Massachusetts Rejects Secure Communities Immigration Enforcement Program

WASHINGTON -- Massachusetts will not sign onto the Department of Homeland Security's controversial fingerprint-sharing system, Democratic Gov. Deval Patrick announced on Monday, becoming the third governor in recent weeks to reject it.

Patrick has chosen not to sign a memorandum of understanding to participate in the Secure Communities immigration enforcement program. It was touted as a way to find and deport dangerous criminals, but the program has come under fire for using biometric information collected by local police to deport large numbers of law-abiding undocumented men and women.

"Governor Patrick and I share your public safety objectives and agree serious criminals who are here illegally should be deported," Margaret Heffernan of the state's Executive Office on Public Safety and Security wrote in a letter to DHS. "However, Secure Communities, as implemented nationally, does not reflect those objectives."

About a quarter of those deported under the program nationwide are never convicted of a crime, which immigration advocates say is due to racial profiling and police overstepping their duties to enforce immigration.

Discontent against Secure Communities is growing. New York rejected the program in May and bills against the DHS initiative are moving forward in California and Illinois, where Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has already told the agency that his state will no longer participate.

Massachusetts' case is slightly different from the other states. While the other three moving against Secure Communities had already officially joined the program with DHS, the Bay State had not yet signed on.

But it remains unclear whether Massachusetts can actually "opt out" of Secure Communities. Although Massachusetts had not signed on at the statewide level, the program is already in use in Suffolk County, which includes Boston. And DHS officials confirmed that the agency will continue to use fingerprints from Illinois and New York for immigration enforcement.

DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the Massachusetts letter. But the letter to Secure Communities Acting Director Marc Rapp, acknowledged that part of the governor's concern is based on the agency's "conflicting messages" over whether the program is mandatory.

"We are reluctant to participate if the program is mandatory and unwilling to participate if it is voluntary," Heffernan wrote.

The agency plans to spread the program nationwide by 2013. It is currently in place in 1,331 of 3,181 counties nationwide, including all of those in states along the Mexican border.

UPDATE: 5:45 p.m. -- DHS will continue to use fingerprints from Massachusetts for immigration enforcement, a DHS spokeswoman confirmed. "The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate," she said. "Only federal officers make immigration decisions, and they do so only after an individual is arrested for a criminal violation of state law, separate and apart from any violations of immigration law."

Comments

[Kurfco]

12:46 AM on 06/09/2011

Here's a little "profiling" for you:

http://www.modbee.com/2011/06/08/1723669/gang-clampdown-nets-101-leaders.html

[Kurfco]

07:34 PM on 06/08/2011

Massachusetts, want to deal with your criminal illegal aliens now or wait until they get well established. Here's a hot off the press update from California.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/06/dozens-of-gang-leaders-arrested-in-central-valley-crackdown-.html

[Lukester]

01:07 PM on 06/08/2011

When they are done with immigrants, guess who the "Police State" will be coming for next?

[spytheweb]

02:54 AM on 06/08/2011

"The US government will force the state of Massachusetts to join a controversial federal program to detect and deport illegal immigrants, despite Governor Deval Patrick’s refusal to endorse it, a senior Homeland Security official said yesterday. Patrick’s rejection of the Secure Communities program yesterday can do little, if anything, to impede the program from expanding statewide by 2013, said the official, who has direct knowledge of the program but spoke on the condition of anonymity because he did not have clearance to speak for the agency. The data-sharing systems the program relies upon are already in place, the official said, and the governor has no legal standing to block their use." http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-07/news/29630407_1_immigrant-advocates-illegal-immigrants-federal-immigration

[Peter Combs]

09:42 AM on 06/07/2011

President Obama is finally getting the message on Illegal Immigration, he has managed to avoid the topic for 2 and half years. He no longer has a choice....

I Live in Mass, Duval Patrick has his eyes on higher office.....he's a pandering wannabe.

We have 14 Million people out of work in America, we have anywhere from 12 to 16 Million illegal aliens...do the math.

Lets give the folks who want to come here legally the chance THEY deserve....

[Lukester]

01:04 PM on 06/08/2011

Yeah, send those out of work Americans to the farms!

