Santa Clara County Immigration Policy Watch
The Santa Clara County Immigration Policy Watch landing page warehouses media coverage, policy memos, data, and other information regarding Santa Clara County’s policies regarding immigration matters. Documents include information on county and state interactions with Immigration Customs and Enforcement and monitoring of the controversial Secured Communities (Scomm) program. Santa Clara County has been a leading voice in protecting the rights of immigrants in the face of escalating federal immigration enforcement.
This page is informed by The Santa Clara County Coalition Against Scomm – a cross-ethnic coalition of civil rights organizations and immigrant service agencies. Participating organizations include: Service for Immigrants Rights and Education Network, Sacred Heart Community Services, Silicon Valley De-Bug, Asian Law Alliance, San Jose Peace Center , Justice for Palestinians, and others.
County Of Santa Clara Policy On I-247s (Detainers)
Communications Between Santa Clara County And I.C.E.
10.13.2010--Santa Clara County to Opt Out: This is a letter sent to Mr. Venturella, Executive Director of the office Secure Communities, from Santa Clara county in which they inform Mr. Venturella that Santa Clara County does not wish to participate in the Secure Communities program.
9.8.2010--U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Response to Zoe Lofgren: These two letters are the response to Chairwomen Lofgren’s questions on how local agencies can request to “opt-out” of the federal Secure Communities program sent by the Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich.
8.16.2010--I.C.E Response to Santa Clara County:
This a letter from Assistant Director of Secure Communities Davis Venturella to County Counsel Miguel Marquez responding to questions regarding concerns about Santa Clara County participation in the S-Comm program.
8.16.2010-- Santa Clara County Counsel Letter to I.C.E: These are letter written by County Counsel Miguel Marquez to Attorney General Edmund Brown and Executive Director of the Office of Secure Communities voicing some concerns about the County’s participation in S-Comm. Some concerns include the possibility of opting out of participating in S-Comm and the use local resources for federal purposes.
7.27.2010--Secure Communities Opt Out Letter: This is a letter from Chairwomen Zoe Lofgren requesting clarification on how S-Comm will be used in local jurisdictions and their voluntary participation and how will fingerprint sharing work. The letter is addressed to Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder.
10.18.2011--Santa Clara County Ends Collaboration with ICE:
9.29.2010--Nationwide press release to opt out:
Information on S-Comm and Detainers:
Detainer Information Sheet: This article explains what civil detainers are in regards to immigration holdings. It explains that ICE can request a hold to local law enforcement agencies (LLEA) on individuals while ICE investigates whether that individual is eligible for removal from the U.S. LLEA can only hold individuals for 48 hours and are not refunded for their services. It is troubling because it disrupts public health and safety programs.
Secure Communities Fact Sheet: Secure Communities (S-Comm) is a federal program which goals were to deport detainees who had a criminal record. The individuals’ fingerprints would be entered in an FBI database and sent to ICE, if ICE determined that a detainer request was needed the county would hold the individual for no more than 48 hours. Santa Clara County does not want to participate because it captures an unreasonable amount of non-violent offenders.
Statistics on Secure Communities in Santa Clara County: Locally, state, and nationwide Level 2 offenders are being detained more frequently followed by non-criminals with S-Comm.
Detainer Form I-247: This is an example of a detainer form that an ICE official would fill out and give to the county in order to detain a person.
ACLU Costs and consequences packet: This packet examines that local agencies do not have enough personnel, training, or money to enforce federal laws and are subjected to bias decisions based on racial profiling therefore communities are becoming more fearful to report crime because of the fear of deportation.
3.22.2011--AB-1081 (Ammiano) Fact Sheet:
This document explains a proposition titled AB 1081 which would make the participation in the Secure Communities program an “opt- in” decision for counties in order to protect the public from racial profiling and create transparency in data collection.
1.18.2011--Detainer Report Coalition: This document give suggestions to Santa Clara County on how they can reduce their participation in Secure Communities drafted by several organizations. Some of the suggestions included: not to hold an inmate longer than necessary, inform local agency not to ask for county of origin upon arrest or booking, have information ready in different languages, protect human rights, create an oversight committee to oversee data collection and protect individuals in custody.
County Memos And Transmittals
5.25.2011--Draft Transmittal to Public Safety and Justice Committee: This article gives background on how ICE has enforced the Secure Communities program on local counties and the way in which Santa Clara County has created a “Task Force” to find a way around honoring civil detainers to reduce the amount on non-violent offenders from being deported and separated from their families.
12.2.2010--Public Safety and Justice Committee Memo 12.2.10:
This document responds to the fact that Santa Clara County was not able to “opt-out” of the Secure Communities (S-Comm) federal program therefore they still have to honor the request to “hold” individuals for ICE. The consequence of S-Comm is that ICE is deporting more non-criminals and Level 2 criminals rather than their priority which is Level 1 criminals classified as serious violent offenders.
9.28.10--Public Safety and Justice Committee Memo 9.28.10: This is a memo from George Shirakawa to the Board of Supervisors on September 28, 2011 stating that a written request to “opt-out” of Secure Communities was submitted and are only waiting for their response. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano states that local jurisdictions who did not want to participate could chose not to do so by notifying ICE.
9.1.10--Public Safety and Justice Committee Memo 9.1.10:
This is a memo from County Counsel Miguel Marquez to Chairperson Supervisor George Shirakawa, Vise Chair Supervisor Donald F. Gage, and Public Safety and Justice Committee where he voices his concerns about Secure Communities and notifies the County’s opposition in participating and using County funds to comply with ICE request to detain inmates.
8.10.2010--Secure Communities Board Referral:
This is referral from Supervisor George Shirikawa to the Board of Supervisors stating that the County needs clarification on how S-Comm is going to function in Santa Clara County. Supervisor Shirakawa voices his concerns because Santa Clara County is home to a wide range of immigrant population and it worries about its residents’ future.
8.10.2010--Letter to Board of Supervisors to get out of S-comm: This is a written by ten community organizations urging Santa Clara County to opt out of participating in S-Comm. The letter states concerns of public safety and fear of immigrant communities, racial profiling and increased incarceration cost to the County.
6.22.2010--Board Resolution 2010-316// Resolution of The Board Of Supervisors of The County Of Santa Clara advancing public safety and affirming the separation between county services and the enforcement of Federal Civil Immigration Law: This document states that the County will separate county services from federal civil immigration law because the County is aware of its diverse population and wants to maintain a secure environment for all its residents. The County wants every residents’ rights protected and explains that no county official or employee may use county fund for federal immigration purposes.
Hi All: You are impressive in finding the time to research and organize most of the material regarding our county's relationship with SComm.
I understand that the county counsel's office has determined not to put out a directive for implementing the policy adopted by the BOS. Is that unusual? Betsy
Post a comment