Immigration and Customs Enforcement 2011 Budget: $5.82 BILLION

 From July 8, 2011 to October 15, 2011  63 individuals detained – Cost per-inmate per-day estimated at $ – ($47.50/day) X (2 days) = $95 – ($95/inmate) X (147 inmates) = $13, 965  In the past 11 months:  147 people detained – Estimated cost per year (for detention ONLY): $15,200

“McLean County has been paid almost $90,000 since 2006 by the federal government to house inmates for the 48 hours they are held until immigration officials arrive…said Emery.” - “Latino groups rally to protest sheriff's detention policies”, The Pantagraph, 01 May 2012

 Consists of thirteen different programs, including Secure Communities and The Criminal Alien Program  The purpose of these programs is to give counties and local jails incentives to help ICE  Strong possibility that McLean County in enlisted in one such program  It is also possible that this money comes from SCAAP (State Criminal Alien Program)  Only covers costs for inmates who have been convicted of a felony or second misdemeanor for violations of state or local law

Estimated amount received by county per year: $90,000/6 = $15,000 Estimated cost of honoring detainers per year: $15,200

 Our estimates only count for individuals staying for 48 hours—do not include weekends or holiday weekends, where detention can last up to 5 days  County jail is responsible for medical costs of detainees

 Additional social services and child welfare costs  An estimated 5,000 children are in foster care because their parents have been detained or deported (Applied Research Center)

 Possible legal actions against the county as a result of:  Individuals being held beyond the 48hr. expiration for ICE hold request  A U.S. citizen being mistaken as undocumented and arrested  Violation of constitutional rights  Our town or county is liable for what happens to individuals detained on ICE hold requests.  Lawsuits for unlawful detention have cost counties hundreds of thousands of dollars.

 Galarza v. Szalczyk  Quezada v. Mink  Melendrez-Rivas v. Martin  Cacho v. Gusman  Harvey v. City of New York  Uroza v. Salt Lake County  Rios-Quirroz v. Williamson County  Comm. for Immigr. Rights of Sonoma County v. County of Sonoma  Ramos-Macario v. Jones  Ramirez-Mendoza v. Maury County

 New policy means:  new training  additional clerical and data entry tasks for staff  However, most of the jail staff seems to be untrained on how they should handle these detainers

 For people with ICE holds, posting bail becomes complicated  Some counties do not allow immigrants to be released on bail  In other counties, posting bail results in immediate transfer to ICE  In response, those individuals simply don’t post bail and the county misses out

 The use of ICE holds leads to the arrest of non- criminals  Limited space we have at MCDF, and already identified jail overcrowding problem  Why would we want to do something that puts more people in jail?

Argument 1: Differential treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system.

 Illegal immigration is not a criminal act, it is a civil violation.  Criminal violations are against the moral principles of society.  Murder, Theft, etc.  Civil violations are against the law because someone has said so.  Speeding, parking violations, illegal immigration

 United States citizens charged with crimes are released on bail every day.  There is no justifiable reason to treat people’s criminal cases just because they are suspected of having civil immigration issues.  The county has no authority to enforce civil immigration laws. Immigration enforcement is ICE’s job.

Argument 2: ICE Hold Requests Violate Constitutional Rights

 The constitution not only applies only to U.S. citizens  The constitution restricts the actions of the Government with respect to both American citizens and foreigners.

 The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens....  The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens.  It says: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”  These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality

 ICE detainers invade the civil liberties of the thousands of people subjected to continued detention.  Individuals are seized and held without any warrant or probable cause, and are allowed no hearing to challenge their detention.  Critical purpose of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is to protect people from wrongful detention.

 Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:  “The right of the people to be secure …against unreasonable searches and seizures”  “No warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…”  ICE detainers invade our Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures

 According to the ICE detainer form, a detainer may rest upon the mere “initiation of an investigation” by an ICE agent.  This is not a warrant from an independent judge.  It’s not even an ICE agent’s finding of probable cause.  Instead, it’s a nebulous standard requiring an unknown amount of evidence.  Much more should be required before ICE detains someone for 48 hours – or for five days (holiday weekends).

“In America, we don’t detain people without probable cause… But these detainers are not based on probable cause and they have been imposed on US citizens, including veterans, by mistake…” –Commissioner Jesus Garcia

 5th Amendment  “No person shall …deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”  ICE detainers invade our Fifth Amendment right to a hearing before being deprived of our liberty.  ICE has not provided a method for detainees to be heard by an independent judge.  ICE has also failed to notify detainees of their right to hire private counsel, of their right to remain silent, and of the availability of local free private counsel.

 There are serious concerns about the legality of imprisoning a person for 48hrs without ANY determination that there is probable cause to believe the person is subject to detention and removal.

 Immigration detainers are routinely used without any judicial determination that a person is in the country illegally, and are frequently applied to people who have committed no immigration violations  Law enforcement agencies should be aware that questions about the legality of 48hr detentions are unresolved

 The use of ICE holds by local law enforcement creates a public safety issue  This issue is one that affects the community at large  This goes directly against what the Sheriff’s job is:  to create a better relationship between law enforcement and the community  to make our county a safe place for everyone

 Police as conduit to deportation ruins trust  Makes undocumented people unlikely to engage with police or cooperate  Make people who are victims of crime unable to report them out of fear

 Effective and just law enforcement requires a bright line between local police and ICE (and other federal agencies)  The use of ICE holds in our county jail blurs that line and undermines local law enforcement

It is IMMORAL to break up families, to separate children from their parents, to disenfranchise and displace our immigrant brothers and sisters who have built their homes here.

It is IMMORAL to marginalize, dehumanize and vilify people —honest, hard-working, ethical people— simply for not being legal citizens of the U.S.

We want to see these values reflected in our county. We hope that our fellow community members and elected officials recognize the importance of these values and reflects them in their actions towards this important issue.