[Picosa]

01:16 PM on 06/08/2011

Mexico would be much better off if the U.S. government and American corporations didnt meddle in their affairs. After all these ethnic natives did build Tenochtitlan, (http://www.aztec-history.net/tenochtitlan )the cleanest and most advanced city the illegal invading Europeans had ever seen.

Just immigane what they could accomplish if Americans stopped meddeling in their affairs and stopped bringing the profits of their wealth to the US. President Calderon of Mexico is a U.S. puppet elected by Bush administration.
quote:
The 2012 presidenti­al campaign is already underway..­. in Mexico.
And, as in previous Mexican elections, US interests are all over it like a cheap suit.
The truth is Washington has always meddled in Mexican presidenti­al elections.

http://reflexioneslibertarias.blogspot.com/2010/08/nntv-al-gores-mexican-adventure.html

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/07/341919.shtml

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/07/342179.shtml

[janedorothy4]

07:23 AM on 06/07/2011

No wonder our schools are in so much trouble.You thought all your life illegal meant illegal and then you find out illegal also means legal. Its confusing for a kid to understand that.

[dtairtime]

11:23 AM on 06/08/2011

Must be that new math.

[rak6748]

02:12 AM on 06/07/2011

Gotta love the useful idiots.

"law-abiding undocumented men and women"

SORRY, but you can NOT be law-abiding and undocumented at the same time. Nice try!

[AZreb]

09:26 AM on 06/07/2011

fanned - that statement caught my attention immediately.

[Clwns2LeftJokers2Right]

02:26 PM on 06/07/2011

Love the word undocumented too! Kinda like "well they COULD be illegal, but we have no documentation of that"

[Atomic Sock Puppet]

12:54 AM on 06/07/2011

This program will be implemented by 2013. You libs don't know the gang problem that is spreading acroos America.

[TREKMIND]

01:42 AM on 06/07/2011

What supports all these gangs? It's the failed Ronald/Nancy Reagan War On Drugs policy. The War on Drugs is just another one of those right wing conservative Failures. The only reason all these gangs are here are because of the insane War on Drugs policy.

[Peter Combs]

09:46 AM on 06/07/2011

Nonesense, when you allow millions of uneducated , unskilled people into your country the crime rates go up...its pretty simple. In Mexico the drug laws are barely enforced and its much worse there....

The California system is drowning with illegal gang members...as is Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas....

[ObamAtomic]

03:46 AM on 06/07/2011

There you are,atomic sock puppet,babbling your BS!

[Atomic Sock Puppet]

08:59 PM on 06/07/2011

IMPOSTER!

[ChiGuy]

12:30 AM on 06/07/2011

"The federal government, not the state or local law enforcement agency, determines what immigration enforcement action, if any, is appropriate...:
__________________________________

Are you listening, Jan Brewer?

[AZreb]

09:27 AM on 06/07/2011

We will wait and see if the DoJ sues the three states for not abiding by the federal guidelines on this matter. Care to bet?

[Great American]

10:02 PM on 06/06/2011

As much as I don't like the state of Massachusetts, the clowns they send to Washington, or even that I disagree with this stance by their governor, I have to agree this is a states' rights issue. The federal govt has over stepped the constitution the past 150 years or so and the federal govt needs to be reigned in.

[Great American]

10:07 PM on 06/06/2011

And if the federal govt actually did one of the jobs they are actually charged with doing, and that is protect our borders, they would not have to infringe on our states.

[MyNameIsJames]

10:51 PM on 06/06/2011

Look I don't like this program for ENTIRELY different reasons. But the idea of States rights is pretty antiquated in many cases. Furthermore as an individual you know what protects my rights - The Constitution of the US- is that a state document?

[dpaler4]

11:45 PM on 06/06/2011

The federal government has not done what it was created to due for so very long that they have long forgotten. It is all about money and power now. Citizens are to pay for them to live and the military is to protect them and enforce their will. Remember the "Brown Shirts"?

[janefi]

10:01 PM on 06/06/2011

HP and its ridiculous PC again! Undocumented men and women = illegal aliens.

