2010 National Immigrant Integration Conference - Strategy Sessions

Public Safety
September 30, 2010

This session addressed public safety issues. Cynthia Buiza, Director of Policy & Advocacy, Coalition
of Humane Immigrant Rights of L.A., a regional organization that organizes different immigrant
constituencies, framed the session by asking, why is public safety critical to immigrant integration? She went
on to explain that if immigrants don’t feel safe, they will not feel engaged, but rather scared, and remain
removed from the broader community.

Ms. Buiza also raised other issues around safety including the fear of reporting abuse due to
documentation status. She argued that it is critical to face the public safety issue head on because recently,
there has been a large amount of anti-immigrant legislation on the state and local level, and the Department
of Justice has reinforced the idea that local authorities can enforce immigration laws. This has led to an
increase of the number of immigrants in the law enforcement system, arrests, etc. These changes have made
immigrants hesitant to even enter government buildings, presenting a dilemma to immigrant rights
advocates. However, the federal government has never stated that local law enforcement has jurisdiction on
immigration issues.

Because immigrants are often fearful of reporting crimes to law enforcement, organizations are
stepping in to figure out how to address these issues absent of government responses. This includes working
with law enforcement and building dynamic relationships to address law enforcement issues, such as self-
policing among certain sectors, as well as the Community Policing Academy, which is a collaboration
between the LAPD and nonprofits which boosts information sharing. Statewide coalitions also have a role in
trying to educate law enforcement and government on the impact of certain policies, as well as advocacy for
and against policies like Secure Communities (see below). There is a critical link between public safety and
immigrant integration which needs to be looked at closely.

Brian Kyes, Chief of Police for the City of Chelsea, Massachusetts, shared a law enforcement
perspective on the issues. Chelsea is a city of 50,000 people, 75% Latino and the most densely populated
city in the state as well as the city with the highest percentage of foreign born. One question facing his
department is, what do we do about immigration law? Can we enforce it? For his department, the answer is
no, because we don’t have jurisdiction.

When he became Chief, he had meetings with the community based organizations to figure out
what would be the best idea of how to deal with immigration law. Some wanted 100% hands-off approach,
but he sometimes collaborates with ICE if someone commits a violent crime and is shown to be
undocumented—for this, he has four criteria that he follows to determine if he should bring in ICE.
Sometimes ICE doesn’t like their approach, but they do work together and have a relationship. If ICE
comes to Chelsea to enforce on an administrative cause, they tell Chelsea Police and the police can say if the
person in question is a victim or witness in an ongoing crime. In such cases, ICE generally desists from
pursuing this case. But if they are not a victim or witness, ICE still can enforce their laws, but the Chelsea
Police does not help or get involved. This is unlike other police departments, but Chief Kyes beleives that if
the PD did get involved and help out ICE in such cases, it would send a message to the community that

Supported by the
 these two forces are one and the same. An individual’s origin is not of
concern to the Chelsea PD, but if someone commits a crime then they will use any possible means to
remove them from the community.

The Chair, Arizona State Representative Kyrsten Sinema, followed with an explanation of three
important ICE programs that are currently impacting Public Safety across the country—changed federal
policy on workplace raids, Secure Communities, and 287G.

With regard to the workplace raids policy, she remarked that Janet Napolitano, the head of the
Department of Homeland Security (and also former Arizona governor), changed the official policy so that
there will be no workplace raids. During the Bush era, this was the modus operandi of immigration
enforcement, and was very showy but included many drawbacks including the roundup of unintended
people such as legal residents, etc., doesn’t capture many criminal aliens, and causes a lot of concerns in the
community, making entire parts of the community shut down due to fear. New strategies include finding
out where the undocumented workers are, and talking with the owners, which often leads to mass layoffs.
This often just results in people moving to different jobs or having a time of unemployment, causing similar
issues of disruption in the community.

Rep. Sinema also explained Secure Communities, which has been implemented under the
Department of Homeland Security and collaborates efforts between ICE and local law enforcement through
information sharing. It is an opt in/opt out program for the local law enforcement which determines the
amount of data that the local police will transfer to DHS. A police agency gathers data on every person it
comes into contact with; a community that is in the Secure Communities program transfers all of that data
to ICE who can match it with their data and go through immigrant removal processes.

There are four levels of people that law enforcement comes into contact with: Level 3 is for people
who commit serious crimes; Level 2 is for people who commit petty or less serious crimes; Level 1 is for
civil citations (such as traffic violations); and there is a fourth level, a Level None/No Charges, which is for
those who have had no formal interaction with the criminal system. This last level includes people who get
taken along with people who are in Level 1, 2, or 3, such as passengers in the same vehicle. These people
have no charges, but their information gets sent to ICE just like someone who commits a crime, and, for
instance, in Napa County, CA, the number of “No Charges” people was equal to the number of people in
Levels 1, 2, and 3 combined. It is important to educate people on the program and to assess whether it’s
having a good result of removing criminals.

The third program is the 287G program. This is a Memorandum of Understanding between local
and federal law enforcement agencies in which the federal agency grants some right for local law
enforcement to enforce federal immigration law. It is meant to be limited to certain groups or
circumstances as outlined specifically in the MOU, and training is provided to police so that they pursue the
MOU but also do not violate civil liberties. A 287G can also exist in a jail, such that anyone who gets
booked gets interrogated regarding their immigration status, leading to ICE involvement. In this program,
there is a tension between local police’s ability to balance the relationship with ICE through 287G while
also following best practices with regards to community policing, etc.

Supported by the
 Rep. Sinema briefly discussed the SB1070 law in Arizona, noting
one aspect of the law in particular which is that if police have to inquire about the immigration status of
everyone they interact with, then it runs up against federal programs like U-Visas for victims of domestic
violence.

One audience member asked how people outside the policy world can impact what law
enforcement does regarding 287G, etc. Chief Kyes remarked that in a smaller city, it is possible for him to
sit down with everyone, but that it is also good to get organized as a citizens’ group and approach the
police.

Another asked about the issues of granting undocumented immigrants drivers’ licenses. Chief Kyes
remarked that they should be able to have them because they need to get to work like everyone else. Rep.
Sinema said that in Arizona, all drivers are required to have insurance, so the state should make it
mandatory for all people driving on the roads to have ID. For many, the drivers’ license is the only form of
ID so everyone should have them so that the government knows who and where they are. Ms. Buiza said
that in California, there is general consensus that granting drivers’ licenses is good policy, but it dies in the
state assembly due to politics.

Another question asked Chief Kyes, where do you draw the line for notifying ICE? If you notify
before someone is actually convicted, they could actually be innocent but still get deported. Chief Kyes
remarked that it is necessary to draw the line somewhere, and that 99% of arrests are guilty.

A final question asked what a “sanctuary city” is. This designation was adopted by the Chelsea City
Council in 2006. It is a symbolic gesture that means that undocumented people, if they play by the rules,
are safe. Rep. Sinema remarked that it is more of a summary of a city’s policies rather than an
implementable policy itself, and it means that police do not inquire into one’s immigration status unless it’s
a violent crime. She also advised not to overemphasize the terminology, and that it’s better to push for good
policies than this type of designation.

Supported by the