When a single-mother of three got into a car accident while driving without a license in Hayward, California, she met a fate common to undocumented immigrants.
"A police officer told me he needed to take me to the police department where my fingerprints would be taken, said the woman, who shared her story with Deportation Nation by way of Somos Mayfair, but asked to remain anonymous.
While she was at the jail, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents saw her prints in the state DOJ database. She now faces deportation and the question of what to do with her children, who are all US citizens.
Stories like this have become common, but counties that feel forced into the data-sharing partnership called Secure Communities are exploring ways to avoid them. A key place to watch is Santa Clara, a California county of 1.8 million, where a third of residents are foreign-born.
Even though Secure Communities has a mandate to target dangerous immigrants, recent data available for Santa Clara County shows non-criminals account for 26 percent of those transferred into ICE custody, and 34 percent of those deported. (see graph)
This rubs salt in the wounds of Santa Clara officials, who made it clear to ICE that it wasn't interested in the program but got enrolled anyway this past May.
So shortly after Homeland Security Napolitano told reporters, "we do not view this as an opt-in, opt-out program," the county went ahead and sent its opt-out letter. Now a meeting with ICE to discuss the request is scheduled for November 9.
In the meantime, Santa Clara's Board of Supervisors has asked the county counsel to look into other possible actions.
"I think some local governments are starting to feel painted into a corner. We don't want to have to make our own determination about who is worthy of being held for ICE and who is not," said Anjali Bhargava, Deputy Counsel for Santa Clara County.
Bhargava is researching whether the county can ensure that "funds are only used to comply with requests by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to the extent they are subject to reimbursement or required by law." This would apply only to the Sheriff and Probation departments, but not to the 15 city police departments in the county.
On a recent day the county's Department of Corrections held 375 immigrants in its jail at the request of ICE, most of whom would be held the full 48 hours before federal agents picked them up. This means it could incur the costs of an additional 18,000 hours of detention, none of which would be covered by ICE.
Other counties have looked for ways to put limits on the fingerprints sent to the state's database, which is monitored by ICE. This has been done in El Paso County, Texas, where the sheriff says he only shares fingerprints from Class B misdemeanors and above. This may not be allowed by California Penal Code.
But one thing county officials can control, is their budget. Depending on how ICE responds to its concerns, Santa Clara County may refuse to spend county resources detaining people on ICE's request.
"That option is certainly still on the table," said Bhargava.
Editor's note: This story has been updated for clarity.
This story originally appeared on Deportation Nation, a news website dedicated to covering the expanding merger of immigration and local law enforcement.
Follow Renee Feltz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/reneefeltz
I think you mis-read my comment.
But wait, where where those children born, California? And Were both parents not US citizens? If so, then the children are not citizens of California or any US state, thus they are aliens. You see California Government Code says children born to aliens are not California citizens. The 14th Amendment requires state citizenship. So, deport the children too. Call it "due process" per 2nd sentence of 14th Amendment.
Article 1 Section 10 of the US Constitution says, [PARAPHRASED]
"every state in the union, shall, without the Consent of Congress, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, or engage in War, when actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
Article II, section 3, of the US Constitution says, [PARAPHRASED] "The President, shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Article 4 Section 4 of the US Constitution says, [PARAPHRASED] "every state in the union, is responsible to every state in the union, for securing our union against invasion."
----------------
Then prepare to be sued. Arizona was, for making just that decision, only they wanted to turn illegal aliens over to ICE. And by the way, you do know that having a sanctuary policy, that is, preventing public employees from identifying and reporting illegal aliens, is a violation of federal law in and of itself? What you're planning to do is essentially replacing federal immigration policy with your own and if the AZ suit is upheld, you don't get to do that.
=====================================
The 14th Amendment is very, very clear. Children of Diplomats, visitors and illegal aliens will not be granted citizenship. Further, as in the past, the mother and children should be deported together.. or remain with the parent of the parents choice where ever that parent may be. But if the children were born here and without the acknowledgment of the citizens father, they are illegal aliens, and they should be deported. That is the law and no.. it is not harsh.. and yes, it does protect the citizens of the United States. Further, deporting those children sends a message to fools in other countries who think we won't deport mother and children.
Add this to the mix. Mexico is doing very, very well. The educational processes the Mother and children picked up will do them well in Mexico, and they won't be on the dole in the United States.
The law says deport them. Deport them.
The CIA Fact Book on Mexico.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mx.html
Fact is, the Supreme Court has NOT heard a case involving the children of an illegal alien. And, as pro-amnesty types like to point out, slavery was a legal and long held practice that was subsequently overturned. No reason why "birthright" citizenship can't or shouldn't be re-examined. After all, circumstances of the times were precisely why the 14th amendment was passed after the Civil War. Then, there really wasn't such a thing as an illegal alien, so of course, the authors of the amendment couldn't have addressed the issue in particular--and they did specifically exclude some from citizenship, such as Indians, children born to diplomats, and those "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S.
What they can do in the case of the 14th is to either:
1. Challenge it's current use and thus force a lawsuit and SC ruling on the current policy of granting citizenship to anchors.
2. Define in congress what "under the jurisdiction" means. Obviously there are varying degrees under which people present in this country are under our jurisdiction. Illegals are not under the same jurisdiction as you or I, as foreign diplomats are under another kind also. Remember that illegals are not required to submit to selective service, they can't vote, they are not allowed many things that you and I are.
3. Using the last sentence and section of the 14th "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." we can have congress make legislation that would effect this use under many aspects of the law.
Then one should look at the intent as the SC often does do. The intent was not this use and the authors even made statements about not allowing everyone/anyone who is able to have a child here be granted citizenship.
The SC does need to rule on this use so that one way or the other the argument and issues like this are put to rest.
That's one of the results of de-humanizing immigration policies.
Sigh.