Get it...illegal....illegal. They are criminals simply by being here and should be deported immediately.

Do very little Patrick does not care about the citizenry of MA....he never has....and you id 10 ts that voted for him...I hope you like what you got!

[Soule23]

10:16 PM on 06/06/2011

It's a choice of diction. Just like the choice to use "African Americans" versus the alternative that you "social conservatives" prefer.

[saint bernard mom]

10:27 PM on 06/06/2011

Hey janefi, don't be too rough on people regarding the elected. That's like blaming all of us in Tx for Perry. I don't know what the political climate is in Mass, but in Tx it is almost impossible to outvote the religious majority.

[Miss Peaches]

10:37 PM on 06/06/2011

Were hostages here in Tx

[Sajwert]

06:03 AM on 06/07/2011

Outvoting the religiious majority in TX is about the same problem in most Southern and mid-Western states IMO. Right now, religion rules their brains instead of logic, intelligent reasoning and real concern for the entire country as a whole.

[RogerHWerner]

09:57 PM on 06/06/2011

Good for Gov. Patrick. Too many people possess the attitude of Know Nothings, which is to say that know nothing about immigration, immigrants, or immigration reform. Immigration reform needs to begin south of the Rio Grande and it starts by curbing rapacious American transnational corporations that couldn't rape and pillage American workers any more so they moved south, where workers are even less educated and less protected then they are in the US. Americans want the government to deal with immigration? Fine...let's begin by killing NAFTA, which was directly responsible for destroying Mexican agriculture, the primary employer of Mexican workers. These days Mexicans have two choices: They can watch their families starve to death or they can trek north, hope they make it across the desert alive, and then hook with with any sort of employment. What's it going to take to get Americans to understand that Mexicans have no prospects in Mexico. They have very few prospects for a decent life in the US but very few are better than starving to death.

[World4Progress]

02:57 AM on 06/07/2011

well said rogerhwerner

[BishopKingPawn]

03:07 AM on 06/07/2011

Don't be silly; they're not starving to death.

[Picosa]

12:11 AM on 06/08/2011

Maybe not, but because American corporations keep wages oppressed in Mexico, it takes 4 adults working to pay rent for a house or 5 adults working to buy the high priced items that NAFTA has open to American owned stores like Sears, JCpenney, etc, in Mexico. Only an American salary can afford some of those items. Mom and pop businesses and farmers have been put out of business by US corporations in Mexico.

[FatFeline]

09:20 PM on 06/06/2011

Once again the Federal Government is forcing themselves onto a reluctant state. I does not matter if the issue is right or left. It is wrong to force states to do things against their will.

[FatFeline]

09:22 PM on 06/06/2011

In case you do know what I am talking about, read UPDATE: 5:45 p.m above.

[janefi]

10:06 PM on 06/06/2011

Usually I agree that the feds should stay out of things, but not in this case. It is Constitutional to enforce the borders and immigration policy. Just as it is the job of the government to not allow counterfeit money to be circulated. Just as it is the job of the feds to prosecute postal fraud.

Any governor of a state that refuses to co operate with federal authorities should be brought up on charges.

[ronkw]

08:43 PM on 06/06/2011

Put E-Verify into operation....with stiff penalities for hiring illegals

They will deport themselves, ie; go home if there are no jobs.

[ronkw]

08:40 PM on 06/06/2011

"... biometric information collected by local police to deport large numbers of law-abiding undocumented men and women.

Law-abiding undocumented men and women.......DOH Lib double speak....

[janefi]

10:07 PM on 06/06/2011

Let's see they are breaking the law by being here illegally....yet they are law abiding? HUH???

[Picosa]

12:17 AM on 06/08/2011

Illegal presence in the US is not a matter of criminal law, it is a civil matter.

(b) Improper time or place; civil penalties

Any alien who is apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty of—

(1) at least $50 and not more than $250 for each such entry (or attempted entry); or

(2) twice the amount specified in paragraph (1) in the case of an alien who has been previously subject to a civil penalty under this subsection.

Civil penalties under this subsection are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any criminal or other civil penalties that may be imposed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sec_08_00001325----000-.html