bill this week.

 

Santa Clara County supervisors took a more contrary stance in October 2011, voting to deny all such requests unless ICE paid for the cost of additional detention. A similar policy was adopted a month earlier by Cook County, Ill., which includes Chicago.

 

“Public agencies have the right to make decisions whether to honor detainer holds,” Santa Clara County Counsel Lori Pegg said this week. “If they pay us to hold these folks, we will do so if it`s a public safety issue.”

 

Feds angry

ICE has reacted angrily to such defiance. In a letter in January to Cook County officials, the agency`s director, John Morton, said the local ordinance “undermines public safety in Cook County and hinders ICE`s ability to enforce the nation`s immigration laws.” He said it may also violate federal law and jeopardize some of the county`s federal funding.

 

Cook County responded by reaffirming its policy.

Ir a la nota fuente