Tell politicians that immigrants are an integral part of our commonwealth

Washington State 05-01-17 May Day March

Call to oppose SB 10: 1-844-803-2258

This week, Pennsylvania lawmakers will proceed to vote on Senate Bill 10 (SB 10). The passing of SB 10 will further endanger the civil liberties of immigrants. Immigrants are an integral part of our commonwealth. Many community members, including US citizens, will become hesitant to report emergencies and crimes and to help law enforcement in the investigation and prosecution of crimes; this will jeopardize public safety. In addition, SB 10 will drain local resources by diverting them towards a federal responsibility. Congress funded ICE more than $7 billion in fiscal year 2018; do the feds really need help from PA? 

Please take a few minutes to make a call to express opposition for the bill. You can utilize the toll-free number 1-844-803-2258 to connect to your local senator. Once on the line, tell them your name, enter your zip code, and tell your senator: 

“Senate Bill 10 will force local police to act as an extension of the immigration system, which drains already limited local resources and erodes community trust in law enforcement. Please oppose Senate Bill 10 because it will squander valuable resources while jeopardizing public safety. ”

Look up your senator >> http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/findyourlegislator/

We’ve embarked on an ambitious project

By Matt Stroud, Criminal Justice Researcher, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Protesters in Phoenix speak out against ICE’s 287(g) program. Photo via Flickr user Basta287g.

If the 45th president of the United States has reminded us of anything, it’s that government agencies require as much scrutiny now as they’ve ever required before — if not much more. At ACLU-PA, we’ve taken that as a cue to more closely follow the news, to more actively track the actions of lawmakers, and to more doggedly file records requests for information such as budgets or police complaints or internal governmental communications.

When it comes to records requests, we file them not to hector public employees, but rather to engage with the governing process. Sometimes this is done in pursuit of very specific information. (One of our summer interns, Emilia Beuger, this week filed a request with the city of Pittsburgh for body camera footage related to a particular police interaction, for example.) And sometimes it’s done merely to let government agencies know we’re watching.

Along those lines, we’ve embarked on an ambitious project.

You’ve heard of the 287(g) program? It’s one of the “top partnership initiatives” of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It deputizes local police departments to act as immigration officials — to request immigration papers from individuals, and to otherwise “receive delegated authority for immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions,” according to ICE’s website. In 2012, the Obama administration scaled back 287(g) in light of racial profiling allegations. It ultimately shut the program down in 2015.

When we read that the Trump Administration planned to reinstate 287(g), we decided to find out which Pennsylvania police departments wanted to join in.

In recent months, we’ve been slowly rolling out our own program to do so — to ask whether local police departments have requested to be a part of 287(g), and, if so, what their communications with ICE have looked like. This has been no small task; there are nearly 1,200 municipal, county, and state police departments in the commonwealth. But with the help of a team of volunteers, we’re filing requests with all of them, and finding interesting information.

While ICE posts a list of established 287(g) partners online, it certainly doesn’t note who’s asking to take part, and who’s, by reasonable extension, hoping to target undocumented immigrants in their communities for arrest and deportation. We’ve not only identified departments that have made their interests in 287(g) known to ICE, we also have reason to believe that, in at least one case, our questions have inspired law enforcement officials to rethink their request to become trained as a 287(g) department.

There’s a lot more to be done. Stamping out racial profiling and civil liberties violations doesn’t start or end with identifying which police departments want to target undocumented immigrants. But letting police know that we’re here, paying attention to them if they do — well, we think that’s a step in the right direction.

If you have suggestions for other public records requests that ACLU-PA should pursue, please get in contact. I’m at mstroud@aclupa.org. Let’s file dogged public records requests together.

IN OTHER NEWS

(Criminal justice news that could use a second look.)

Port Authority’s new fare check policy implements a federal background check on individuals who don’t pay for their fare, which would be enforced by the Port Authority Police. Photo from the Pittsburgh City Paper.

  • City Paper: “Advocates are concerned Port Authority’s new fare-check policy could lead to deportation of undocumented immigrants: ‘Once Port Authority runs your name, ICE will check that name and can detain you.’”

