April 10, 2009
FAIRUS.org
Right Side News Reports from the Federation for American Immigration Reform in this April 6th Legislative Weekly...
On Thursday, April 2, two House Judiciary Subcommittees -Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law and Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties - held a joint hearing on "the Public Safety and Civil Rights Implications of State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws."
The subcommittees heard testimony from two panels-largely filled with witnesses who opposed the 287(g) program. The first panel was comprised of four witnesses, three of whom opposed 287(g) and one who supported the program. The lone supporter of the 287(g) program on this panel was Ray Tranchant, whose 16 year old daughter Tessa and her best friend, Ali, were killed by an illegal alien drunk driver. The illegal alien - who could not speak English and had a fake Florida driver's license - had been arrested twice before for driving under the influence and public intoxication; however, sanctuary policies prevented officials from inquiring into the alien's immigration status. Mr. Tranchant told the joint subcommittee that he supports the 287(g) program because it likely would have saved the two teenage girls' lives had at least one of two law enforcement agencies that had previously arrested the illegal alien been checking immigration status.
Mr. Tranchant dismissed arguments that the program should be scrapped because of anecdotal allegations of racial profiling: "A family should not have to mourn the death of a loved one just because of an unrelated policy or the political correctness of not offending or inconveniencing a few people." (Testimony of Ray Tranchant, April 2, 2009). During questioning from some of the subcommittee members, Mr. Tranchant reiterated his support for 287(g) agreements: "It takes undesirable people and puts them at the back of the immigration line...if you're a drunk, go home. If you're a murderer go home." (East Valley Tribune, April 2, 2009).
The other witnesses who sat next to Mr. Tranchant spoke out against the 287(g) program, suggesting it led to civil rights violations and racial profiling, but then offered only anecdotal testimony in support of these claims. The first witness suggested that he and his father had been victims of racial profiling on February 11, 2009 after being temporarily detained at his father's jobsite by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The media has reported that Sheriff's deputies were executing "arrest warrants for roughly 40 suspected illegal immigrants" who were working at the jobsite. This suggests that the detention of the witness and his father was not a case of profiling but rather incidental to the proper execution of an arrest warrant. (East Valley Tribune, April 2, 2009). Once the witness demonstrated to Sheriff's officers that he was a citizen and that his father was green-card holder, the two men were released.
The second witness who spoke against 287(g) suggested that he was a victim of profiling when he testified that he had been pulled over by a police officer in Fredrick County, Maryland who thought he was not wearing a seat belt. Maryland law allows for "primary enforcement" of its seat belt law, meaning that "police may stop a vehicle and issue citations to violators solely for violating the seat belt law." (Maryland Dept. of Transportation). The witness testified that had been wearing his seatbelt and that the police officer let him go after the officer confirmed he had been wearing a seatbelt and after checking his driver's license. Based on the testimony, it appears that the witness was detained for a very short period of time.
Deborah Weissman, a law professor from the University of North Carolina was the final witness on the first panel. She presented the findings of a report she co-authored with two individuals from the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation. The report attempts to paint the 287(g) program in North Carolina as too costly, too confusing and "detrimental" due to alleged instances of racial profiling. (Testimony of Deborah M. Weissman, April 2, 2009). None of the witnesses who raised concerns of racial profiling mentioned that laws are already in place to provide proper legal recourse to individuals who are discriminated against. (Testimony of Julio Cesar Mora, April 2, 2009 and Testimony of Antonio Ramirez, April 2, 2009).
Kris Kobach, a Professor of Immigration Law and Constitutional Law at the University of Missouri (Kansas City) and Senior Counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute (FAIR's legal affiliate), testified in support of the program. Kobach - who was involved in overseeing the implementation of the first two 287(g) agreements as Counsel to the U.S. Attorney General from 2001 to 2003 - told the panel that the program "has dramatically improved the rule of law in the immigration arena." (Testimony of Kris W. Kobach, April 2, 2009). Kobach cited the fact that the 287(g) program has grown exponentially in the past 7 years, with 67 state and local law enforcement agencies now utilizing the program. Kobach refuted the idea that 287(g) is leading to racial profiling, noting that state and local law enforcement officers are required to receive training to ensure civil liberties violations do not occur and that law enforcement agencies already have in place a process for aggrieved individuals to file a complaint in the event of a civil rights violation. Additionally, Kobach testified that 287(g) is often adopted with the support of the local community and that any community can withdraw from the program at any time for any reason, including concerns over racial profiling. Kobach noted that each agency "is free to leave the program," but to date, none have. (East Valley Tribune, April 2, 2009).
Noticeably absent from the hearing was Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose department has been accused of racial profiling based on his office's participation in 287(g). According to FOX News, members of the subcommittees "took target practice" at Arpaio, even though Immigration Subcommittee Chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) admitted that Arpaio hadn't been invited to defend himself. (FOX News, April 2, 2009). Mesa, Arizona Police Chief George Gascon did testify at the hearing in opposition to 287(g) and Sheriff Arpaio's utilization of the program. Gascon was asked which organizations had paid for his travel expenses to testify and, while acknowledging that his travel was paid for by "a group of nonprofit organizations... seeking immigration reform," was unable to answer the question on the record. Instead, he told the committee he would have to get back to them in order to respond to the question. (East Valley Tribune, April 2, 2009). Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) defended Arpaio at the hearing, and pointed out that illegal aliens commit 53% of Maricopa County's violent crimes.
(Right Side News urges our readers to click on and visit the source for this report: The Federation for American Immigration Reform ,sign up for their emails and get involved in supporting their efforts)