“The new policy, which Port Authority hopes to implement in August, will have riders pay as part of an honor system. Port Authority Police officers will check riders for proof of payment on light-rail cars and at T stations, run federal background checks on riders who don’t pay, and potentially charge repeat offenders with criminal offenses. Ruiz is terrified about what might play out because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has access to the same FBI database through which Port Authority Police will run fare-evaders’ names and addresses. She says this means that forgetting to pay a $2.50 fare one time could lead to a deportation. ‘They are basically turning [light rail] into a border checkpoint,’ says Ruiz.”

  • Good Men Project: “Philadelphia Police Fatal Shooting of Fleeing Black Suspect Akin to 2014 Cover-Up”

“But despite the progress of the police department here — it’s reported that the majority of recommendations issued by the Department of Justice related to use of force and training has been adopted — what does it say about the agency when a rookie and a veteran assigned to the same Police District both use lethal force — Mr. Carrelli before the DOJ issued their report and recommendations and Mr. Pownhall, who may or may not have been equipped with a Taser, nearly two years afterwards — when their life isn’t immediately in jeopardy; no reasonable person would fear for their life when the perceived threat is retreating. I asserted the aforementioned when Mr. Tate-Brown was killed, and I’m asserting it again on behalf of the late Mr. Jones. It’s demoralizing that more than two years after Mr. Tate-Brown was unjustly murdered, there’s no justice realized or on the horizon, only déjà vu.”

THE APPEAL — The Appeal is a weekly newsletter helping to keep you informed about criminal justice news in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and beyond. If you’d like to receive this weekly newsletter, you can subscribe here.

JOIN— The ACLU of Pennsylvania’s mailing list to stay up to date with our work and events happening in your area.

DONATE — The ACLU is comprised of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation. The ACLU Foundation is the arm of the ACLU that conducts our litigation and education efforts. Gifts to the ACLU Foundation are tax-deductible to the donor to the extent permissible by law. Learn more about supporting the work of the ACLU of Pennsylvania here.

Anti-Sanctuary Policies: When State Law Interferes with Public Safety and Your Civil Liberties

By Amanda Cappelletti, Frankel Legislative Fellow, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Immigrants' rights - ICE officer badge

Immigrants’ rights – ICE officer badge

Currently, the Pennsylvania Senate is considering a bill to punish municipalities in the Commonwealth that don’t go along with the unconstitutional actions of federal immigration authorities. To achieve this, House Bill 1885 would hold a so-called “sanctuary municipality” open to civil lawsuits for the actions of individual residents. It also withholds all state money from these cities and municipalities, such as funding for drug and alcohol treatment, domestic violence centers, and other essential services that municipalities provide.

Let’s be clear: There is no such thing as a “sanctuary city.” Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has jurisdiction everywhere in the United States. It is their job to enforce federal immigration law. Local governments have enough to worry about without the added burden of doing the feds’ job for them.

While there are many problems with this bill, one of the most glaring is that it demonstrates a clear lack of knowledge about what sanctuary policies are and why we need them. Being in the country without immigration status is a civil offense investigated by ICE. If ICE believes local law enforcement has an undocumented citizen in custody, they issue a detainer request. This asks local law enforcement to hold that person for 48 hours past their initial release date and time.

Sanctuary policies support public safety and policing goals. Witnesses and victims of crime are more likely to come forward and cooperate with law enforcement authorities when they do not have the threat of deportation looming over them. Simply put, sanctuary policies are a way of building trust between law enforcement agents and the communities they serve. When that trust is established, police are better able to pursue all criminals, making the immediate and surrounding communities safer.

Perhaps not as glaring, but certainly more pressing is the fact that HB 1885 blatantly ignores the constitutional consequences of complying with ICE detainers. Detainers are issued by ICE agents, without any authorization or oversight by a judge or other neutral decision makers. They are not supported by probable cause or any actual evidence at all. Without the constitutionally guaranteed safeguard of a warrant, detainers can and do lead to the illegal detention of individuals who have not violated any immigration laws and are not deportable. According to its own records, ICE has erroneously issued more than 800 detainers for U.S. citizens since 2008.

ICE detainers ask local law enforcement agents to blatantly violate civil liberties and act unconstitutionally by holding individuals without probable cause. As a result, numerous civil lawsuits claiming unreasonable search and seizure have been filed against municipalities and cities. Ultimately, federal courts have ruled that ICE detainers violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. One of the leading cases in this matter took place in Pennsylvania. Since Galarza, thirty-three counties have taken steps to ensure its citizens’ constitutional rights are protected, and have policies to NOT honor ICE detainer requests.

HB 1885 is so poorly written that it even includes a fictional legal standard. The bill requires law enforcement to inquire into the immigration status of someone they’ve arrested if they have “reasonable cause” that the person is in the country without authorization. “Reasonable cause” is not a legal standard. Despite three committee votes and one vote on the floor of the state House, no one in the General Assembly has bothered to fix this obvious flaw.

And that provision- carried out in a worst case scenario- could encourage police departments to engage in racial profiling and arrest people for petty offenses (like so-called disorderly conduct) for the sole purpose of checking their immigration status.

HB 1885 will fracture the already fragile trust between law enforcement and communities. It takes away a city or municipality’s much needed state funding, while also leaving it wide open for civil lawsuits from victims of unforeseen crime. If the municipality or city complies with HB 1885, it leaves itself open to violating the U.S. Constitution and the civil lawsuits which stem from that. No matter what way you look at it, HB 1885 hurts the citizens of our Commonwealth.


Amanda Cappelletti is the 2016–17 Frankel Legislative Fellow at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. She is also a fourth-year law student and a candidate for a master’s in public health at Temple University.

S. 3100 Is BAD For Pennsylvania

On Tuesday, July 5, the ACLU of Pennsylvania sent letters to Senators Pat Toomey and Bob Casey asking them to oppose proposed anti-immigrant legislation.

READ THE LETTERS

S. 3100 would punish 32 Pennsylvania counties for upholding constitutional safeguards against unlawful detention. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s own senator, Patrick Toomey, is the sponsor of the bill.

Senator Toomey has derided Philadelphia for policies that keep local law enforcement officials out of the deportation business. But deportation is a job that should be left to the federal government. When local police and sheriffs take on immigration enforcement duties, trust and cooperation with immigrants is eroded, undermining public safety.

While Philadelphia may make for a convenient target of criticism, at least 32 Pennsylvania counties — like hundreds of other counties across the U.S. — rightly require Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to get a warrant like any other law enforcement agency if they want to detain individuals, for deportation purposes. S. 3100 would require local police to share information about immigrants in their jails, even if ICE does not have a warrant for their arrest.

As punishment for noncompliance, S. 3100 would take over $62 million in federal funding away from these Pennsylvania counties, funds that pay for low-income housing, disaster recovery, public works and economic development. This is bad for Pennsylvania.

Take action on behalf of Pennsylvania and let your senators know that this bill is no good.

‘Letters: Bykofsky’s ideas skate on thin ICE’ via Philly.com

On Friday, July 18, 2014, Daily News Columnist Stu Bykofsky wrote an article entitled ‘Welcome, foreign felons.’ The following Letter to the Editor is in response to that article:

NO ONE should be held in jail for days on end because some federal agent wants to “run checks” on them to see whether it would be lawful to arrest them for something. In fact, the Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments to our Constitution prohibit that kind of tyrannical police-state behavior.

Yet, Stu Bykofsky, in his column “Welcome, foreign felons,” takes Mayor Nutter to task for upholding this basic American principle. The city has a policy, in place since mid-April, of refusing to honor non-binding “detainer” requests lodged by federal immigration authorities on prisoners in city jails whom our criminal justice system has determined should be released. In the court case – won by the ACLU – that determined that these ICE “detainers” are legally unenforceable, the plaintiff was a U.S. citizen, born in New Jersey, whom Allentown police wrongly suspected of being an undocumented noncitizen. As a result, he spent over three extra days in jail, despite having already made bail, while ICE got around to figuring out the police were wrong. (As it turned out, he was mistakenly in jail in the first place; when his trial came up, he was acquitted of the charge for which he had been arrested.)

Philadelphia’s policy avoids travesties like that one (and the resulting liability) by refusing to keep people in jail at the mere request of ICE. Under the policy the city, quite properly, will hold someone for pickup by ICE only if the feds have gotten a warrant for their deportation or arrest.

Instead of engaging in baseless fear-mongering, Bykofsky should be praising the city administration for standing up for everyone’s equal civil rights. A country where any low-level government official can tell the police to jail you for days on mere suspicion, or for “investigation,” is not the country described in the Constitution of the United States.

Peter Goldberger
President
ACLU of Greater Philadelphia

Reggie Shuford
Executive Director
ACLU of Pennsylvania

Read the original article, including a letter from Everett Gillison, Chief of Staff/Deputy Mayor of Philadelphia, at Philly.com